STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION,
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

Hearing on

EXAMING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN OVERSEEING
THE SAFETY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

December 10, 2009

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Let me thank you for inviting us to testify on the role of the Department, and more specifically, the role of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in overseeing the safety of our Nation’s rail transit systems. With me today is Peter Rogoff, the FTA Administrator.

Safety is my Department’s highest priority. In hearings held in the House and Senate shortly after the tragic Washington Metro crash, FTA Administrator Rogoff testified that I had convened an expert working group within the Department to develop transit safety reforms, and that we would be sending those reforms to Congress. This week I have followed through on that promise by submitting, on behalf of the President, a transit safety bill as our first legislative proposal. I ask this Committee to consider it seriously and promptly.

BACKGROUND

As we address this issue, it must be remembered that traveling by rail transit in the United States remains an extraordinarily safe way to travel—far safer than traveling on our highways.  Public transit moves millions of passengers to work, school, and home every day without incident. That fact makes it essential that our transit agencies maintain their infrastructure and equipment to a standard where they can provide riders with service that is reliable, comfortable and safe.  Any safety-related concern that prompts commuters to abandon transit and get back into their cars is unacceptable. 

While rail transit is safe, the Administration believes we must take serious steps now to make it even safer and ensure that it remains safe. We are all aware that rail transit has the potential for catastrophic accidents with multiple injuries, considerable property damage, and heightened public concern. We all must focus our attention and resources on this important issue, if we are to maintain public confidence. Moreover, while transit remains a safe mode of travel, providing almost four billion passenger-trips a year, we see warning signs regarding the frequency of derailments, collisions, and passenger casualties -- on which we must remain focused.

In the past year, rail transit systems in Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., experienced train-to-train collisions killing 9 people, injuring 130 others, and resulting in millions of dollars in property damage. Also this year, three rail transit maintenance workers were struck and killed while working on the tracks.

While these rail transit systems carry more passengers daily than either our domestic airlines, regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or our passenger and commuter railroads, regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), they are also the only transportation mode within the Department of Transportation without comprehensive Federal safety regulation, oversight, and enforcement. Indeed, the Department of Transportation is prohibited by law from issuing regulations on the safety of rail transit systems.

That means, at present, our Nation’s rail transit systems operate under two very different Federal safety regimes.  In 2008, rail transit system passengers made almost four billion trips. This is seven times the number of trips made on commuter rail, but only commuter rail passengers receive the benefit of robust safety oversight. For example, commuter rail systems that operate on the general railroad system of transportation (such as Maryland’s Maryland Area Rail Commuter, Florida’s Tri-Rail, and Washington State’s Sounder) fall under FRA’s safety regulatory system. FRA’s aggressive safety program includes mandatory national safety standards and on-site spot inspections and audits by Federal technical specialists and inspectors with backgrounds in signal and train control, track performance, operating practices, and other disciplines.  FRA is also empowered to prescribe safety regulations, issue emergency orders, and assess civil fines on this group of rail transit operators for any violations found.   

Conversely, the larger universe of transit trips on subway and light rail systems (such as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA), San Francisco’s BART and MUNI systems, Atlanta’s MARTA, Houston’s METRO, Dallas’s DART, Seattle’s Link, Boston’s MBTA, Chicago’s CTA, and the New York City subway system) are not subject, as a general rule, to FRA oversight. Instead, those systems are covered under FTA’s State Safety Oversight (SSO) program.

Under the SSO program, Congress tasked States with the primary responsibility for establishing State safety oversight agencies (SSOAs). These SSOAs, in turn, were charged with ensuring that local transit systems create and implement their own safety programs. Under the existing SSO framework, however, each rail transit system is allowed to determine its own safety practices and the State reviews those safety practices. FTA lacks the statutory authority to establish meaningful minimum thresholds. As a result, we have a patchwork of 27 separate State oversight programs. Each agency has only as much regulatory, oversight, and enforcement authority as it has been granted by its State government, and in many cases the oversight agency lacks the authority to compel compliance by or enforce standards on the rail transit system it oversees. The result is a regulatory framework of inconsistent practices, limited standards, and marginal effectiveness.

Another problem with the current SSO program is that many States view it as an unfunded mandate. As a result, most States devote insufficient resources to the program. Nationwide, State staffing levels for each SSOA average less than 1.3 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). That is less than 1.3 FTEs to carry out the agency’s entire mission for the year. That number drops further when you remove from the calculation the staff associated with one large SSOA -- the California Public Utilities Commission. When you look collectively at all the other SSOAs across the country, the average staffing level equals less than one full-time employee for each agency, and many of these employees have no career or educational background in transit safety. Most often, that one employee handles transit safety oversight for the entire State simply as a collateral duty. The lack of resources, the lack of authority, and the lack of financial independence, in some cases, mean that the vast majority of States implement the bare minimum when it comes to transit safety requirements. At the Federal level, we fare little better. FTA currently has only 2.5 FTEs dedicated to rail transit safety oversight. Furthermore, the lack of statutory authority to regulate the safety of public transportation has prevented FTA from considering a number of recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board -- recommendations that followed accidents with fatalities and serious personal injuries. The Department views this status quo as inadequate and in need of urgent reform.

In the wake of the WMATA tragedy in June, I instructed my Deputy Secretary, John Porcari, to convene a team of safety officials and experts to address this gap between the regulatory oversight for rail transit passengers and commuter rail passengers and develop options for transit safety reforms. The working group collaborated with other modal administrations within the Department with safety regulatory authority, including FRA, FAA, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). They were also assisted in the analysis by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. This team reviewed the many alternative models within DOT to address safety, as well as the statutory authorities on safety for transit and developed the legislative proposal described below. In addition, the working group and I met with Federal safety professionals and participated in outreach sessions involving the public, transit officials, labor union representatives, and State and local governmental officials. In the end, we concluded that without minimum national safety standards, programs intended to prevent major rail transit accidents will continue to be uneven, with no assurance that safety issues are adequately addressed.

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL

The Department’s legislative proposal would do three things:

First, it would require the Secretary of Transportation, acting through FTA, to establish and enforce minimum Federal safety standards for rail transit systems, other than those subject to regulation by FRA, that receive Federal transit funding. The legislation also provides the Secretary the option to establish a safety program for public transportation bus systems that receive Federal transit assistance.

Second, the Secretary would establish a safety certification program whereby a State would be eligible for Federal transit assistance to carry out a Federally-approved public transportation safety program. States would not be preempted from establishing additional or more stringent safety standards, if the standards meet certain criteria. States would receive training and staffing support from the Federal Government, as well as Federal certification to carry out enforcement activities on behalf of the FTA, similar to the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program in FMCSA. Where States choose to “opt out” of enforcing the new Federal transit safety regime, then FTA would enforce Federal safety standards in those States.

Third, the program would ensure that a State agency overseeing transit systems would be fully financially independent from the transit systems it oversees.

Currently, there are SSOAs that receive their funding directly from the transit agencies they oversee. We find this situation presents a potential conflict of interest that is unacceptable. We do not allow it in any other mode of transportation. For example, we do not allow an airline to have control over how many Federal inspectors oversee their operations and how much those inspectors are paid. Similarly, we do not allow freight railroads to exert influence or control over the number of Federal railroad safety inspectors or their compensation. We need an identical guarantee of independence when it comes to transit safety oversight, and our legislative proposal would require such independence.

Overall, we believe our legislative approach will restore public confidence in rail transit as being one of the safest modes of transportation, and it will go a long way toward ensuring that the Federal transit capital investments are adequately maintained and operated to meet basic safety standards. Furthermore, because the Department will be proactive in the setting of Federal safety thresholds, a reformed rail transit safety program will result in greater consistency and uniformity across all rail transit systems in the United States.

In developing those Federal safety standards, FTA will benefit from the guidance and leadership of a new Federal advisory committee to specifically address rail transit safety. Using my existing authority under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this week I presented to Congress formal notification establishing the Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety, or “TRACS.” This new advisory committee will be tasked with developing recommendations to present to the FTA Administrator in the area of rail transit safety. Where specific minimum safety standards are deemed appropriate, we will work with TRACS to first look at existing industry standards and best practices as the starting point. We are excited about the establishment of this committee and we look forward to working with the rail transit industry, labor, and other expert stakeholders to develop appropriate national rail transit safety standards.

We want to make clear that, in placing a rail transit safety responsibility in FTA, it is not our goal to simply replicate the FRA regulatory model, and bring it to bear on subways and light rail systems. To the contrary, our goal is to take a performance-based approach through the establishment of quality Safety Management Systems for each rail transit agency. We are not interested in creating voluminous and highly specific regulations. Instead, we are interested in each rail transit system actively identifying its greatest safety vulnerabilities through modern risk analysis and then taking the necessary actions to address those risks. Safety Management Systems are information-based iterative processes that the airlines are implementing successfully to address their greatest risks. Given that the rail transit universe is made up of transit operators that are unique in their technologies, ages, and operating environments, we believe that the establishment and expansion of Safety Management Systems is the more appropriate, affordable, and productive approach for rail transit.

To reiterate, rail transit provides almost four billion passenger-trips each year, and safely moves millions of people each day. However, as evidenced by the recent accidents and incidents, in order to maintain this level of safe performance, aggressive reform is needed in the existing Federal transit oversight authorities. We cannot rest on the laurels of a good safety record – especially as our transit infrastructure ages. We must take action to ensure consistency in the way rail transit safety oversight is addressed. As I stated earlier, “Safety is my Department’s highest priority.” I believe our legislative proposal presents a critical and necessary step to provide consistent oversight to help ensure safe operations for the transit workers and the traveling public.

Again, thank you for the invitation to testify before your Committee. I look forward to working with this Committee as we enhance rail transit safety for the users of our Nation’s public transportation systems.

I welcome any questions you might have.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Hearing on

Public Transit Safety: Examining the Federal Role

December 8, 2009

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Let me thank you for inviting us to testify on the role of the Department, and more specifically, the role of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in overseeing the safety of our nation’s rail transit systems. With me today is Peter Rogoff, the FTA Administrator.

Safety is my Department’s highest priority. In hearings held in the House and Senate shortly after the tragic Washington Metro crash, FTA Administrator Rogoff testified that I had convened an expert working group within the Department to develop transit safety reforms, and that we would be sending those reforms to Congress. This week I will follow through on that promise by submitting, on behalf of the President, a transit safety bill as our first legislative proposal. I ask this Committee to consider it seriously and promptly.

BACKGROUND

As we address this issue, it must be remembered that traveling by rail transit in the United States remains an extraordinarily safe way to travel—far safer than traveling on our highways.  Public transit moves millions of passengers to work, school, and home every day without incident. That fact makes it essential that our transit agencies maintain their infrastructure and equipment to a standard where they can provide riders with service that is reliable, comfortable and safe.  Any safety-related concern that prompts commuters to abandon transit and get back into their cars is unacceptable. 

While rail transit is safe, the Administration believes we must take serious steps now to make it even safer and ensure that it remains safe. We are all aware that rail transit has the potential for catastrophic accidents with multiple injuries, considerable property damage, and heightened public concern. We all must focus our attention and resources on this important issue, if we are to maintain public confidence. Moreover, while transit remains a safe mode of travel, providing almost four billion passenger-trips a year, we see warning signs regarding the frequency of derailments, collisions, and passenger casualties -- on which we must remain focused.

In the past year, rail transit systems in Boston, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., experienced train-to-train collisions killing 9 people, injuring 130 others, and resulting in millions of dollars in property damage. Also this year, three rail transit maintenance workers were struck and killed while working on the tracks.

While these rail transit systems carry more passengers daily than either our domestic airlines, regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or our passenger and commuter railroads, regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), they are also the only transportation mode within the Department of Transportation without comprehensive Federal safety regulation, oversight, and enforcement. Indeed, the Department of Transportation is prohibited by law from issuing regulations on the safety of rail transit systems.

That means, at present, our nation’s rail transit systems operate under two very different Federal safety regimes.  In 2008, rail transit system passengers made almost four billion trips. This is seven times the number of trips made on commuter rail, but only commuter rail passengers receive the benefit of robust safety oversight. For example, commuter rail systems that operate on the general railroad system of transportation (such as Maryland’s Maryland Area Rail Commuter, Florida’s Tri-Rail, and Washington State’s Sounder) fall under FRA’s safety regulatory system. FRA’s aggressive safety program includes mandatory national safety standards and on-site spot inspections and audits by Federal technical specialists and inspectors with backgrounds in signal and train control, track performance, operating practices, and other disciplines.  FRA is also empowered to prescribe safety regulations, issue emergency orders, and assess civil fines on this group of rail transit operators for any violations found.   

Conversely, the larger universe of transit trips on subway and light rail systems (such as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA), San Francisco’s BART and MUNI systems, Atlanta’s MARTA, Houston’s METRO, Dallas’s DART, Seattle’s Link, Boston’s MBTA, Chicago’s CTA, and the New York City subway system) are not subject, as a general rule, to FRA oversight. Instead, those systems are covered under FTA’s State Safety Oversight (SSO) program.

Under the SSO program, Congress tasked States with the primary responsibility for establishing State safety oversight agencies (SSOAs). These SSOAs, in turn, were charged with ensuring that local transit systems create and implement their own safety programs. Under the existing SSO framework, however, each rail transit system is allowed to determine its own safety practices and the State reviews those safety practices. FTA lacks the statutory authority to establish meaningful minimum thresholds. As a result, we have a patchwork of 27 separate State oversight programs. Each agency has only as much regulatory, oversight, and enforcement authority as it has been granted by its State government, and in many cases the oversight agency lacks the authority to compel compliance by or enforce standards on the rail transit system it oversees. The result is a regulatory framework of inconsistent practices, limited standards, and marginal effectiveness.

Another problem with the current SSO program is that many States view it as an unfunded mandate. As a result, most States devote insufficient resources to the program. Nationwide, State staffing levels for each SSOA average less than 1.3 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). That is less than 1.3 FTEs to carry out the agency’s entire mission for the year. That number drops further when you remove from the calculation the staff associated with one large SSOA -- the California Public Utilities Commission – who will testify on your next panel. When you look collectively at all the other SSOAs across the country, the average staffing level equals less than one full-time employee for each agency, and many of these employees have no career or educational background in transit safety. Most often, that one employee handles transit safety oversight for the entire State simply as a collateral duty. The lack of resources, the lack of authority, and the lack of financial independence, in some cases, mean that the vast majority of States implement the bare minimum when it comes to transit safety requirements. At the Federal level, we fare little better. FTA currently has only 2.5 FTEs dedicated to rail transit safety oversight. Furthermore, the lack of statutory authority to regulate the safety of public transportation has prevented FTA from considering a number of recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board -- recommendations that followed accidents with fatalities and serious personal injuries. The Department views this status quo as inadequate and in need of urgent reform.

In the wake of the WMATA tragedy in June, I instructed my Deputy Secretary, John Porcari, to convene a team of safety officials and experts to address this gap between the regulatory oversight for rail transit passengers and commuter rail passengers and develop options for transit safety reforms. The working group collaborated with other modal administrations within the Department with safety regulatory authority, including FRA, FAA, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). They were also assisted in the analysis by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. This team reviewed the many alternative models within DOT to address safety, as well as the statutory authorities on safety for transit and developed the legislative proposal described below. In addition, the working group and I met with Federal safety professionals and participated in outreach sessions involving the public, transit officials, labor union representatives, and State and local governmental officials. In the end, we concluded that without minimum national safety standards, programs intended to prevent major rail transit accidents will continue to be uneven, with no assurance that safety issues are adequately addressed.

ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL

The Department’s legislative proposal would do three things:

First, it would require the Secretary of Transportation, acting through FTA, to establish and enforce minimum Federal safety standards for rail transit systems, other than those subject to regulation by FRA, that receive Federal transit funding. The legislation also provides the Secretary the option to establish a safety program for public transportation bus systems that receive Federal transit assistance.

Second, the Secretary would establish a safety certification program whereby a State would be eligible for Federal transit assistance to carry out a Federally-approved public transportation safety program. States would not be preempted from establishing additional or more stringent safety standards, if the standards meet certain criteria. States would receive training and staffing support from the Federal Government, as well as Federal certification to carry out enforcement activities on behalf of the FTA, similar to the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program in FMCSA. Where States choose to “opt out” of enforcing the new Federal transit safety regime, then FTA would enforce Federal safety standards in those States.

Third, the program would ensure that a State agency overseeing transit systems would be fully financially independent from the transit systems it oversees.

Currently, there are SSOAs that receive their funding directly from the transit agencies they oversee. We find this situation presents a potential conflict of interest that is unacceptable. We do not allow it in any other mode of transportation. For example, we do not allow an airline to have control over how many Federal inspectors oversee their operations and how much those inspectors are paid. Similarly, we do not allow freight railroads to exert influence or control over the number of Federal railroad safety inspectors or their compensation. We need an identical guarantee of independence when it comes to transit safety oversight, and our legislative proposal would require such independence.

Overall, we believe our legislative approach will restore public confidence in rail transit as being one of the safest modes of transportation, and it will go a long way toward ensuring that the Federal transit capital investments are adequately maintained and operated to meet basic safety standards. Furthermore, because the Department will be proactive in the setting of Federal safety thresholds, a reformed rail transit safety program will result in greater consistency and uniformity across all rail transit systems in the United States.

In developing those Federal safety standards, FTA will benefit from the guidance and leadership of a new Federal advisory committee to specifically address rail transit safety. Using my existing authority under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this morning I presented to Congress formal notification establishing the Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety, or “TRACS.” This new advisory committee will be tasked with developing recommendations to present to the FTA Administrator in the area of rail transit safety. Where specific minimum safety standards are deemed appropriate, we will work with TRACS to first look at existing industry standards and best practices as the starting point. We are excited about the establishment of this committee and we look forward to working with the rail transit industry, labor, and other expert stakeholders to develop appropriate national rail transit safety standards.

We want to make clear that, in placing a rail transit safety responsibility in FTA, it is not our goal to simply replicate the FRA regulatory model, and bring it to bear on subways and light rail systems. To the contrary, our goal is to take a performance-based approach through the establishment of quality Safety Management Systems for each rail transit agency. We are not interested in creating voluminous and highly specific regulations. Instead, we are interested in each rail transit system actively identifying its greatest safety vulnerabilities through modern risk analysis and then taking the necessary actions to address those risks. Safety Management Systems are information-based iterative processes that the airlines are implementing successfully to address their greatest risks. Given that the rail transit universe is made up of transit operators that are unique in their technologies, ages, and operating environments, we believe that the establishment and expansion of Safety Management Systems is the more appropriate, affordable, and productive approach for rail transit.

To reiterate, rail transit provides almost four billion passenger-trips each year, and safely moves millions of people each day. However, as evidenced by the recent accidents and incidents, in order to maintain this level of safe performance, aggressive reform is needed in the existing Federal transit oversight authorities. We cannot rest on the laurels of a good safety record – especially as our transit infrastructure ages. We must take action to ensure consistency in the way rail transit safety oversight is addressed. As I stated earlier, “Safety is my Department’s highest priority.” I believe our legislative proposal presents a critical and necessary step to provide consistent oversight to help ensure safe operations for the transit workers and the traveling public.

Again, thank you for the invitation to testify before your Committee. I look forward to working with this Committee as we enhance rail transit safety for the users of our nation’s public transportation systems.

I welcome any questions you might have.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Hearing on

DRIVEN TO DISTRACTION:
WIRELESS DEVICES AND VEHICLE SAFETY

November 4, 2009

Chairman Rush, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Members Radanovich and Stearns, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of distracted driving.

Transportation safety is the Department’s highest priority.  Distracted driving is a dangerous practice that has become a deadly epidemic.  Our research shows that unless we take action now, the problem is only going to get worse, especially among our Nation’s youngest drivers.  This trend distresses me deeply, and I am personally committed to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by distracted driving. 

Four weeks ago, the Department of Transportation (DOT) hosted a Summit to help us identify, target and tackle the fundamental elements of this problem.  We brought together over 300 experts in safety, transportation research, regulatory affairs, and law enforcement.  More than 5,000 people from 50 States and a dozen countries also participated in the summit via the web.  We heard from several young adults who had engaged in distracted driving and who discussed the terrible consequences of their actions. 

We also heard from several victims of this behavior, whose lives have been changed forever.  Mothers and fathers who lost children, and children who lost a parent, told us their stories.  And I want you to know, I promised these families that I would make this issue my cause. 

The unanimous conclusion of the Summit participants is that distracted driving is a serious and ongoing threat to safety.  This conclusion is borne out by the facts.  Our latest research shows that nearly 6,000 people died last year in crashes involving a distracted driver, and more than half a million people were injured. 

This is not a problem caused by just a few negligent drivers.  To the contrary, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a nonprofit educational and research organization, reports that 67 percent of drivers admitted to talking on their cell phones within the last 30 days while behind the wheel, and 21 percent of drivers indicated they had read or sent a text or e-mail message, a figure that rose to 40 percent for those drivers under the age of 35. 

As shocking as these numbers are, it is clear that this problem is only getting worse, and that the youngest Americans are most at-risk. While the worst offenders may be the youngest, they are not alone.  On any given day last year, an estimated 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone who used a hand-held cell phone at some point during their drive.  People of all ages are using a variety of hand-held devices, such as cell phones, personal digital assistants, and navigation devices, when they are behind the wheel.  However, the problem is not just confined to vehicles on our roads --­ it affects all modes of transportation.

Experts agree that there are three types of distraction:  (1) visual – taking your eyes off the road; (2) manual – taking your hands off the wheel; and (3) cognitive – taking your mind off the road.  While all distractions can adversely impact safety, texting is the most egregious because it involves all three types of distraction.  In the words of Dr. John Lee of the University of Wisconsin, this produces a “perfect storm.” 

For all of these reasons, at the conclusion of the Summit I announced a series of concrete actions that the Obama Administration and DOT are taking to put an end to distracted driving. 

The President’s Executive Order banning texting and driving for Federal employees is the cornerstone of these efforts and sends a strong, unequivocal signal to the American public that distracted driving is dangerous and unacceptable.  The Executive Order prohibits Federal employees from engaging in text messaging:

• While driving government-owned vehicles;
• When using electronic equipment supplied by the government while driving; and
• While driving privately-owned vehicles when on official government business. 

The ban takes effect government-wide on December 30, 2009.  However, I have already advised all 58,000 DOT employees that they are expected to comply with the Order immediately.  DOT is also working internally to formalize compliance and enforcement measures, and we are, in close consultation with the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management, providing leadership and assistance to other executive branch agencies to ensure full compliance with the Executive Order by all Federal departments and agencies, no later than December 30. 

DOT is also taking other concrete actions to reduce distracted driving across all modes.  For instance, one year ago, we issued an emergency order banning texting and cell phone use by locomotive engineers throughout the rail industry.  We are taking the next step by initiating three rulemakings:

• One to codify restrictions on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices in rail operations;
• One to consider banning text messaging and restricting the use of cell phones by truck and interstate bus operators while operating vehicles;
• And a third to disqualify school bus drivers convicted of texting while driving from maintaining their commercial driver’s licenses.

We will work aggressively and quickly to evaluate regulatory options and initiate rulemakings as appropriate. 

Moreover, our State and local partners are keys to any success we have in addressing distracted driving.  I have encouraged our State and local government partners to reduce fatalities and crashes by identifying ways that States can address distracted driving in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans and Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans.  And, to assist them in their efforts, I have directed DOT to develop model laws with tough enforcement features for all modes of transportation.

There are other affirmative measures that States can take immediately to reduce the risks of distracted driving.  For example, we continue to encourage the installation of rumble strips along roads as an effective way to get the attention of distracted drivers before they deviate from the roadway.

Education, awareness and outreach programs also are essential elements of our action plan.  These measures include targeted outreach campaigns to inform key audiences about the dangers of distracted driving, and taking high visibility enforcement actions.  We are still researching the efficacy of combining high visibility enforcement with outreach campaigns in the distracted driving context, but we are hopeful that such efforts may prove effective in the same way that we have been able to use them to reduce drunk driving and increase seat belt use.  The Department has awarded demonstration programs in two States that have handheld cell phone laws -­-New York and Connecticut --­ to test approaches for using the high visibility law enforcement model to affect community attitudes about the seriousness of distracted driving and compliance with their laws.  We will be evaluating media messages and law enforcement techniques and anticipate having results to share with other States in about 18 months. 

Due to the complexity of this problem, there will be an ongoing effort to obtain better data and conduct targeted research.  We are now developing a plan that will standardize the Department’s data collection, collect data from a large scale naturalistic driving study, and look into how intelligent transportation systems and other technologies may be helpful in combating distraction and keeping the driver safe.

All of these measures are the beginning, not the end, to solving the problem of distracted driving.  DOT will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to collect and evaluate comprehensive distracted driving-related data needed to better understand the risks and identify effective solutions.  And the Administration will continue to work with Congress, State and local governments, industry and the public to end the dangers posed by distracted driving and encourage good decisionmaking by drivers of all ages.  We may not be able to break everyone of their bad habits – but we are going to raise awareness and sharpen the consequences.

I particularly want to thank Congress for its dedication to combating distracted driving, and I look forward to further collaboration with you as we work to tackle this menace to society. 

That concludes my testimony.  I look forward to answering your questions.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Hearing on

Addressing The Problem Of Distracted Driving

October 29, 2009

Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of distracted driving.

Transportation safety is the Department’s highest priority.  Distracted driving is a dangerous practice that has become a deadly epidemic.  Our research shows that unless we take action now, the problem is only going to get worse, especially among our Nation’s youngest drivers.  This trend distresses me deeply, and I am personally committed to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by distracted driving. 

Four weeks ago, the Department of Transportation (DOT) hosted a Summit to help us identify, target and tackle the fundamental elements of this problem.  We brought together over 300 experts in safety, transportation research, regulatory affairs, and law enforcement.  More than 5,000 people from 50 States and a dozen countries also participated in the summit via the web.  We heard from several young adults who had engaged in distracted driving and who discussed the terrible consequences of their actions. 

We also heard from several victims of this behavior, whose lives have been changed forever.  Mothers and fathers who lost children, and children who lost a parent, told us their stories.  And I want you to know, I promised these families that I would make this issue my cause. 

The unanimous conclusion of the Summit participants is that distracted driving is a serious and ongoing threat to safety.  This conclusion is borne out by the facts.  Our latest research shows that nearly 6,000 people died last year in crashes involving a distracted driver, and more than half a million people were injured.  

This is not a problem caused by just a few negligent drivers.  To the contrary, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a nonprofit educational and research organization, reports that 67 percent of drivers admitted to talking on their cell phone within the last 30 days while behind the wheel, and 21 percent of drivers indicated they had read or sent a text or e-mail message, a figure that rose to 40 percent for those drivers under the age of 35. 

As shocking as these numbers are, it is clear that this problem is only getting worse, and that the youngest Americans are most at-risk. While the worst offenders may be the youngest, they are not alone.  On any given day last year, an estimated 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone who used a hand-held cell phone at some point during their drive.  People of all ages are using a variety of hand-held devices, such as cell phones, personal digital assistants, and navigation devices, when they are behind the wheel.  However, the problem is not just confined to vehicles on our roads -- it affects all modes of transportation.

Experts agree that there are three types of distraction:  (1) visual – taking your eyes off the road; (2) manual – taking your hands off the wheel; and (3) cognitive – taking your mind off the road.  While all distractions can adversely impact safety, texting is the most egregious because it involves all three types of distraction.  In the words of Dr. John Lee of the University of Wisconsin, this produces a “perfect storm.” 

For all of these reasons, at the conclusion of the Summit I announced a series of concrete actions that the Obama Administration and DOT are taking to put an end to distracted driving. 

The President’s Executive Order banning texting and driving for Federal employees is the cornerstone of these efforts and sends a strong, unequivocal signal to the American public that distracted driving is dangerous and unacceptable.  The Executive Order prohibits Federal employees from engaging in text messaging:

• While driving government-owned vehicles;
• When using electronic equipment supplied by the government while driving; and
• While driving privately-owned vehicles when on official government business. 

The ban takes effect government-wide on December 30, 2009.  However, I have already advised all 58,000 DOT employees that they are expected to comply with the Order immediately.  DOT is also working internally to formalize compliance and enforcement measures, and we are, in close consultation with the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management, providing leadership and assistance to other executive branch agencies to ensure full compliance with the Executive Order by all Federal departments and agencies, no later than December 30. 

DOT is also taking other concrete actions to reduce distracted driving across all modes.  For instance, one year ago, we began enforcing limitations on texting and cell phone use throughout the rail industry.  We are taking the next step by initiating three rulemakings:

• One to codify restrictions on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices in rail operations;
• One to consider banning text messaging and restricting the use of cell phones by truck and interstate bus operators while operating vehicles;
• And a third to disqualify school bus drivers convicted of texting while driving from maintaining their commercial driver’s licenses.

We will work aggressively and quickly to evaluate regulatory options and initiate rulemakings as appropriate. 

Moreover, our State and local partners are keys to any success we have in addressing distracted driving.  I have encouraged our State and local government partners to reduce fatalities and crashes by identifying ways that States can address distracted driving in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans and Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans.  And, to assist them in their efforts, I have directed DOT to develop model laws with tough enforcement features for all modes of transportation.

There are other affirmative measures that States can take immediately to reduce the risks of distracted driving.  For example, we are encouraging the installation of rumble strips along roads as an effective way to get the attention of distracted drivers before they deviate from their lane.

Education, awareness and outreach programs also are essential elements of our action plan.  These measures include targeted outreach campaigns to inform key audiences about the dangers of distracted driving, and taking high visibility enforcement actions.  We are still researching the efficacy of combining high visibility enforcement with outreach campaigns in the distracted driving context, but we are hopeful that such efforts may prove effective in the same way that we have been able to use them to reduce drunk driving and increase seat belt use.

All of these measures are the beginning, not the end, to solving the problem of distracted driving.  DOT will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to collect and evaluate comprehensive distracted driving-related data needed to better understand the risks and identify effective solutions.  And the Administration will continue to work with Congress, State and local governments, industry and the public to end the dangers posed by distracted driving and encourage good decisionmaking by drivers of all ages.  We may not be able to break everyone of their bad habits – but we are going to raise awareness and sharpen the consequences.

I particularly want to thank Congress for its dedication to combating distracted driving, and I look forward to further collaboration with you as we work to tackle this menace to society. 

That concludes my testimony.  I look forward to answering your questions.

STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

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

Hearing on

COMBATING DISTRACTED DRIVING:
MANAGING BEHAVIORAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL RISKS

October 28, 2009

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of distracted driving. Chairman Rockefeller, I especially appreciate your leadership on this important issue.

Transportation safety is the Department’s highest priority. Distracted driving is a dangerous practice that has become a deadly epidemic. Our research shows that unless we take action now, the problem is only going to get worse, especially among our Nation’s youngest drivers. This trend distresses me deeply, and I am personally committed to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by distracted driving.

Four weeks ago, the Department of Transportation (DOT) hosted a Summit to help us identify, target and tackle the fundamental elements of this problem. We brought together over 300 experts in safety, transportation research, regulatory affairs, and law enforcement. More than 5,000 people from 50 States and a dozen countries also participated in the summit via the web. We heard from several young adults who had engaged in distracted driving and who discussed the terrible consequences of their actions.

We also heard from several victims of this behavior, whose lives have been changed forever. Mothers and fathers who lost children, and children who lost a parent, told us their stories. And I want you to know, I promised these families that I would make this issue my cause.

We were privileged to have Senator Pryor and Senator Klobuchar of this Committee participate in the Summit. I want to thank you all for attending, and for dedicating your time and energy to addressing this problem. The unanimous conclusion of the participants is that distracted driving is a serious and ongoing threat to safety. This conclusion is borne out by the facts. Our latest research shows that nearly 6,000 people died last year in crashes involving a distracted driver, and more than half a million people were injured.

This is not a problem caused by just a few negligent drivers. To the contrary, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a nonprofit educational and research organization, reports that 67 percent of drivers admitted to talking on their cell phone within the last 30 days while behind the wheel, and 21 percent of drivers indicated they had read or sent a text or e-mail message, a figure that rose to 40 percent for those drivers under the age of 35.

As shocking as these numbers are, it is clear that this problem is only getting worse, and that the youngest Americans are most at-risk. While the worst offenders may be the youngest, they are not alone. On any given day last year, an estimated 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone who used a hand-held cell phone at some point during their drive. People of all ages are using a variety of hand-held devices, such as cell phones, personal digital assistants, and navigation devices, when they are behind the wheel. However, the problem is not just confined to vehicles on our roads -- it affects all modes of transportation.

Experts agree that there are three types of distraction: (1) visual – taking your eyes off the road; (2) manual – taking your hands off the wheel; and (3) cognitive – taking your mind off the road. While all distractions can adversely impact safety, texting is the most egregious because it involves all three types of distraction. In the words of Dr. John Lee of the University of Wisconsin, this produces a “perfect storm.”

For all of these reasons, at the conclusion of the Summit I announced a series of concrete actions that the Obama Administration and DOT are taking to put an end to distracted driving.

The President’s Executive Order banning texting and driving for Federal employees is the cornerstone of these efforts and sends a strong, unequivocal signal to the American public that distracted driving is dangerous and unacceptable. The Executive Order prohibits Federal employees from engaging in text messaging:

·      While driving government-owned vehicles;

·      When using electronic equipment supplied by the government while driving; and

·      While driving privately-owned vehicles when on official government business.

The ban takes effect government-wide on December 30, 2009. However, I have already advised all 58,000 DOT employees that they are expected to comply with the Order immediately. DOT is also working internally to formalize compliance and enforcement measures, and we are, in close consultation with the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management, providing leadership and assistance to other executive branch agencies to ensure full compliance with the Executive Order by all Federal departments and agencies, no later than December 30.

DOT is also taking other concrete actions to reduce distracted driving across all modes. For instance, one year ago, we began enforcing limitations on texting and cell phone use throughout the rail industry. We are taking the next step by initiating three rulemakings:

·      One to codify restrictions on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices in rail operations;

·      One to consider banning text messaging and restricting the use of cell phones by truck and interstate bus operators while operating vehicles;

·      And a third to disqualify school bus drivers convicted of texting while driving from maintaining their commercial driver’s licenses.

We will work aggressively and quickly to evaluate regulatory options and initiate rulemakings as appropriate. 

Moreover, our State and local partners are keys to any success we have in addressing distracted driving.  I have encouraged our State and local government partners to reduce fatalities and crashes by identifying ways that States can address distracted driving in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans and Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans. And, to assist them in their efforts, I have directed DOT to develop model laws with tough enforcement features for all modes of transportation.

There are other affirmative measures that States can take immediately to reduce the risks of distracted driving. For example, we are encouraging the installation of rumble strips along roads as an effective way to get the attention of distracted drivers before they deviate from their lane.

Education, awareness and outreach programs also are essential elements of our action plan. These measures include targeted outreach campaigns to inform key audiences about the dangers of distracted driving. We are still researching the efficacy of combining high visibility enforcement with outreach campaigns in the distracted driving context, but we are hopeful that such efforts may prove effective in the same way that we have been able to use them to reduce drunk driving and increase seat belt use.

All of these measures are the beginning, not the end, to solving the problem of distracted driving. DOT will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to collect and evaluate comprehensive distracted driving-related data needed to better understand the risks and identify effective solutions. And the Administration will continue to work with Congress, State and local governments, industry and the public to end the dangers posed by distracted driving and encourage good decisionmaking by drivers of all ages. We may not be able to break everyone of their bad habits – but we are going to raise awareness and sharpen the consequences.

I particularly want to thank Congress for its dedication to combating distracted driving, and I look forward to further collaboration with you as we work to tackle this menace to society.

That concludes my testimony. I look forward to answering your questions.

STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

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

Hearing on

COMBATING DISTRACTED DRIVING:
MANAGING BEHAVIORAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL RISKS

October 28, 2009

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of distracted driving. Chairman Rockefeller, I especially appreciate your leadership on this important issue.

Transportation safety is the Department’s highest priority. Distracted driving is a dangerous practice that has become a deadly epidemic. Our research shows that unless we take action now, the problem is only going to get worse, especially among our Nation’s youngest drivers. This trend distresses me deeply, and I am personally committed to reducing the number of injuries and fatalities caused by distracted driving.

Four weeks ago, the Department of Transportation (DOT) hosted a Summit to help us identify, target and tackle the fundamental elements of this problem. We brought together over 300 experts in safety, transportation research, regulatory affairs, and law enforcement. More than 5,000 people from 50 States and a dozen countries also participated in the summit via the web. We heard from several young adults who had engaged in distracted driving and who discussed the terrible consequences of their actions.

We also heard from several victims of this behavior, whose lives have been changed forever. Mothers and fathers who lost children, and children who lost a parent, told us their stories. And I want you to know, I promised these families that I would make this issue my cause.

We were privileged to have Senator Pryor and Senator Klobuchar of this Committee participate in the Summit. I want to thank you all for attending, and for dedicating your time and energy to addressing this problem. The unanimous conclusion of the participants is that distracted driving is a serious and ongoing threat to safety. This conclusion is borne out by the facts. Our latest research shows that nearly 6,000 people died last year in crashes involving a distracted driver, and more than half a million people were injured.

This is not a problem caused by just a few negligent drivers. To the contrary, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a nonprofit educational and research organization, reports that 67 percent of drivers admitted to talking on their cell phone within the last 30 days while behind the wheel, and 21 percent of drivers indicated they had read or sent a text or e-mail message, a figure that rose to 40 percent for those drivers under the age of 35.

As shocking as these numbers are, it is clear that this problem is only getting worse, and that the youngest Americans are most at-risk. While the worst offenders may be the youngest, they are not alone. On any given day last year, an estimated 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone who used a hand-held cell phone at some point during their drive. People of all ages are using a variety of hand-held devices, such as cell phones, personal digital assistants, and navigation devices, when they are behind the wheel. However, the problem is not just confined to vehicles on our roads -- it affects all modes of transportation.

Experts agree that there are three types of distraction: (1) visual – taking your eyes off the road; (2) manual – taking your hands off the wheel; and (3) cognitive – taking your mind off the road. While all distractions can adversely impact safety, texting is the most egregious because it involves all three types of distraction. In the words of Dr. John Lee of the University of Wisconsin, this produces a “perfect storm.”

For all of these reasons, at the conclusion of the Summit I announced a series of concrete actions that the Obama Administration and DOT are taking to put an end to distracted driving.

The President’s Executive Order banning texting and driving for Federal employees is the cornerstone of these efforts and sends a strong, unequivocal signal to the American public that distracted driving is dangerous and unacceptable. The Executive Order prohibits Federal employees from engaging in text messaging:

·      While driving government-owned vehicles;

·      When using electronic equipment supplied by the government while driving; and

·      While driving privately-owned vehicles when on official government business.

The ban takes effect government-wide on December 30, 2009. However, I have already advised all 58,000 DOT employees that they are expected to comply with the Order immediately. DOT is also working internally to formalize compliance and enforcement measures, and we are, in close consultation with the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management, providing leadership and assistance to other executive branch agencies to ensure full compliance with the Executive Order by all Federal departments and agencies, no later than December 30.

DOT is also taking other concrete actions to reduce distracted driving across all modes. For instance, one year ago, we began enforcing limitations on texting and cell phone use throughout the rail industry. We are taking the next step by initiating three rulemakings:

·      One to codify restrictions on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices in rail operations;

·      One to consider banning text messaging and restricting the use of cell phones by truck and interstate bus operators while operating vehicles;

·      And a third to disqualify school bus drivers convicted of texting while driving from maintaining their commercial driver’s licenses.

We will work aggressively and quickly to evaluate regulatory options and initiate rulemakings as appropriate. 

Moreover, our State and local partners are keys to any success we have in addressing distracted driving.  I have encouraged our State and local government partners to reduce fatalities and crashes by identifying ways that States can address distracted driving in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans and Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans. And, to assist them in their efforts, I have directed DOT to develop model laws with tough enforcement features for all modes of transportation.

There are other affirmative measures that States can take immediately to reduce the risks of distracted driving. For example, we are encouraging the installation of rumble strips along roads as an effective way to get the attention of distracted drivers before they deviate from their lane.

Education, awareness and outreach programs also are essential elements of our action plan. These measures include targeted outreach campaigns to inform key audiences about the dangers of distracted driving. We are still researching the efficacy of combining high visibility enforcement with outreach campaigns in the distracted driving context, but we are hopeful that such efforts may prove effective in the same way that we have been able to use them to reduce drunk driving and increase seat belt use.

All of these measures are the beginning, not the end, to solving the problem of distracted driving. DOT will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to collect and evaluate comprehensive distracted driving-related data needed to better understand the risks and identify effective solutions. And the Administration will continue to work with Congress, State and local governments, industry and the public to end the dangers posed by distracted driving and encourage good decisionmaking by drivers of all ages. We may not be able to break everyone of their bad habits – but we are going to raise awareness and sharpen the consequences.

I particularly want to thank Congress for its dedication to combating distracted driving, and I look forward to further collaboration with you as we work to tackle this menace to society.

That concludes my testimony. I look forward to answering your questions.

Statement of

THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD
Secretary of Transportation

before the

Committee on ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
U.S. SENATE

Hearing on

CLEAN ENERGY JOBS AND AMERICAN POWER ACT of 2009

October 27, 2009

Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Minority Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. I congratulate you on the difficult work you and your colleagues have undertaken on this bill and your efforts to improve America’s economic competitiveness and prosperity, reduce the Nation’s impact on climate change, and ensure America’s energy security.

Transportation will play a key role in achieving clean energy and climate objectives. I look forward to continued discussions to ensure that comprehensive legislation is passed that advances our clean energy goals, protects our environment for this and future generations, and ensure economic prosperity for all Americans.

The Obama Administration and the Department of Transportation (DOT) consider transition to a clean energy environment and combating climate change a major priority, and the time to act is now. We are committed to generating green jobs, decreasing our reliance on oil, reducing pollution, and creating more livable, sustainable communities. And we are already taking aggressive steps to act on these priorities. For instance, the Administration -- with the full support and involvement of DOT -- is dramatically improving the fuel economy of automobiles, intensifying energy efficiency and renewable energy efforts through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), and working through interagency partnerships to build livable and less energy intensive communities.

Transportation both contributes to and is affected by climate change, and I am committed to ensuring that transportation is part of the solution. The Department is focused on substantially reducing transportation’s contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to potential impacts on transportation infrastructure. This work includes improving vehicle fuel economy, developing alternative fuels, improving system efficiency and encouraging more sustainable transportation choices, as well as understanding climate impacts and protecting transportation infrastructure. And we are working with other Federal agencies, as well as State and local governments and our transportation stakeholders, to accomplish this critical work.

Because this committee has jurisdiction over both the climate change legislation and surface transportation reauthorization, you will be at the forefront of ensuring that comprehensive climate legislation works in concert with Federal transportation policies and investments. I look forward to working with you on this effort.

We recognize that government leadership at all levels will be needed to transform our transportation system into one that allows Americans to get to work, school, the doctor, the grocery store, or the park without being required to get into a car. To achieve this goal, we will need the most effective tools and strategies possible.

We have much more to do, but we are not waiting to begin taking aggressive and meaningful actions. I am particularly pleased with one of our efforts. In recent months, DOT has been working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an interagency partnership for sustainable communities to develop Federal policies that could help support and shape State and local land use decisions and infrastructure investments to develop livable communities where people have the option to drive less. The promise is that this approach might lower the climate impact from the transportation sector, while also saving American families money and increasing their mobility. Currently, American adults travel a total of 25 million miles a day in trips of a half-mile or less and nearly 60 percent of these are motor vehicle trips. DOT, HUD, and EPA are working together to support the building of more livable neighborhoods with “complete” streets that increase safety and mobility for all users by giving Americans –whether they live in urban, suburban or rural communities--the choice of walking, biking, or riding transit instead of driving motor vehicles. If the presence of these alternatives promotes less driving, then that will reduce road congestion, reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases, and use land more efficiently.

Reducing GHG emissions may be achieved through changing local transportation and land use patterns. For instance, assuming that more travel options and supporting land use would reduce vehicle miles traveled, an EPA analysis found that shifting 10 percent of new housing starts to livable communities over the next 10 years would save Americans roughly 4.95 billion gallons of gasoline. Minneapolis-St. Paul is a good example of the benefits of adopting livability strategies. More walkable and bikeable neighborhoods in the area have the potential to deliver estimated GHG savings from walking and biking equal to the benefits from a shift of 12 percent of vehicles to hybrids. The recently released Moving Cooler study, funded by a number of diverse stakeholders, also recognizes the substantial environmental and energy benefits resulting from livable communities. It found that compact development, complemented with pricing strategies and support for alternative transportation modes, could reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 15 percent by 2050. These studies suggest that promoting mixed-use, connected communities has the potential to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and thereby significantly contribute to U.S. carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

DOT, HUD, and EPA are identifying ways to align our agencies’ programs to ensure that our spending is effective and leveraged with other public and private investment. We are consulting with each other on performance measures that will be used to determine the results we can expect from these efforts. We are jointly identifying Federal barriers that impede performance of our programs and will seek to have them removed. We are providing joint technical assistance through EPA’s Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Program competition and will collaborate on the implementation of HUD’s Sustainable Communities Grants if they are funded in the FY 2010 Appropriations bill. We are also working to enhance the skills of transportation and housing planners, and to develop tools such as an affordability index.

DOT has worked to ensure that livability and sustainability objectives are given significant weight in the new discretionary spending of the Department as part of the Recovery Act. The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) team is currently in the process of awarding $1.5 billion worth of competitive grants for State and local governments for projects with significant long-term impact for the nation, metropolitan area, or region. Criteria for selection include the project’s contribution to sustainability and livability.

Additionally, the Recovery Act provided $8.4 billion for transit to support projects in bus and rail car manufacturing, operation and maintenance, fixed guideway improvements, and work that supports the operation of high efficiency buses, among other sustainable transit needs. Selections have been made for $100 million in discretionary grants through the Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) program with livability and sustainability goals included as project funding criteria.

The Recovery Act also provides $8 billion for high-speed rail corridors and other intercity passenger rail services. The high-speed rail initiative developed by the Federal Railroad Administration seeks to fund a long term program to plan and build a national network of passenger rail corridors. Preferred projects will improve mobility, options, service, convenience, safety, and efficiency, and contribute to economic recovery and development, as well as support environmental equality and livable communities.

Through the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, Congress can help to foster partnerships, encourage cross agency collaboration, and better ensure that livability is institutionalized as a part of transportation decision making.  

We also look forward to partnering with EPA, as our agencies work to develop and implement fuel economy and GHG emission standards for medium and heavy trucks. DOT and EPA each have expertise in developing harmonized standards that recognize the dual objectives of reducing consumption of fossil fuels and GHG emissions.  DOT and EPA each bring unique expertise that, through collaboration, is likely to result in more rigorous yet achievable standards.  And our recent cooperation in proposing harmonized national fuel economy and GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles and trucks is an example of how the two agencies can successfully coordinate to deliver substantial fuel economy and environmental benefits. Such collaboration can contribute to produce the best possible regulation of mobile sources without imposing undue or conflicting burdens on industry.

Our past success argues for continued cooperation. On May 19, 2009, President Obama announced a historic national policy to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for all new cars and light duty trucks sold in the U.S. On September 15, DOT and EPA announced a joint proposed rulemaking that would set fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The standards, taken together, would deliver a fleetwide fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. According to EPA's preliminary analysis, the standards, if finalized, are projected to reduce GHGs by approximately 950 million metric tons and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program.  The program would reduce GHG emissions from the U.S. light-duty fleet by 19 percent by 2030.  

Another way to achieve our clean energy and climate goals is through more effective transportation planning. We would like to work with Congress to support robust transportation planning techniques to target investments to projects that reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption. One strategy for reducing transportation-related GHG emissions is by integrating transportation planning with housing, land use and water infrastructure planning. As new or additional development is contemplated, considering where people will be located, where they will need to go, and how they should be able to get there, can promote better efficiencies, system performance and lower carbon emissions.

DOT’s experience and statutory jurisdiction to implement transportation planning regulations lends itself well to accomplish the transportation planning goals contemplated in the bill. A key mechanism by which DOT can have an impact on climate change is through our role in financing infrastructure and promoting effective transportation planning across the United States, including highways, airports, transit systems, and multi-modal facilities. We have a unique opportunity to shape the transportation infrastructure of the future to promote livability and to reduce the environmental impact of transportation.

State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have limited experience with the kind of planning promoted in this legislation. Consequently, we need to make sure the program does not become unnecessarily complex and does provide the most efficient and effective route to reduce emissions. DOT, along with our partners at HUD and EPA, are excited to work with Congress to find the best way to invest infrastructure dollars to decrease GHG emissions and increase mobility and economic vitality – three areas that are inexorably linked.

The Department is already taking a number of other steps to address transportation- related GHG emissions.

DOT’s Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting sets priorities for climate change policy analysis and research. One example of the Center’s work is The Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure. This case study of the Gulf Coast was designed to understand and address 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, which was just launched, will explore more detailed information about impacts at the local level. Phase II will be completed in about three years, and will develop 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 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 GHG 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 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 GHG inventories, analytic methods and tools, GHG reduction strategies, potential impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure, and approaches for integrating climate change considerations into transportation decision making.

Additional efforts are underway throughout DOT’s operating administrations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) climate efforts include mitigation and adaptation work on improvements to system efficiency, land use, and planning. FHWA is working to evaluate how land use, transportation infrastructure, and policy changes would affect travel activity and GHG emissions. FHWA is also working to develop cost-effective strategies and performance for measuring progress in reducing emissions. FHWA is working with State DOTs and MPOs around the country to address climate change in transportation planning decisions.

FHWA is also developing a strategy to address climate adaptation issues, and a draft framework for conducting risk-based assessments and transportation infrastructure. Guidelines will be developed for consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation in project development and environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

In addition, FHWA has several programs underway to enhance system efficiency by developing and implementing 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 en route, mode and timing of trips; highway design improvements to remove bottlenecks; and better balancing of supply and demand through congestion pricing where appropriate.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) leads the transformation to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). One key NextGen environmental goal is to limit or reduce the impact of aviation GHG emissions on the global climate. To achieve this, a key approach is to more efficiently use the Nation’s airspace, which will 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, FAA is developing and improving environmentally friendly procedures covering gate-to-gate, terminal, and surface operations.

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, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and EPA, FAA launched the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) to accelerate scientific understanding that will inform policy decisions on mitigation. FAA also launched the Continuous Lower Energy Emissions and Noise Program (CLEEN) to advance maturing engine and aircraft technologies for quick deployment into the fleet in order to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. FAA helped form—and is an active participant in—the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). CAAFI is a broad public-private collaboration that seeks to develop and deploy alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation which offer reductions in life cycle emissions.

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

The unique nature of the aviation sector means that its environmental impacts are not only domestic, but international in scope.  To that end, the FAA has also been working with other Federal agencies, including EPA and the Department of State, within the context of ongoing negotiations in the International Civil Aviation Organization to develop a global framework to mitigate aviation’s impact on climate change.

The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) work on climate change falls into two main areas: (1) catalyzing expanded public transportation service and transit-oriented development to reduce overall transportation emissions while providing convenient and economic mobility options; and (2) technology research and deployment that will enable local public transportation agencies to provide their already relatively energy efficient service in an even more efficient manner. 

FTA’s grants, technical assistance, research, and policy leadership all play a role in the agency’s efforts to address climate change. FTA funds public transportation through the agency’s grant programs. FTA also provides technical assistance in planning and transit-oriented development. Combining investment in public transportation with compact, mixed-use development around transit stations creates synergies that amplify the greenhouse gas reductions of each strategy and enhance overall livability and sustainability goals of the Department. FTA’s research on alternative fuels and high efficiency vehicles has yielded the introduction of hybrid-electric buses, hydrogen fuel cell buses, and other low emissions technologies. Transit vehicles make ideal demonstration vehicles because of their high visibility and centralized maintenance.

FTA is funding a new synthesis on GHG emission savings from transit through the Transit Cooperative Research Program. FTA is developing a handbook for transit agency managers of low carbon practices and also offers environmental management systems (EMS) training. FTA also has sustainability partnership projects with the American Public Transportation Association and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) coordinates the majority of the Department’s surface transportation research on alternative fuels, alternative vehicles, hydrogen fuels and fuel cells, and advanced vehicle technology, all of which address climate change concerns. RITA also works on multiple research projects regarding hydrogen, including finding safe and effective storage materials, testing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and training emergency responders on hazardous characteristics of hydrogen.

DOT, in partnership with EPA, will analyze ways to reduce transportation-related GHG 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.  Our climate change research will help us 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 is fully committed to reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from across the transportation sector. DOT will continue to work with the White House Office on Energy and Climate Change Policy, the other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the transportation community to identify and pursue the most critical climate change priorities.

DOT is also committed to working with Congress to ensure the passage of comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation that provides the most valuable tools to achieve the most effective emissions reductions while supporting economic growth and prosperity.

In closing, I applaud your efforts to further the debate and move us much closer to comprehensive and effective solutions. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.

STATEMENT OF

THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE

HEARING ON

TRANSPORTATION’S ROLE IN CLIMATE CHANGE
AND GREENHOUSE GASES

JULY 14, 2009

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss transportation’s role in climate change and reducing greenhouse gases. 

Reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) are high priorities for the Obama Administration. The President is committed to action that will end our dependence on oil, create millions of clean energy jobs, and protect our children from dangerous pollution. President Obama has also made it clear that the United States will be a leader in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, the G8 Leaders just last week expressed their support for a goal among developed nations of  reducing their emissions by 80 percent by 2050 as part of a goal to be shared by all nations of achieving at least a 50 percent reduction of global emissions by that date.    This acknowledges the broad scientific view that warming should be limited to no more than two degrees Celsius.  This is a critical first step. 

While there is much to do, the Department is taking steps to address transportation-related emissions and to target the most effective actions to reduce the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Virtually all human activities have an impact on our environment, and transportation is no exception. Transportation is crucial to our economy and our personal lives. It is also, however, a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, transportation accounted for 29 percent of total United States GHG emissions. About 60 percent of transportation emissions were from passenger cars and light-duty trucks, about 20 percent from medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and about 12 percent from aviation.  As a consequence, it is imperative that the transportation sector be part of the solution. 

The Department is working aggressively to implement forward-thinking policies and other measures that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, spur clean energy technologies and infrastructure developments, create jobs, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to improve the lives of Americans. I want to take a few minutes to describe some of our efforts.

In 2007, when the Energy Independence and Security Act was enacted, the fuel economy standard for cars was still 27.5 miles per gallon, the same level established by Congress in 1975. The standard for light trucks, such as minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickups, was 22.2 miles per gallon. DOT recently issued new fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model year 2011.  Under those standards, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) level for the industry as a whole is expected to be 30.2 miles per gallon for new cars and 24.1 miles per gallon for new light trucks. 

In May, President Obama announced a new National Policy to establish the first-ever national greenhouse gas and fuel economy program for cars and light-duty trucks.  DOT and the Environmental Protection Agency in coordination with the Department of Energy are working to develop proposed CAFE and GHG standards for 2012-2016. These standards would encourage the auto industry to use more fuel-efficient technologies that will save billions of gallons of fuel and ultimately save American consumers money. The proposed new rules would increase CAFE standards and adopt new GHG standards such that, by 2016, if the automotive industry achieves the CO2 level all through fuel economy improvements, the new cars and light trucks sold each year deliver a combined industry-wide fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon.  Preliminary analysis indicates cumulative greenhouse gas reductions of approximately 900 million metric tons (CO2 equivalent) and fuel savings of approximately 1.8 billion barrels of oil. DOT also is implementing new statutory authority to issue fuel economy standards for medium and heavy duty trucks.

Additionally, DOT is focusing on improving the operational efficiency of the transportation system. Improving system operations can decrease traffic congestion and delay, reduce fuel consumption, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.  Currently, the Department conducts research, performs field tests, and disseminates information on traffic signal systems, freeway management, traffic incident management, and traveler information.  The Department also works to enhance the design and implementation of work zones, provide information on different modes of transport and trip timing, and is researching ways to implement congestion pricing where appropriate.

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.

However, as I mentioned before, passenger cars and light trucks account for 60 percent of all transportation emissions, and therefore reducing surface transportation related emissions should be a primary focus.  Enhancing system efficiency, increasing fuel efficiency and introducing low carbon fuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, electricity, and hydrogen are important steps to reducing transportation related greenhouse gas emissions, but these measures cannot stand alone.  Even if vehicle fuel efficiency were to reach 55 mpg by 2030, we would still see only modest decreases in transportation CO2 emissions without a decrease in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

Addressing VMT growth plays a key role in decreasing transportation related GHG emissions and should be included in overall efforts to prevent climate change.  One way to achieve significant reductions in VMT is to develop more livable communities. 

The effects of reduced VMT on greenhouse gas emissions have repeatedly been demonstrated.  A report aired on National Public Radio evaluated the carbon footprint of two families living in Atlanta.  One family moved from a walkable, transit-served community to a car dependent one and another family moved from a car dependent area to a livable community.  The greatest difference in CO2 emissions between the families was in transportation related emissions.  The carbon footprint for the family that moved to a car dependent area was 40 percent higher, and transportation accounted for almost 85 percent of the difference.  This report, among others, indicates the relevance of VMT to greenhouse gas emissions and indicates that we should accelerate our efforts to identify ways to reduce VMT growth in order to meet our climate goals.

There are several steps that can be taken to spur the development of more livable communities and reduce VMT: 

First, we can provide more transportation choices in more communities across the country.  Single occupancy vehicles should be only one of many transportation options available to Americans to reach their destinations.  Walking, bicycling, light rail and buses can be made available in more places.

Second, we can promote development of housing in close proximity to transit.  In addition to reducing VMT and greenhouse gas emissions from cars driven by commuters, such planning would have the added benefits of decreasing transportation costs for families and reducing traffic congestion. 

Third, we can promote mixed-use development, which incorporates residential and commercial buildings, allowing individuals the choice to walk, drive a shorter distance or easily use public transportation to reach their destination.  Residents should have the option to live in an area with services and goods that are easily accessible.  In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this would also reduce travel times involved in driving to and from grocery and department stores, medical service providers or even entertainment centers such as movie theaters.  

While many view community planning and multi-modal transportation as affecting only urban or larger suburban areas, there are many ways in which such provisions would benefit smaller towns and rural areas as well.  A strong, well planned town center could provide smaller towns or rural communities with easy access to jobs and services in one centralized location and increase foot traffic around locally owned small businesses.  These town centers will also protect open spaces and valuable farmland.  Additionally, all people, whether in urban or rural areas, need access to job centers, medical services and schools.  In urban settings this access might take the form of sidewalks and bike lanes.  In rural areas, it might look more like intercity rail and bus service.  But, especially as populations age, non-driving access to essential services is increasingly central to making towns more livable for 21st century populations.  This poses a particular challenge for rural areas. 

All of these factors will be critical elements of our livability initiative.  Our work will not be easy, but it offers great promise for improving the lives of all Americans and reducing our use of energy and greenhouse gas emissions.  The Department of Transportation and other agencies are already working closely to determine the best means to support sustainable, livable communities. 

On June 16, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and I announced a new partnership to help American families in all communities - rural, suburban and urban - develop sustainable communities.  Over the course of our collective work, we have defined six guiding principles.  We are committed to

•     providing more transportation choices,

•     promoting equitable, affordable housing,

•     enhancing economic competitiveness,

•     supporting existing communities,

•     coordinating policies and leverage investment, and

•     valuing the uniqueness of communities and neighborhoods. 

These principles will guide the interagency working group as we continue our efforts.

As we consider surface transportation reauthorization -- both in the short and longer-term -- the Department will prioritize creating a livability program that measurably works to reduce VMT, greenhouse gas emissions, and also provide added economic benefits to Americans in all geographic locations.  Multi-modal transportation combined with mixed-use development and smart community planning are important issues to address when we consider transportation’s role in climate change.  Combined with more efficient vehicles and cleaner burning fuels, these strategies will be important to reaching our GHG reduction goals.  They will also reduce our reliance on foreign oil       

 The Senate now has the opportunity, for the first time, to create a system of clean energy incentives designed to jumpstart a clean energy economy and confront the threat of carbon pollution.  As the President has said, it is important that we accomplish these goals while protecting consumers, and helping sensitive industries transition.

I have outlined in my testimony today some of the ways in which the Department of Transportation can contribute to this effort.  We would be particularly pleased if the final legislation gave the Department better tools to integrate climate change considerations into the transportation planning, financing, and implementation process and to facilitate system improvements.  Failing to recognize the connection between transportation and climate change will likely jeopardize our ability to achieve our GHG reduction goals. 

Livable communities obviously have many benefits, but we should also take note that such planning will also have a large long-run impact on greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, I hope to work with members of Congress to address these issues and find ways to decrease transportation’s contributions to climate change. 

Before closing, I would like to mention that while the focus of this hearing is surface transportation, the Department’s climate change efforts go beyond highways and transit. In aviation, we have begun to modernize the U.S. air traffic system, called the Next Generation Air Transportation System (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.  FAA has also partnered with manufacturers, airlines, and airports in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative to develop and certify alternative fuels.

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.

We are engaged internationally through the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization to help achieve global agreement on how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation and international shipping and we are beginning to see the results of our new level of engagement.  In the coming months and years we will accelerate our efforts to help minimize the impacts from these international emissions.

While transportation emissions contribute to climate change, transportation infrastructure will also face climate impacts such as rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, and temperature fluctuations.  The need for adaptation is unavoidable.  To ensure the continued integrity of the nation’s transportation system, transportation infrastructure decisions must adequately consider forecasted effects and impacts from climate change. The Department will undertake activities to assist state and local transportation decision-makers in assessing vulnerability and risk of transportation infrastructure to climate change effects, and planning and implementing strategies to adapt to climate change impacts.

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss these important matters.  I look forward to future collaboration and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
RAYMOND H. LAHOOD

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

MARCH 12, 2009

Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the Committee, it is indeed a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss issues related to reauthorization of the Federal public transportation programs. 

As you know, our Federal public transportation programs were reauthorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) which was enacted on August 10, 2005.  SAFETEA-LU provides program authorizations through fiscal year 2009.  So this hearing is particularly timely if Congress is to act expeditiously to ensure that important surface transportation investments continue uninterrupted.

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

Before I discuss authorizing legislation, I believe it is important to spend a few moments on our efforts on recovery and reinvestment.  As you know, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) was signed into law by President Obama on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.  At the outset, I wish to thank Congress for your support in adopting this important legislation, and in particular for the transportation funding that it provides.

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 upgrading schools, building infrastructure to support a clean energy grid for America, repairing transportation infrastructure, building new opportunities for the unemployed, and helping to maintain jobs for those currently employed.

Of the $787 billion of spending and tax law changes in ARRA, over $48 billion will be invested in transportation infrastructure.  Of this amount, the Federal Transit Administration has received $8.4 billion for three categories of funding:  Transit Capital Assistance, Fixed Guideway Modernization grants, and Transit New Starts.  I am pleased to report that this money is already being made available to local public transit agencies around the country.  On March 5, the Federal Transit Administration published its apportionment of the formula funds included in the ARRA and will shortly publish a Notice announcing the allocation of the New Starts funds. 

ARRA specifies that funds are to be used only for capital expenditures.  FTA is encouraging grantees to identify projects or expenditures that meet the broader goals of the legislation, including preserving or creating jobs; contributing to cleaning our environment through green purchases, retrofitting existing facilities, and construction; making additional public transportation opportunities available to more people; and helping to ease fiscal problems at the state and local level.  A final, important aspect of this legislative initiative is to get the money into the economy and working as quickly as possible.  To foster this imperative, there are certain time limitations to obligate these funds.  If funds are not put to work on a timely basis, funds apportioned to an urbanized area or State will be reallocated to areas that have demonstrated the ability to finalize projects and are ready to execute.

This funding will improve our Nation’s transit systems and, at the same time, preserve or create thousands of good-paying jobs across America.  These funds also represent an important investment in our Nation’s ability to ensure mobility and access for our citizens.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAM

Recent Growth in Transit Ridership

Recently, transit ridership has grown significantly.  In fact, during 2008, ridership was at a 50-year high, amounting to over 10 billion trips.  While this increase was attributable in part to the rapid spike in fuel prices, ridership growth was sustained as overall economic activity began to slacken and fuel prices fell. 

Rail Modernization Study

In response to the FY 2008 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act conference report and again requested in a letter dated December 7, 2007, from Sen. Richard Durbin and 11 other senators to former FTA Administrator James Simpson, we have now completed a Rail Modernization Study.  We believe our report is fully responsive to the requested content.  The report assesses the level of capital investment required to attain and maintain a state of good repair (SGR) for the Nation’s seven largest rail transit operators. The study also considers reinvestment needs within the context of past levels of Federal funding support as well as potential reforms to the current Federal program.

The Rail Modernization Study finds that more than one-third of agencies’ assets are either in marginal or poor condition, indicating that these assets are near or have already exceeded their expected useful life.  In addition, it finds that there is a backlog of unmet recapitalization needs of about $50 billion at the Nation’s seven largest rail transit operators.

The study found that, between 1991 and 2009, although the actual dollar amount of capital funding from federal sources to the seven agencies increased, their share of Fixed Guideway Modernization funds—to the “old rail cities” in particular—actually declined as new fixed guideway systems, such as bus ways and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, entered the program.  Therefore, the report presents several options for Congress to consider in reforming the allocation approach for fixed guideway modernization funding.  Finally, the report describes a structured capital asset management process and suggests a number of steps FTA might take to facilitate improvements to the technical capacity of local transit agencies to manage their capital assets.

Impacts of Federal Investments

Federal capital investments in rail, bus, and other public transportation systems over the last 25 years have been vitally important to the Nation’s fastest-growing metropolitan areas, to small- and mid-sized cities, and to rural communities that previously lacked any transit options.  These systems create links between home, school, work, recreation areas, and other important destinations.  Since 1984, the number of cities with publicly funded passenger rail service has more than doubled.  The size of the Nation’s transit bus fleet has grown by more than 25%. Nearly every bus in the United States is accessible to people with disabilities and senior citizens.  As a result, since the mid-1990s, the Nation’s overall public transportation ridership has grown by more than a third.  In many of the Nation’s largest cities, public transportation carries roughly one-third of all work trips destined for central business districts and is an essential link between these districts and other destinations.  A decade ago, two of every five residents in rural small urban communities and tribal areas did not have access to public transportation.  Since then, FTA has been instrumental in bringing new public transportation options to dozens of these communities. 

Changes in demographics, shifts in land use patterns, and the emergence of new job markets require different approaches to managing mobility, particularly for people who may not be able to use existing transportation services due to age, disability, location, or other factors.  Federal funding for public transportation has provided a framework around which eight Federal departments can develop and deliver community-based transportation services.  These services, which may be operated by private nonprofit groups and community organizations, offer a lifeline to persons with disabilities, older Americans, and individuals and families who do not possess automobiles.

Federal investments in public transportation contribute to job growth directly, since the transportation-related workforce grows as systems are built or expanded.  Indirectly, FTA-funded projects can act as catalysts for new businesses near transit facilities.  Transit-oriented, mixed-use development provides an efficient and convenient option for employers, developers, young professionals and families in many large and small cities around the U.S.  Many transit-oriented projects are supported by Federal resources through direct funding and technical guidance during the planning stages.  This has contributed significantly to the revitalization of downtown districts, fosters walkable neighborhoods, and offers a remedy for urban and suburban sprawl.

Federal public transportation programs also provide for strategic leadership and investments that foster innovative research activities leading to measurable improvements in the connectivity, safety, and efficiency of America’s public transportation systems.  Federal funding has spurred countless productive applications of new technologies and techniques for modernizing rail and bus systems, improving energy efficiency, reducing emissions, and promulgating voluntary industry-wide standards.  These outcomes reflect collaborations with other Federal research entities, university research centers, manufacturers, and transportation advocates.  Further, Federal public transportation funding has supported training for thousands of transportation professionals who are the innovators of tomorrow.  This has created a successful cooperative research program that solicits proposals for Federal funding from industry and academia—triggering investments in scores of valuable cutting-edge investigations.

Federal investment in public transportation can also contribute to combating climate change.  National averages demonstrate that public transportation can produce significantly less greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-mile than private vehicles, especially those with single occupants.  Leading the way is heavy rail transit, such as subways and metros, which produce about 75% less in greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than an average single-occupancy vehicle (SOV).  Light rail systems produce 57% less and bus transit 32% less.  The benefit would not be as great if compared to the somewhat higher current average occupancy rates of passenger vehicles.  Transit’s GHG emissions savings would be even greater with higher ridership levels.  Recent increases in ridership are not captured in these estimates, as the figures rely on 2007 public transportation data, the most recent national dataset available.

Federal investment in public transportation also can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by facilitating higher density development, which conserves land and decreases the distances people need to travel to reach destinations.  In many cases, higher density development would be more difficult without the existence of public transportation because more land would need to be devoted to parking and travel lanes.  By facilitating higher density development, public transportation can shrink the footprint of an urban area and reduce overall trip lengths.  In addition, public transportation supports increased foot traffic, street-level retail, and mixed land uses that enable a shift from driving to walking and biking.  Public transportation can also facilitate trip chaining, such as combining dry-cleaning pick-up, shopping, and other errands on the way home from a station.  Finally, households living close to public transportation tend to own fewer cars on average, as they may not need a car for commuting and other trips.  A reduced number of cars per household can to lead to reduced car use, and driving may cease to be the habitual choice for every trip.

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

Livability and Sustainability

 In my confirmation hearing, I outlined four key themes for my tenure as Secretary.  In addition to Economic Recovery, which is my primary immediate concern, and Safety, which is always an important part of the mission of the Department, I suggested that Sustainability and Livability would be hallmarks of my policies.

To me, it is clear that our transportation system and the development it enables must be sustainable.  Climate change must be acknowledged as a reality.  Funding for public transportation must increase to help out here.  Sustainability must permeate all we do, from highways and transit to aviation and ports.

I am also committed to a strong focus on people and communities where they live and work. This implies a commitment to the principles that some refer to as livability -- that is, investing in ways that respect the unique character of each community.  The era of one-size-fits-all transportation projects must give way to one where preserving and enhancing unique community characteristics, be they rural or urban, is a primary goal, rather than an afterthought.  I intend to make livable communities a big part of reauthorization.

Housing/Transportation Relationship

Clearly the linkage between public transportation and urban development is crucial, particularly when it comes to low income housing.  For some time, FTA has been collaborating with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to coordinate housing and transportation planning and investment decisionmaking.  For example, in September 2008, FTA and HUD released a report to Congress on Better Coordination of Transportation and Housing Programs.  This report outlines strategies to continue and expand the coordination of affordable housing and transit policies.  Earlier, FTA and HUD conducted a jointly funded research study on Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit.  The report, published in April 2007 by the Center for Transit Oriented Development, included five case studies examining the role of public transportation in the location of affordable housing in corridors in Boston, Charlotte, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Portland, Oregon.  In addition, FTA and HUD are participating in an interagency working group to continue development of coordinated/integrated strategies, methods and policies to promote the role of public transportation in affordable housing.  Finally, FTA and HUD are developing a Best Practices Manual – a multi-scenario “how-to” manual for developing mixed-income housing transit oriented development to be published by December 2009.  Continuing and expanding on these efforts can be an important feature of the next surface transportation authorization.

Highway Trust Fund

A challenge in addressing the needs I have outlined will be the availability of funding at the Federal level.  More details of the Department’s FY 2010 budget will be presented in April.

An overarching concern for all surface transportation funding is the status of the Highway Trust Fund.  Currently, 2.86 cents of the Federal gasoline and diesel taxes is dedicated to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, which generates about $5 billion annually in revenues.  However, as you know, the Mass Transit Account, like the Highway Account is projected to become insolvent in the coming years assuming current-law spending and revenues.  Clearly, the way in which public transportation is funded on a long-term, sustainable basis will have to be addressed as we move forward.

REAUTHORIZATION

In light of these challenges, restructuring our surface transportation programs will require some bold new approaches.  Let me outline for you a few of the themes which we are now considering for our proposal.

Economic Recovery and Reinvestment

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.  Congestion exacts a tremendous cost on the Nation’s economy, by some estimates over $100 billion a year.  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. 

Safety

Safety will continue to be the Department’s highest priority.  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 transportation’s contribution to strong and connected communities.  First, the range of transportation choices available to American families must be expanded.  All segments of the population must have access to transportation services to get to work, housing, medical, educational, shopping, and other essential activities.  Just as important is to ensure that our transportation investment decisions are consistent with broader policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow the pace of climate change.    

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 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 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.

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.  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. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.  I know that there is much work ahead of us.  I believe that working together we can craft an improved Federal surface transportation program that helps improve the lives of the American people across the country.

STATEMENT OF

HANK KRAKOWSKI,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION,
AND
MARGARET GILLIGAN,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,

ON

NEXTGEN:  A REVIEW OF THE RTCA MID-TERM IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE REPORT,

BEFORE THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION,

OCTOBER 28, 2009.

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting us here today to review the RTCA’s NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force Final Report.  As you know, on January 16, 2009, we asked the RTCA to establish a government-industry Task Force to forge community-wide consensus on the recommended Task Force operational improvements to be implemented in the near-term during the transition between now and 2018.  We asked the Task Force to focus on maximizing benefits and facilitating the development of the business case for industry investment.  We are grateful to the Task Force for all of the hard work that the members have put into this report and the corresponding data and analysis

The Task Force did not attempt to re-write the NextGen Implementation Plan and assumed that the baseline programs and technologies would continue to be developed by the FAA on target.  The Task Force did look for opportunities to accelerate the transition where existing technologies could provide a “bridge” to NextGen programs that are still in development.  Over 300 people from nearly every segment of the aviation community participated in over 150 meetings to work toward a consensus set of recommendations presented in this report.  The Task Force also distinguished itself from other similarly chartered groups by limiting its set of recommendations, preferring to give greater detail to specific ways the recommendations might be implemented.  They also explicitly involved talented and seasoned financial decision-makers from the operator community, such as airline chief financial officers.  Finally, they committed to transparency and supported their decisions with solid data.

Prioritization and Continued Collaboration:

The FAA strongly agrees with two principles that the Task Force has emphasized throughout their report:  (a) the need to prioritize initiatives that can have a near-term effect on delays and efficiencies; and b) the need for continued cooperation and involvement of the industry in the execution and evolution of the plans.  With the first of these in mind, we are currently examining all of these recommendations with an eye towards understanding how we might organize and implement them in light of the agency’s various priorities, the most important of which is to implement any new measure safely. 

More precisely, we are scrutinizing the Task Force’s recommendations through the lens of our experience with the Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP), the agency’s original plan for implementing NextGen.  As the Members of this Committee are aware, the OEP provided the process through which FAA ensured successful implementation.  The most senior executives in the agency were held personally accountable for meeting OEP commitments.

The OEP process has been key to the FAA’s recent successes.  On November 20, 2008, the FAA achieved a never before attained milestone – we commissioned three runways on the same day.   These new runways at Chicago O’Hare, Seattle-Tacoma, and Washington Dulles added much needed facilities to the nation’s airport and aviation system on time and under budget.  And, in January 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) took the FAA’s modernization program off of its High Risk List for the first time since 1995.  The GAO cited the FAA's commitment to attack and fix some root causes of the air traffic control modernization problems, including cost overruns, schedule delays and performance shortfalls.  Neither one of these would have been possible without the structure of the OEP and commitment of FAA executives to the OEP.

Since 2008, the OEP plan has evolved into the NextGen Implementation Plan, which details our plans for NextGen through 2018.  The management process has grown into the NextGen Management Board and, under that, the NextGen Review Board, the governance structure that we put in place to assure successful deployment and implementation.  The NextGen Management Board is chaired by the Deputy Administrator and composed of FAA Associate Administrators, the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Chief Operating Officer, ATO Senior Vice Presidents, the Director of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), representatives of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), and other key stakeholders.  This is the agency’s senior governing body for NextGen, and consists of the highest level agency executives.  Under the Management Board, resides the NextGen Review Board, composed of FAA staff and executives, which looks at more technical issues including approving and prioritizing NextGen activities and making funding recommendations.

The FAA has been reviewing the report, and the NextGen Management Board is scheduled to meet on Monday, October 26, to discuss the Task Force’s recommendations within the greater context of the FAA’s overall work.  In doing so, we note that much of the technology and procedures that underlie the specific recommendations of the Task Force exist and are in use already.  However, they are being used in limited areas, often in their demonstration phases.  The Task Force recommends deploying these technologies and procedures more widely throughout the national airspace system (NAS) to achieve immediate, short-term relief from congestion and inefficiencies.  But before we can do that, we need to make sure that these technologies and procedures can be safely deployed elsewhere and whether deploying them throughout the system is a wise strategic decision.  The NextGen Management process is the way that the FAA is able to examine these recommendations within this context.

Our work on area navigation (RNAV) and required navigation performance (RNP) air traffic control routes is a perfect example of this.  While RNAV/RNP has been highly beneficial in many areas, the FAA has previously approached it on an ad hoc basis, responding to requests from the external aviation community.  Now that we have greater experience with the RNAV/RNP program, we are better able to use the knowledge we have gained over the past few years.  We can step back and take a deeper, strategic look at how RNAV/RNP can benefit the national airspace system as a whole.  With this strategic eye, we will be able to make better decisions as to where RNAV/RNP procedures can be implemented to maximize their effectiveness in reducing congestion and delays.

To address the second principle of the Task Force, that of the need for continued cooperation and involvement of the industry in the execution and evolution of the NextGen plans, we intend to conduct follow up work with our industry stakeholders through the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee (ATMAC) and its workgroups.  The ATMAC is a Federal Advisory Committee of the RTCA.   Its purpose is to provide the FAA with consensus-based, recommended investment priorities that will improve the safety, capacity and/or efficiency of the NAS.  One of the great advantages of pursuing the follow on work through the ATMAC is that it will give us the continued input from industry and other stakeholders that is so essential to successful NextGen implementation.  The ATMAC’s work will complement the work of the NextGen Management Board and Review Board and bring all of the relevant perspectives together to help us make the right strategic decisions.

Confirming Our Path:

Using this combination of the NextGen Management Board, the NextGen Review Board, and the ATMAC, the FAA will be addressing each of the Task Force’s recommendations specifically and in detail in the coming months.  In the meantime, we are pleased that the Task Force reconfirms the value of the FAA’s current work.  Using the NextGen Management Board and Review Board process described above, we have already begun work in a few areas that address the Task Force’s recommendations, some of which are described below.

Airport Surface:

For example, the Task Force recommended that the FAA take steps to improve aircraft surface traffic management at airports.  The intent would be to reduce tarmac delays and enhance safety, efficiency, and situational awareness by defining and standardizing requirements, and implementing the capture and dissemination of surface operations data to controllers, ramp towers, and user operations centers.  

The FAA is in the process of addressing aircraft surface management as the Task Force recommends.  We recently accelerated the ASDE-X schedule and now project that all systems will be deployed by the fall of 2010 – one year earlier than originally anticipated.  ASDE-X enables air traffic controllers to detect potential runway conflicts by providing detailed coverage of movement on runways and taxiways.  By collecting data from a variety of sources, ASDE-X is able to track aircraft ground support equipment, maintenance vehicles, and aircraft on the airport movement area and obtain identification information from aircraft transponders.  As we accelerate this work, we are coordinating with the users to determine where and how to best use the technology to enhance the safety and efficiency of surface movements on an airport, as the Task Force recommends.  The ATMAC will be invaluable to this work as we move forward.

Metroplex:

The Task Force also recommended that we focus on relieving congestion and tarmac delays at major metropolitan area airports.  They propose accomplishing this by reducing inefficiencies at satellite airports and surrounding airspace by instituting teams that focus on quality of implementation at each location and eliminating airspace conflicts with adjacent airports.  The Task Force recommends using core capabilities of RNAV, with RNP where needed; optimized vertical profiles using vertical navigation; and use of 3 nautical mile and terminal separation rules in more airspace.

The FAA has been working towards addressing the complexities of the airspace of these metroplexes.  For instance, in Atlanta, we added additional RNAV departure lanes in 2006, which increased the capacity to and from the en route airspace.  The lanes also give users the benefit of repeatable and predictable paths.  The benefits are measurable.  Since the addition of the RNAV departure lanes, we have seen a 24% to 43% reduction in departure delays and an estimated $105 million cumulative savings in operator benefits (due to improved profiles and reduced distances).  Moreover, these procedures have improved situational awareness; there has been an 18% to 34% reduction in routine pilot/controller voice communications as well as reduced errors in voice communications.

Access to the NAS:

The Task Force recommends improving access to, and services provided at, non-OEP airports and to low altitude, non-radar airspace.  They recommend doing this by implementing more precision-based approaches and departures, along with the expansion of surveillance services to areas not currently under radar surveillance.

Along those lines, the FAA will expand the development of increased precision approaches that are intended to benefit business and general aviation users.  Known as Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approach procedures, these approaches enable more aircraft to more safely fly low-visibility approaches to more airports throughout the NAS.  As long as the aircraft is equipped with Wide Area Augmentation System, or WAAS, equipment (a technology that increases the accuracy and integrity of Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) for aircraft navigation) or equipment of equivalent performance, the operator can take advantage of these LPV approaches.

Incentivizing Equipage:

The Task Force also examined incentives to investments in NextGen capabilities.  They briefly explored the following types of incentives: 1) providing financial incentives either in the form of low-interest loans, or direct subsidies of equipage; 2) providing a timely, unambiguous set of processes (regulations, avionics certifications, operational procedures and approvals, engineering support, etc.) to assure the realization and timelines by NAS users of a sufficient level of operational benefits that justify investments; and 3) establishing a NAS where system users who have aircraft with higher aircraft performance/capability levels get higher levels of service.  This is referred to in the FAA’s Next Generation Implementation Plan as the “Best-Equipped, Best-Served” concept.

While we need to examine various incentive options under the auspices of the NextGen management process and with the input of the ATMAC, we are particularly pleased with the “buy-in” that the Task Force has achieved from aviation operators.  For each recommendation, the Task Force was able to gain a commitment from at least one operator to invest in its implementation.  This sets the stage for the necessary equipage saturation by the operators to take advantage of all the NextGen technologies.  This helps give the airlines and other operators the framework to make choices that make sense for them under a “Best-Equipped, Best-Served” concept. 

One point that we should make with regard to “Best-Equipped, Best-Served” is that this is an extension of how the FAA operates today.  When an aircraft is equipped with the right technology, the operator can take advantage of different air traffic control procedures, depending on the level of that aircraft’s equipment.  For example, if an aircraft has the right type of equipment necessary to fly at certain high altitudes, the operator may obtain access to those higher altitudes.  These higher altitudes provide an environment for optimum jet performance.  With the NextGen “Best-Equipped, Best-Served” concept extending this paradigm to recognize different levels of equipage, operators will be able to have better access to the NAS by virtue of having the ability to fly in more sophisticated and efficient ways through the system.

Streamlining: 

The Task Force also advocates identifying the operational approval and certification issues that may impede adoption and acceleration of NextGen capabilities and implementing timely solutions to these challenges.

To address these concerns, we note that the FAA is already in the process of standing up “NextGen Branches” in our Flight Standards Regional Offices across the country.  The purpose of these NextGen Branches is to facilitate the operational approvals and implementation of these initiatives, by bringing specialty expertise in these areas to assist local flight standards district offices.

The FAA is also working on streamlining the certification approval process.  For example, we have begun to develop improvements to how we use data developed by an avionics manufacturer when those avionics are being installed.  We would do this by using the data that the manufacturer has already submitted to obtain a Technical Standard Order authorization.  This will reduce the amount of work required for the installation in the long run.

Post Task Force Follow-Up:

Finally, the Task Force recommends that to maintain the momentum created over the past seven months and to facilitate holding the community consensus intact through the implementation of the recommendations, the FAA should establish institutional mechanisms to facilitate continued transparency and collaboration.

As noted above, the FAA intends to conduct our follow up through the ATMAC, in order to ensure continued industry collaboration.  Many of the same people who serve on the ATMAC were part of the Task Force, and we look forward to their continued contributions to implementation.

As we move forward with examining and implementing the Task Force’s recommendations, we welcome Congress’ continued interest in and oversight of our work.  Both Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt have committed to moving NextGen forward to heighten safety and maximize efficiency throughout our national airspace system, and we intend to see that commitment through.

Chairman Costello, Congressman Petri, Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes our prepared remarks.  We look forward to answering any questions that you may have.