SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1999
Wednesday, March 4, 1998.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)
WITNESSES
KENNETH R. WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
GLORIA J. JEFF, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
ANTHONY R. KANE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
RICARDO MARTINEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
PHILIP RECHT, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. WOLF. Welcome, both of you, to the committee. Your full statements will appear in the record as if read. You can proceed in whatever way you think is appropriate, but it might be better to summarize, but whatever way you would rather go, that would be fine too.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'd recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Obey, for a statement or comment.
Mr. OBEY. No.
FHWA Opening Remarks
Mr. WYKLE. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the Federal Highway Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget.
Joining me this morning is Ms. Gloria Jeff, the Deputy Federal Highway Administrator and Mr. Anthony Kane, Executive Director.
I'm also a strong proponent of empowerment, therefore I have other members of the Federal Highway Administration staff with me to elaborate on various aspects of our budget request as may be appropriate.
Mr. WOLF. That's a good way of putting it. [Laughter.]
Overview
Mr. WYKLE. As you have indicated, sir, I'll submit the full statement for the record and I will summarize my statement.
Last month, the President submitted his fiscal year 1999 budget to the Congress, a budget that is in balance for the first time in 30 years and ends deficit spending three years ahead of the schedule envisioned in last year's budget agreement.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Within this context, the Department of Transportation's proposed budget for fiscal year 1999 invests in the Nation's future at a historic level, 42 percent higher than the average spending in the first four years of this decade.
Secretary Slater appeared before this committee yesterday and provided an overview of that budget request. His testimony outlined five strategic goals for building an integrated transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life for the American people, today and into the 21st century.
The Federal Highway Administration budget that we are proposing today is built solidly around those strategic goals and meets the challenge to maintain a safe, high quality, intermodal transportation network.
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
Our budget proposes a Federal-aid highway obligation limitation of $21.5 billion, a continuation of fiscal year 1998's record level. In addition, a total of $250 million is proposed for State infrastructure banks and a new transportation infrastructure credit enhancement program. These funds will provide financing alternatives to help launch projects sooner by attracting private and non-federal public investment.
SAFETY AS A PRIORITY
Our budget request strongly supports transportation safety, which Secretary Slater has stated is the Department's highest priority. Working with Administrator Martinez and our other partners in highway safety, we have stated an aggressive goal of reducing the number of highway-related fatalities by 20 percent in 10 years and during the same period, also reducing the number of highway-related injuries by 20 percent.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our reauthorization proposal highlights safety as a national priority. It provides new incentives and increases flexibility among other highway programs to address national and State priorities. Our reauthorization proposal includes a major research focus within the intelligent transportation system program for the development and testing of intelligent vehicle systems that promise dramatic improvements in safety.
The Federal Highway budget request also includes $100 million for motor carrier safety. These funds will support a results-oriented commercial motor vehicle safety program. Over 80 percent of the funds will be used as grants to States for the implementation of comprehensive, nationwide, performance-based safety programs. The funds will also support national information systems and analysis and development of new systems to support critical safety initiatives such as the Commercial Vehicle Information System.
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT
We have also proposed increased funding for programs which support the advancement of technological innovation. Our fiscal year 1999 budget recognizes that a strong Federal transportation research and technology program is not a tradeoff with infrastructure funding but is a powerful tool to ensure that innovation is incorporated into the multibillion dollar infrastructure program.
Technology advancement is essential to support the Nation's infrastructure needs and this budget includes funding to deploy innovative technology from which travelers will benefit on a daily basis.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMON SENSE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
And, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, underlying this Federal Highway Administration budget is a philosophy of common sense management that allows us to meet mission changes and develop the agency work force which will provide leadership for meeting the transportation challenges of the 21st century.
Even as we significantly streamline our agency, in fiscal year 1999, we will make our final reduction and staffing levels to meet our national performance review target ceiling. This culminates an almost 12 percent reduction in staff since 1993. We will also take the first steps in the implementation of our field restructuring plan with the elimination of our nine regional offices and the establishment of four resource centers to be staffed by program and technical specialists.
Since my appointment as Federal Highway Administrator in November, I have reviewed in depth the work of an agency task force appointed to evaluate our field structure and after consulting with the FHWA leadership team, we have selected a course of action.
With the support of the Secretary and other modal administrators, we are moving forward with the implementation planning that will be necessary to get us to the desired end state. In completing this restructuring, we will make every effort to minimize the impacts on our Federal employees.
During fiscal year 1999, we will begin operating with four resource centers on a virtual basis until all necessary restructuring actions have been completed. Even though we are slightly behind the schedule originally envisioned, you have my assurance, Mr. Chairman, that I am fully committed to completing this restructuring of the Federal Highway Administration.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
REAUTHORIZATION
Finally, while the Appropriations Committee completed their work for fiscal year 1998, reauthorization of Federal surface transportation programs is still pending before Congress. As the Secretary stated yesterday, early action on reauthorization is essential if we are to avoid severe impacts to the traveling public and the highway construction industry, as well as the operation of Federal agencies, including FHWA and NHTSA.
States' ability to obligate Federal aid highway funds terminates at the end of April. And the extension act passed last year by Congress only allows States to obligate $9.7 billion of the $21.5 billion ceiling for fiscal year 1998. This means an estimated $11 billion could be left on the table.
Perhaps the foremost impact of delayed reauthorization lies in the area of highway safety. By this summer, the Federal Motor Carrier Program will cease to operate. States will be forced to begin laying off safety investigators. The National Driver Register, which is critical to identification of problem drivers, will be shut down. This will create an immediate and significant impact on highway safety.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, as we look to the future, we have set high goals in our strategic plan that forms the basis for our fiscal year 1999 budget request. We look forward to working with the Congress to achieve these goals. We would be pleased to address any questions you may have following Administrator Martinez' statement.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement and biography of Kenneth Wykle and biographies of Gloria Jeff and Anthony Kane follow:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
NHTSA Opening Remarks
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Wykle.
Dr. Martinez.
Dr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Wolf, I actually have a short statement but I will summarize that.
Mr. WOLF. You're welcome to give the whole statement. That's fine.
Dr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and the members of the Subcommittee today. I want to thank this Subcommittee for the bipartisan support we've received for our programs and our safety mission.
With me today is Phillip Recht, Deputy Administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Right behind me is my leadership team. It has been a strong reason for our success in the past few years.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, transportation safety is Secretary Slater's number one priority. The Department's fiscal year budget proposes a record investment in safety as a direct reflection of Secretary Slater's commitment to improve transportation safety, an 11 percent increase over fiscal year 1998.
NHTSA BUDGET REQUEST
NHTSA is requesting an investment of $406 million, an increase of 22 percent from fiscal year 1998 funding, to address the highway safety challenges which I will outline further.
I do want to say that I'm pleased with the bipartisan support we've had working together under your chairmanship and we've made great strides in highway safety. When I first came here several years ago, you didn't know us as well as I wanted. We came up with a lot of ideas and a lot of new ways to do things, and I appreciate the fact that you all invested in us. I think we have made a lot of significant responses to that.
The strategies are now realities. We launched a new presidential initiative on safety belt use with a broad coalition of public and private partners that is growing rapidly. We have held intermodal Moving Kids Safely conferences to improve the traveling safety of our Nation's children. We've moved them from Washington, D.C. to the regions. We've now held 22 conferences intermodally.
We've distributed over 30,000 Protecting Your Newborn videos to organizations, including videos in Spanish. Ford Motor Company has distributed another 110,000 as part of our partnership efforts.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We've expanded the Safe Communities Injury Control Program which originally had a goal of 50 in 5 years. We now have over 350 sites, developed in the past 2 years. Our goal is 600 by the end of 1999.
We created a Crash, Injury, Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) that brought together seven trauma centers and linked those to create not only detailed hospital-based data on car crashes, but creates a strong link between the medical engineers and researchers. We're sharing that information with researchers and engineers in Detroit and around the world.
We initiated a multiyear project to field test the prototype of the Automatic Collision Notification System and we've proven that concept. We brought new partners into that, including EMS, police and fire services and medical services around the country.
We've issued several key air bag rulemakings to deal with the most significant safety problems associated with air bag deployment while preserving the overall safety benefits.
We've issued rulemakings improving protection for head injury. I'll just mention that some of the underride for trucks also comes on line this year.
We continue research on key vehicle safety initiatives such as light duty vehicle compatibility, advanced air bags and rollover. We've redesigned our programs with the States to focus on performance partnerships, which has really energized some of the participants in those programs. We think this has led to significant changes in how we do business with the States.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have developed new incentive programs through our NEXTEA legislation to focus on national priorities such as seat belt use and impaired driving. The seat belt use initiative, as you can see, has become a departmental priority.
Through our strategic planning, we have modernized the agency in terms of improved communications and information technology; we've streamlined our processes; we've improved the skills of staff through training and education; and we have strengthened our staff to create a well-trained, diverse staff to meet the needs of tomorrow.
As you know, we are in a challenging safety environment. We have an aging population and a growth of second baby boomers. By increasing diversity in these groups, we have to reach hard. We've had a flattening of some of our successes over the years which is one reason we wanted to change our approach.
We believe that we are in an opportune position now by having reached out to new partners and creating new programs to move the ball even further. Our budget request reflects that, and also reflects the fact that highway crashes constitute 94 percent of all transportation-related fatalities, and 99 percent of all the injuries, as well as $150 billion in societal costs. We think it is a modest investment in our Nation's effort to provide safe transportation and reduce health care costs.
Our request includes the following: increased funding for the recently launched President's Initiative for Increasing seatbelt use; funding for the President's Initiative on Drugs, Driving and Youth; expanding the number of safe community sites to 600 in 1999, and with that, significant training for individuals who are in those programs so that they can continue to energize and mobilize resources in their own communities. We will train the people to keep the program going.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Funding is also requested to implement successful partnership strategies in Partners for Progress, which is geared toward alcohol-related injuries, funding to investigate car crash compatibility between light trucks, vans and passenger cars; to study advanced airbag systems; to conduct special crash investigations into the second generation air bags; and to expand the number of CIREN sites to seven, to increase our knowledge of injuries, biomechanics and the kinematics, of car crashes.
We are requesting a substantial increase in the Section 402 Program—64 percent of the funding we're requesting actually goes to our partners in the States to help others participate, not only at the State level but at the local level, in these national initiatives.
I do want to share that it is a real pleasure and opportunity to appear with Kenneth Wykle, the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, and Gloria Jeff, his deputy. We continue to maintain a close relationship with the Federal Highway Administration which continues to get better, not only at the national level, but also at the regional level.
Today we've introduced programs and initiatives to effectively address the Department's number one priority of safety. A lot of work at the local level such as the red light running campaigns, speed enforcement programs, and aggressive driving programs, as well as initiatives dealing with children's issues.
CONCLUSION
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support, and Mr. Sabo, for your support. We're very optimistic about our progress so far. I know we have more interest in our programs, but we look forward to working with you and your wonderful staff throughout the year.
[The prepared statement and biography of Ricardo Martinez and biography of Philip Recht follow:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
REDUCTION OF BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL
Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much, Dr. Martinez.
I know Mr. Obey, the Ranking Member of the full committee, has another hearing which I wish I could also attend but I can't so I will recognize him and then we will go back and forth.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I didn't expect that.
I don't have any questions. I would simply like to make a comment to both these gentlemen. I wish I could have made it yesterday when Mr. Slater was here, but I was otherwise occupied.
I simply would like to most strongly disassociate myself from one initiative that this Administration is undertaking. Wisconsin has been for many years a donor State when it comes to highway money. When I was first elected to Congress, we got about 67 cents back for every dollar we sent to Washington. Through the years, we've been able to change that to the point this year where we were almost at $1. Now the Administration budget would set our State back significantly with respect to that issue.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Administration's announcement yesterday with respect to blood alcohol level would also, in my view, threaten to set back my State even further.
As you know, the President announced an initiative which would suggest that if a State does not reduce its blood alcohol level to .8 percent, it would experience a withholding of 5 percent of certain highway programs, rising to about 10 percent withholding, I believe, down the line.
I have no problem with the Administration going after drunk drivers. My grandfather was killed in an accident involving a drunk driver, but I want to say that I most strenuously object to the narrow nature of the Administration's attack on drunk drivers.
I would simply draw to your attention a few facts. There are a lot of ways that you can attack the drunk driving problem. One is to lower the blood alcohol level. If you want to determine which States are tough on drunk drivers and which aren't, another way is to take a look at the amount of fines, the dollar level of fines that are levied on someone who is a drunk driver. Another is to examine the amount of jail time that is required if you're convicted of drunk driving.
We had two legislators in the Wisconsin legislature last week introduce legislation which would provide for a ten-year jail period for a repeat offender. I'd say that's pretty tough.
Another way to examine whether or not a State is tough or lenient on drunk driving is to examine the quality of required counseling and the toughness of probation activities associated with our treatment of drunk drivers.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I simply want to say, I, for one, very strongly disagree with the Administration picking out one specific target as deserving of reductions in State highway aid. I would say its decision to do so only strengthens my view that the proper way to get out of the entire silliness which is accompanying the way Congress is dealing with highways in general is to support the Kasich bill which would simply turn the revenues back to the States and let them run their own highway programs, with the exception of a tiny set aside to meet a few Federal responsibilities.
I guess I'm distressed when I see a public relations effort such as we saw yesterday aimed at the right target but I think very quaint in terms of the weapons it selects to go after that target.
I'm also disturbed by the fact that the Congress apparently is going to put concrete ahead of kids by deciding that despite the budget caps last year, we're going to bust those caps in order to pass the Authorization Committee's highway bill or at least you're going to see them take a good many billions of dollars away from education and other high priorities to fund additional highways.
I don't think the Congress or the Administration has exactly covered itself in glory in terms of the thoughtfulness of its approach to transportation issues. I simply wanted to get that off my chest. My real argument is with the White House, although I'm sure that you fully support their proposals.
For what it's worth, which is probably not much, I simply wanted to make that statement and I thank the Chairman for his time.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IMPACT OF REAUTHORIZATION DELAY
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Obey.
Little more than three weeks remain before the expiration of the temporary extension, of the short-term highway and transit reauthorization. What will be the major impact on ongoing and planned highway construction after May 1 should the Act not be reauthorized by that time?
Mr. WYKLE. From the standpoint of highway construction, the impact on the States, it's certainly varies by State because of the way they have managed or accumulated the money. We have done some surveys to try to get a feel of the general impact across all of the States if this happens.
Some of the initial information we have received shows that if there is a delay until the end of June, as an example, there will be approximately 1,400 projects valued at about $2.5 billion that will be deferred or delayed.
If it goes as far as July 31, then we will have another 1,450 projects delayed at about $2.6 billion. For each billion dollars in highway construction funds, that equates to about 42,000 jobs, about 10,000 of which are directly related to on-site construction work. Approximately 20,000 of those are indirect, off-site type jobs.
So you can see a delay will have a significant impact on the construction programs and projects in each of the States, as well as on the economy and the jobs aspect. If you go beyond the construction, as I mentioned in my statement, there is a significant impact on safety also.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
IMPACT OF REAUTHORIZATION DELAY ON SAFETY PROGRAM
Mr. WOLF. What will be the impact on the highway safety program should the reauthorization not be enacted by May 1?
Mr. WYKLE. Well, first of all, the programs are already being scaled back.
Mr. WOLF. How are they being scaled back?
Mr. WYKLE. In terms of FHWA travel, the extent to which safety personnel we can go out into the field and some locations.
Mr. WOLF. Actual programs have been canceled or trips have been canceled?
Mr. WYKLE. Right. Trips have been canceled or delayed to try to consolidate with other trips to make maximum efficiency of the funds that are available. States primarily fund their own motor carrier safety inspectors through this program, so that program will cease about the end of June.
The reason I say that is we have made management decisions to stretch our funds to some extent. There will be a lapse in term of inspectors available to the States to actually conduct inspections and a significant impact in terms of the National Driver Register shutdown, which is the automated system that provides the States information on who the problem drivers are based upon accident incidence and those types of things, so you know who to target through your safety inspection. It will potentially have a devastating impact on the safety program if we go past the early summer.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Dr. Martinez.
Dr. MARTINEZ. We have a very similar situation. We just met with the governors' representatives to discuss this issue on Monday. What happens is two things. One, the States are not creating new programs and projects that are major initiatives because of the fact they do not have funding for the entire year. Two, within the region in their States, they are also decreasing their travel monies and other activities in order to maintain maximum money for programs. Once the money is gone, they will begin to cut programs.
We believe they will begin to shut down their operations somewhere around the beginning of June, and our field operations will have to be shut down as well.
Mr. WOLF. What options do States have to avoid project disruptions in their highway construction program? Can they advance State funds on Federal projects or use their own money?
Mr. WYKLE. They can. That's why my initial comment indicated it varies State by State. Some States are advancing construction in terms of providing funds to do that. Others are taking some money from their State allocation, if you will, kind of ''betting on the come'' that later in the summer at the latest, there will be a reauthorization and they will get the Federal funds to reimburse the State funds.
Mr. WOLF. Do they have that option with highway safety?
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. MARTINEZ. I don't know of them having the ability to do anything other than postpone the beginning of some projects or programs. Again, I'm finding that since they don't have enough funding for the whole year, those State programs would be much smaller.
Mr. WYKLE. It's my understanding that the States do not have much flexibility in terms of transferring their own funds to safety.
Mr. WOLF. Would you say a lengthy delay could actually be a safety issue then?
Mr. WYKLE. Yes, it would be a safety issue.
IMPACT OF REAUTHORIZATION DELAY ON AGENCY OPERATIONS
Mr. WOLF. What would be the impact on salaries and expenses for the Highway Administration and NHTSA should there be no reauthorization?
Mr. WYKLE. In terms of the Federal Highway Administration itself, when we got our six-month allocation, the FHWA leadership team made some management decisions in terms of trying to project when we might have reauthorization. It was our feeling that we would not have it by March 31 and therefore, we made decisions to really cut back on travel, to not fill vacancies as they occur through people retiring, to keep movement of personnel in terms of reassignments to an absolute minimum and only fill critical positions.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As an example, we've talked to GSA about getting our rent on credit to extend our capability to pay the salaries a little bit longer. We have the same thing with our information systems running on credit until the early summer time period to be able to pay our salaries longer. We've delayed research and development type work, no new starts, continuing at a minimum level in terms of what we're doing, made some delays in the intelligent transportation system earmarks in terms of actually allocating funds for those.
We made those types of management decisions to be able to extend our salaries and to keep our operations up and running until about the end of June or soon after. If we don't have something at the end of June, then we face furlough of our employees.
Mr. WOLF. What happens at the end of June?
Mr. WYKLE. At the end of June or soon after, we basically shut down.
Mr. WOLF. Can you elaborate a little bit on what that means?
Mr. WYKLE. Sure.
Mr. WOLF. I know what it means, but just for the record.
Mr. WYKLE. It means, in essence, that we furlough our employees on or about the end of June. The reason I'm giving it that way is because we're running on credit in some areas, so we'll just have to see.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. You're already running now on credit because you've asked GSA?
Mr. WYKLE. No. We will be for the third quarter. We are not actually running on credit yet, but to extend to the 30th of June with our salaries, we will be running on credit soon.
Mr. WOLF. So if the Congress were to go home for the July 4th recess without dealing with this, what would we see at the Federal Highway Administration?
Mr. WYKLE. We would do our best to actually stop travel, to delay absolutely all movements, take any of those critical type steps to perhaps squeeze out another couple weeks or another pay period. Beyond that, we go into the furlough mode which means we shut down our division offices, our region offices, as well as headquarters. It means we do not reimburse the States for funds they have obligated on projects. All those accounting type functions would stop.
So in the June–July time period is when this will occur. I can't give you an absolute date because we're doing everything we can from a credit standpoint to stretch it, but in that mid-summer time point is the critical point at which we will start to furlough and shut down operations. All the safety inspectors come off, as I mentioned before.
Mr. WOLF. Do all the State highway departments know that this?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WYKLE. They do, yes, sir. We have talked to them and we've also talked to the AASHTO State organization. They are very concerned about that. I think they've been making visits on the Hill to make sure their members know the potential impact of delay in reauthorization.
Mr. WOLF. Dr. Martinez.
Dr. MARTINEZ. It's very, very similar at NHTSA. We think by the end of June we will need to have layoffs for not only our headquarters staff that oversees the regional offices, but also the regional offices themselves. It greatly undermines our effectiveness, because a lot of our programs have been national leadership as well as local activities. It would stop the momentum of the great critical mass we've just recently achieved in implementing these initiatives.
I do think it has a very strong effect on safety and our ability to continue to implement these programs into the local environment.
IMPACT OF REAUTHORIZATION DELAY ON AUGUST REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. WOLF. In the past, the August redistribution has ensured that 100 percent of the Federal aid obligation limitation was obligated. Could we find ourselves in a position this year that because of the delay in enacting a final bill, some of the fiscal year 1998 obligational authority could lapse?
Mr. WYKLE. It certainly depends upon how late we get the reauthorization. I think if we get reauthorization by the end of July or early part of August, then it will have a minimum impact. Certainly if it occurs after the first or second week in September, we're in new territory; we haven't been in this situation before, but I think it's reasonable to assume yes, we might be unable to obligate all of the money.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We're doing as many things as we can in terms of being prepared, in terms of statements of work, preparing the contracts, getting ready to go out with the requests for proposal in the States and so forth, so they'll be leaning forward, but certainly the later you get in the year, the more difficult it becomes.
Let me ask Tony if he wants to elaborate on that?
Mr. KANE. You mentioned advanced construction earlier, Mr. Chairman, and a number of States have real significant amounts of advance construction which can be converted very easily and be able to make use of obligation ceilings.
We would closely work with each of the State DOTs on their programs so that at whatever date we do get reauthorization, we would be forecasting through the end of the fiscal year work in terms of redistribution and really make it a goal to utilize all those funds.
Advance construction will help a lot of the conversions and using the obligation ceiling, even if it's late in the year.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Sabo.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) ADVANCES
Mr. SABO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I'm not sure how we get out of this dilemma but it clearly is Congress' fault if we don't get the ISTEA currently extended in some form. We're way beyond expiration of the original law and we should have acted, and what happens, I don't know.
Let me ask this question. Clearly as we look to the future in increasing road demands, we are not likely to significantly expand size of roads in this country. Rather, we have to focus on greater efficiency of existing infrastructure to move people.
One of the ways we're trying to do that is intelligent vehicle systems. How are they working? What progress are we making in terms of expanding capacity and hopefully make the road safer at the same time?
Mr. WYKLE. As you're aware, sir, we have some model programs with intelligent transportation systems.
Mr. SABO. I guess I called it the vehicle systems. It should be transportation systems.
Mr. WYKLE. A variety of areas there, but first to address intelligent vehicle initiatives. We're working on such things as intelligent cruise control to avoid rear end collisions as an example, and other types of technology to prevent those collisions. We're working on such things as view enhancers to help older drivers be able to see better, also to be able to see better in terms of reduced vision type conditions—fog, rain, those types of things; looking at sensors for heavy vehicles so they can identify other vehicles that are in their blind spots alongside their trailers.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All of these technologies are available today. The challenge is bringing those to market and where they are cost effective from the standpoint of the industry itself and putting them on their vehicles. I think technology and the intelligent vehicle initiative has great potential to reduce the number of crashes.
In the past, we've certainly put a lot of emphasis on protecting the passenger with seatbelts, air bags, rollover protection, those types of things. We've done a great job of that.
Now we're focusing on avoiding the crash to prevent vehicles from running off the road, to prevent them from running into the vehicles in front of them, to identify things in the blind spots. All these types of initiatives hold great potential for reducing the number of crashes and then improving the safety and reducing the number of fatalities.
Intelligent transportation systems go far beyond that. I'd be happy to elaborate if you'd like.
ITS INCIDENT RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY
Mr. SABO. How much progress do you think we're making in increasing the capacity of the existing roadways?
Mr. WYKLE. We have some initial data where we have put in intelligent transportation systems to include traffic operations centers as an example, where we have video out around the highways to quickly identify incidents when they occur, also trying to integrate that with law enforcement activities and agencies—the police, the emergency response vehicles.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So it improves response to incidents and clearing those out of the roadway as much as 30 percent.
In terms of commuting time, naturally there are lots of variables, but from 8 to 15 percent improvements in commute time can be made through better traffic management, better management of the highways, so we're getting those types of improvements and additional capacity out of the existing system through intelligent transportation systems.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Martinez, are you following what's going on with technology?
Dr. MARTINEZ. We're very involved. I have just a couple of things to add to this.
We're making cars and we're making people travel a lot faster than we are making roads. In the last 10 years, for example, we've seen about a 1 percent increase in roads; we've seen about a 35 percent increase in the number of miles traveled. So the question of how to use the roads more efficiently is really part of the old ITS program.
There are things such as electronic tolls—paying tolls automatically—which decreases the amount of time you have to stop. Also traffic management, looking at intersections for intermodal transportation, so that you can control the traffic a lot better globally, with some of the systems in place.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our greatest focus has been really on precrash—avoiding the crash to begin with and then also after the crash—which is an area we've added to the ITS program, and is now integrated into the ITS structure.
Before the crash occurs, things such as hazard identification, gives people early warnings. If you get an extra second warning, for example, of a hazard ahead of you, you may be able to take avoidance maneuvers and avoid a crash. Crashes increase congestion flow and decrease the consequences of driving.
Mapping services and information services are also being installed in cars faster and faster. We're looking for ways to make sure that these devices enhance driving and don't distract from driving ability, but provide faster routes.
For example, when I was in Atlanta during the summer Olympics, I rented a car that allowed me to punch into the computer by global positioning where I needed to go. I was new to Atlanta for driving. I could get the information two ways, the most direct route or the fastest route. The system then looked at what the traffic was on the highways and rerouted me so that I avoided congestion by driving alternate routes.
We have the ability to get that information to people and use our roads more efficiently, so that congestion is mitigated.
Things that have been mentioned by Mr. Wykle such as automatic cruise control and other devices that enhance the driving experience are, I think, going to occur from the vehicle side first. It is easier to put devices in vehicles than to build the road infrastructure, this takes a little bit longer. So we're working very strongly to look at devices that can create collision avoidance.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After the crash is an area we've really focused on the last few years. That is, when a crash occurs, trying to get automatic collision notification. We started the program several years ago that when a crash occurs, it sends a signal to the local emergency medical services system.
We've now done proof of concept of that program in Buffalo, New York. As we've been testing, we've created a large coalition to help build the infrastructure to make this a reality. That is currently an area that we put into ITS several years ago, but is growing because the coalition of individuals views it as another opportunity.
I think there is a lot of promise. You'll also see in addition to the infrastructure we're developing, the ability to implement tracking systems to help with fleet management and delivery of products and services in a more efficient way, given the roads and conditions of existing roads.
I think there is a lot to be gained from this initiative.
Mr. SABO. Thank you.
RURAL ITS INITIATIVE
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Cramer.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I listened with interest to your information. What is the rural initiative?
Mr. WYKLE. Some of the things we're doing in the rural areas is traveler information type systems so that travelers can call in and get weather information, for example. We are also using GPS system (global positioning satellite) so that if there is an accident, then that vehicle can be located more quickly in terms of response from an emergency standpoint or law enforcement. Those are some of the types of things that are being done in the rural areas—tourist information type systems so tourists can call in and find locations and get information.
ITS DEPLOYMENT
Mr. CRAMER. Is that the plan or are you actually deploying that and using those or getting ready to because in your written statement you indicate that over the next 10 years, these initiatives will be deployed across the country. Are you using demonstration projects?
Mr. WYKLE. They are actually being done now and I have some data here in terms of freeway management—47 metropolitan areas are deploying ITS technologies. In terms of traffic signal control, 70 percent more smart signals that stay green as long as there is not a vehicle coming to the cross street to keep traffic flowing better; electronic toll collection in 11 areas; electronic fare payment in 25; transit management in 38; emergency management in 63. So they are being deployed as we speak.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have personally visited the center down in San Antonio. I was with Senator Chafee about a week ago opening a traffic operation center in Providence, Rhode Island. There is one in Anaheim, California that I have personally visited, one in Colorado Springs that Deputy Administrator Jeff helped open just last week. So they are being opened as we speak, being deployed and being used.
Mr. CRAMER. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.
Before we go onto another subject, there was the case of the woman on the Dulles Toll Road or the Greenway, who was lost for a week. As I recall the accident, she went down into a ravine and the body and car were not found for a week. Is there something under ITS with regard to notification?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Yes. That is a system we're actually looking at, automatic collision notification.
AUTOMATIC COLLISION NOTIFICATION
Mr. WOLF. How would that work? Do you recall the case? It was out in my congressional district. She was missing for a week. The car had gone off the road down into a ravine where you wouldn't see it as you were driving by.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. MARTINEZ. We actually have a lot of technologies that have come to the marketplace, that would give us an opportunity to address that issue.
When a crash occurs, we look at a series of events that need to occur in order to get the right medical response. First, is the crash, then discovery. We're talking now about a long time lapse to discovery, then from discovery to notification.
Mr. WOLF. That discovery would not only be important in a case like that but also in a heavy congested area on the Beltway for the response vehicle to get there.
Dr. MARTINEZ. Let me map it out because there are different time frames. Discovery from the time the crash occurs—in a rural environment or even in areas that aren't that rural—but if you go off the road, you will not be seen late at night. Then there is discovery of the crash, so the clock starts ticking when the crash occurs.
From discovery to notification, right now we're in a change between a mobile system of communication from a fixed base. It used to be when someone was discovered, you had to go find a phone. Now, we're finding the phones can come to the crash site.
There is discovery, then notification, then access to care. The 911 system makes the process from notification, to access, to care fairly simple, because it directs the calls immediately to the right center, and then to dispatch, and sends it back to you.
In that particular case, what we're looking at is, when a crash occurs, the vehicle itself would send a signal that a crash occurred. The question is where does that signal go, while getting that signal to a 911 system so that resources can be sent out to shorten that loop.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We started that system several years ago. We have a program going on in Buffalo that has shown proof of concept.
AVAILABILITY OF GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEMS (GPS)
Mr. WOLF. Are they in any cars now? You mentioned the one you rented in Atlanta. Is that part of the GPS system and ITS?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Actually, you can buy them now. In most General Motors cars they are available with the On-Star System and Ford has a Rescue system.
Mr. WOLF. Is that packaged with regards to the crash?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Right. It has a GPS locator and it follows the signal. I've actually been in cars with them. I suggest you do it and listen to it. It's fascinating.
The threshold at this point in time is air bag deployment. Air bag deployment is the threshold for the system to know that there is a crash. We have a project looking at other mechanisms in order to look at side impacts, rollovers, and other crash modes.
That technology is coming into the marketplace pretty quickly. One of the wireless carriers is going to create the same system that will be put into your rearview mirror, and it will be hooked into the vehicle. You can buy the system separately and have it installed in your car.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Basically, those calls all go to an 800 number right now, and then operators call back. We're looking at ways to build the infrastructure locally. I think the system is already underway. What we're trying to do is create the system to make it fuse more rapidly into technology. We think that's going to happen.
Mr. WYKLE. Could I comment on this?
Mr. WOLF. Certainly.
INTEGRATING GPS WITH TRAFFIC OPERATIONS CENTERS
Mr. WYKLE. I certainly agree with Rick in terms of the technology being there. I think you put your finger on the right technology in terms of the global positioning system, and some of the luxury vehicles that are on the market today have those systems in them in terms of being able to identify specifically where the car breaks down or where it's involved in an accident or incident.
The real key, as Rick mentioned, is where does that information come back to. It is my belief that this intelligent transportation infrastructure we're putting in, the local system here in D.C. that you're familiar with in terms of information, the one I mentioned in San Antonio, and the others, that you need to have these GPS systems integrated where they report back to these operations centers. The key is the operations center not only for the management of the traffic, but also the incidents, and you have law enforcement agencies now being co-located in these traffic operations centers, traffic management centers—the name varies in the city as to what you call them.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we start to get this jointly manned center, then we integrate the technology——
ITS MODEL DEPLOYMENT
Mr. WOLF. Where are there any that are jointly manned?
Mr. WYKLE. At San Antonio, as an example. There is a law enforcement individual sitting right there.
Mr. WOLF. Because the one here is not.
Mr. WYKLE. The one here is primarily information, so they need to bring the law enforcement in there. Detroit has one, and Anaheim, California.
Mr. WOLF. Maybe you can give us a letter to that effect? I'd like to send that out to our people, Dave Gehr, the Virginia State Police, Fairfax County Police, to see if they may want to do that here.
Mr. WYKLE. In terms of the integration? Sure, we'll do that, sir.
CONGESTION PRICING-HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANES
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. On another issue that Mr. Sabo 's questions triggered, congestion pricing on roads. There's been some discussion, and I think Mr. Packard probably has one in his district, in which they sell the right-of-way on HOV lanes, not for people who are HOV.
Mr. WYKLE. Right. I'm familiar with it.
Mr. WOLF. How many are there in effect today; how successful has it been insofar as how many people have utilized it; how has it impacted on those who are on the HOV lanes because they had two or three in the car; and what is the cost?
CONGESTION PRICING PROJECTS
Mr. WYKLE. Sure. I'll call on my staff and ask for the specifics because I cannot give you the exact number that are in existence today but I know more and more States are looking at that—California, as an example, Orange County and down in the San Diego area, they are right now putting in some congestion pricing capability.
Mr. WOLF. Are they in HOV lanes?
Mr. WYKLE. They are in HOV lanes, yes.
Mr. WOLF. And not everyone pays?
Mr. WYKLE. Right now, three-person car pools on the Orange County facility, as an example, pay a reduced toll. Two-person carpools, or an individual, one-person car, if they want to use the lanes during high traffic volume time, then they pay the full toll. In San Diego, they're looking to change the price as often as once every six minutes, depending upon the density and capacity of that lane. So the jury is still out as to how effective that is going to be.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. What is the cost during the peak point?
Mr. WYKLE. They're looking at up to $2.00 to $2.25 for about 10 miles.
Mr. MARING. Currently, $2.95 on the SR91 in California, the LA area operated that for about two years. The San Diego one, I think they're looking to go higher than that but haven't yet.
Mr. WOLF. Is the San Diego one in operation?
Mr. MARING. It's currently in operation with a sticker system. They're going into operation similar to the SR91 with automated technology.
Mr. WOLF. Have they been successful?
Mr. MARING. The SR91 has been very successful. The one in San Diego modeling itself after the experience with SR91. They're going to have very dynamic pricing as the Administrator mentioned essentially every six minutes and the price will vary more widely.
Mr. WOLF. And that will end at the end of the peak hour, say from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.?
Mr. MARING. That's operating during the peak period.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WYKLE. And they will notify the driver far enough in advance through variable message signs that they can make a decision based on the price as to whether or not they want to pay 25 cents more.
Mr. WOLF. Are there others in the country? Are they the only two?
Mr. MARING. In Houston or, the Katy Freeway, they have allowed only car pools of three or more persons. They now allow two-person car pools to enter for a price.
Mr. WYKLE. Let us see if we can do a survey.
Mr. WOLF. If you could, I would appreciate it because the idea has been discussed around here.
Let me recognize Mr. Sabo.
HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANES
Mr. SABO. I'm just curious. Do you have any studies on HOVs on three versus two?
Mr. WOLF. We favor two, don't we?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SABO. We sure do. [Laughter.]
Mr. WOLF. The State of Virginia, for I–66, had HOV-four. Then we got it dropped to three. They would not drop it to two and Mr. Sabo was helpful and we adopted legislation which dropped it to two.
Mr. SABO. I'm just curious because my observation has been that HOVs make sense in theory but if you make them three people and just practicality, not many people seem to use it. Two seems more achievable, getting two people in a car rather than one has a major impact on congestion and on fuel efficiency.
Ms. JEFF. Mr. Sabo, we will provide you with the requested information in terms of studies that we have done. Some of the preliminary results have indicated that where there is a requirement in place by the State for two occupancy, in essence, they don't really reduce or increase the amount of car pool utilization because normally what happens is you end up with two occupants from the same household.
It is when you begin to get at the level of three or higher that you really begin to see any difference.
Mr. SABO. What's the problem if it's two from the same household rather than two using two separate cars?
Ms. JEFF. The difficulty is that in many cases where that's been seen, there hasn't been a substantive change in their already existing travel pattern. In other words, they were utilizing the same vehicle to start with, it hasn't changed anything. It hasn't significantly reduced the number of vehicles on the roadway.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SABO. My observation is three doesn't do much either.
Ms. JEFF. As I indicated, we've gotten mixed results depending on the volume and we'll provide that information to you. There have been mixed results on two and three.
Mr. WOLF. I agree with Mr. Sabo, I think that three is very difficult. You find people going to the dentist, going to the doctor's office, leaving early, leaving late, on vacation, particularly in an area like this with the travel that different people who work do and the HOV 2 has been, I thought, very, very successful on I–66 versus the three.
I would like to see that for the record. If you can just get it individually to Mr. Sabo and myself, so we can take a look at it, and also Mr. Cramer.
AUTOMOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
What about the safety impact of the built in car telephone versus the hand-held one?
Dr. MARTINEZ. You're asking about wireless communications?
Mr. WOLF. Yes. People picking up a telephone and talking on the telephone as they're driving versus having a phone up on the dash or a speaker whereby the driver has both hands to drive?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. MARTINEZ. We just released a wireless communications report looking at the overall issue of wireless communications, not just cellular phones, but also in-vehicle communications systems.
In the study, that received a lot of attention in the New England Journal about a year ago, they did not find any difference between hand-held or hands-free communication systems. We look at three types of distraction that occurs in these wireless communications—physical distraction which really has to do with trying to put in the number, or play with the phone while you're driving along; visual distraction, which is where you're looking, this raises the issue of where the information is, above or below the dash; and the third is mental communication. Interestingly enough, we find that mental distraction is different when you're speaking on a phone than it is for other things like radios, CD players and that sort of thing. We can't quantify these things because of the lack of data collected in the States. That's an issue we have to deal with somewhat separately.
For visual and physical distractions, we certainly have seen in many studies that placing the information up higher keeps you from having to look down and off the roadway. Interesting enough—I realized this as I moved to bifocals—the size of that information is getting smaller. They're making more options available, and are now talking about telematics, which is hooking up your car to the Internet and getting information.
This to us, was a very important issue to look into—how to get information to people. We actually have videotape of people trying to program their navigation systems and going from the right lane to the left lane and back without even noticing. So we're looking at that. One reason we're building a driving simulator is to help understand human vehicle interface much better.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The last issue is the physical distraction. Again, we think there may be more to hands-free versus hand-held. It only affects the physical aspect as opposed to the mental communications, which seems to be across the board.
In all three areas, we are working with not just the wireless communications systems, but with others to create the knowledge so that we can address these issues as this information is placed in the vehicles.
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS—DISTRACTION
Mr. WOLF. I think that is important to do, not so much from a regulatory point of view, but just to allow people to have that information. There are a large number of people on the GW Parkway that read the Washington Post on the way down.
It could be very dangerous to put the Internet in your car.
Dr. MARTINEZ. It's very interesting. Remember, cellular phones are not communications devices for conversation only, but you can also have paging communications systems, Internet and other access.
It's not just wireless that concerns us. The whole issue of distraction, these videos really—I should send you a copy. For example, we have a gentleman eating a doughnut as he's driving along. When he raises that doughnut with his hand, the whole wheel turns and he goes off the road and comes back. These are people who become acclimated to the fact that there are built-in cameras in their cars. We learned a lot about that human-vehicle interface and quite frankly, we seem to know more about the vehicle than we do about that interface. We're going to try to build the tools we need to address that human-vehicle interface.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DISCRETIONARY PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS
Mr. WOLF. In a review of five discretionary highway programs, GAO found that the Office of the Administrator uses a two-phase process for selecting projects to be funded under the discretionary highway programs.
In the first phase, Federal Highway Program staff compile and evaluate the applications that States submit for discretionary funding. In the second phase, the Office of the Administrator uses the information submitted by the program staff as well as others to evaluate the projects and to make the final decisions.
What criteria does the Secretary of Transportation or the Office of the Administrator in the Federal Highway Administration use to decide which projects will receive discretionary funding?
Mr. WYKLE. We've certainly taken a look at the GAO findings and their report and having looked at that, we believe certainly the Secretary was within his authority in terms of the decisions he made. It is a discretionary program.
I've held sessions with my staff talking about that report and the discretionary program, and what we can do to improve the process. We haven't decided on specific actions to take, but we are looking at such things as how far behind particular States are in terms of the fair share of previous money that's been passed out. We're looking at the percent of Federal land. For example, if it's a Federal lands type discretionary program in that particular State, we're looking at various objective type factors that we can use in giving us a start in terms of how to make the decisions.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also want to look at all of the discretionary programs as closely together as possible, so we can ensure an equitable distribution between regions and between programs. So while a State may not get one program they ask for, i.e., Federal lands, they may get a project in the bridge area. We're looking to ensure that there is equitable distribution across the programs, not necessarily within the individual programs.
Mr. WOLF. Geographic factors could actually work to a disadvantage. If you steer a grant to an area that has not gotten a grant before, you may give a lower value or cost-effective project funding over a more cost-effective project just to make sure there is geographic equity. So geographic considerations could have some problems.
Mr. WYKLE. Sure, and we have not decided yet. We're looking at those types of factors to try to determine that.
Mr. WOLF. I think you need fairness and integrity in the process that everyone can rely on.
Mr. WYKLE. Absolutely.
DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS ELECTION PROCESS—STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Mr. WOLF. How much weight does staff input carry in making the final determination?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WYKLE. I cannot speak for previous individuals, but from my standpoint, considerable.
Mr. WOLF. I should make it clear that this did not happen on your watch.
Mr. WYKLE. Right. That's why I said I can't comment on previous decisions.
Mr. WOLF. Why doesn't the Office of the Administrator document its criteria and methodology for selecting the projects?
Mr. WYKLE. Again, I can't comment on past practices, but that is one of the things we discussed in these sessions we have had, not only the criteria but then some type of a notation as to why a decision was made if it varies from the staff recommendations. There could be legitimate needs and reasons to do that.
Mr. WOLF. The next question was, how can the Office of the Administrator be held accountable for its selections if it does not document the basis and justification for the process of selection?
Mr. WYKLE. Right. We're looking at the entire process to review that and come up with a way to perhaps tighten it up.
Mr. WOLF. Do you know why the Office of the Administrator required staff to change the process they use to evaluate and rank candidate projects?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WYKLE. I don't know why they did, but again, I've looked at it from the standpoint, you can become very quantitative in terms of how you make the selection and that can really reduce the discretionary aspect of it.
Or you can group them into say best qualified, qualified and unqualified and then from those major groupings make selections based on criteria that the Administrator uses. So we're looking at reassessing the program in terms of making it more objective.
DISCRETIONARY PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS—GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT
Mr. WOLF. In the report, GAO reported under the current selection process as compared with the prior selection process, the Office of the Administrator selected a declining proportion of projects from the highest priority categories. There is a table here which you've seen in the GAO report.
What are the reasons for selecting the smaller proportion of staff priority projects and why has a change in the selection process been necessary at all? Why was it necessary to change it?
Mr. WYKLE. I can't comment in terms of why the process was changed.
Mr. WOLF. Maybe you can, without putting you on the spot, but ask somebody who is currently around in your office why. You can submit that for the record.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WYKLE. Sure.
[The information follows:]
The earlier process only provided the Office of the Administrator with staff views on a relatively small subset of projects which staff recommended for available funding. It was the desire of the Office of the Administrator to have staff views on all submitted candidates, unconstrained by the amount of available funds. This then allowed the Office of the Administrator to select projects from a broad perspective with staff views on each project. Because of the concerns expressed, the selection process is being reviewed to ensure that it is working well.
Mr. WOLF. In particular, do you know what the reasons are that half of the public lands projects selected for fiscal year 1997 funding came from the qualified category when there were so many other projects in the higher categories of most promising and promising?
Ms. JEFF. There are a couple of factors that had to do with it. One had to do with the fact that those programs have seen a substantial decline in the available dollars as well at the same time having significant amounts of increased demand. The size of the projects has also been significantly larger.
In an attempt to stretch the dollars as far as possible to increase the number of recipients associated with those particular programs, there were some changes requested of staff.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those are some of the reasons there were changes in the process.
Looking at the projects you specifically asked about, an effort was made in that program area to stretch the number of recipients and stretch those dollars to more effectively impact on a national program as opposed to projects in one or two States that would benefit from what is intended to be a national program.
Mr. WOLF. I'm going to recognize Mr. Olver, but I think it's important that you do something to assure the committee that the selection process does not result in the funding of poor or less cost effective projects and that the process has fairness and integrity. Everyone must look at it and feel very comfortable.
Mr. WYKLE. I'll assure you we will do that. As I mentioned, I'm currently reviewing that program right now and have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the criteria currently used versus what was used in the past versus the various breakouts, the different types of programs, trying to get a handle on that so we can make it as fair and objective as we can.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Olver.
Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My apologies for arriving rather late from another conflicting hearing.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Have we taken testimony from both?
Mr. WOLF. We have.
Mr. OLVER. May I speak to NHTSA then? Thank you.
Dr. Martinez, I can't remember, were you here last year?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. OLVER. Was I here last year? [Laughter.]
Mr. WOLF. I once heard someone say that just about when your face clears up, your mind gets fuzzy. [Laughter.]
CAFE STANDARD
Mr. OLVER. Is there any request for funding in this budget for research on the updating of the CAFE standard, particularly in relation to light trucks and the sport utility vehicles?
Mr. RECHT. Sir, there's just, if I recall, about $30,000 to maintain the basic recordkeeping functions. As you know, the Congress in the last two perhaps three years, has essentially prohibited us from changing that standard.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. MARTINEZ. We maintain a database, I think it's about $60,000, but in order to look at the long-term effects, we've asked for funding to do environmental impact studies and it has been denied over the past three years.
Mr. OLVER. We may have prohibited the standard so let's ask the question. We should never be afraid of the research, should we, the research that would be necessary for decisionmaking somewhere along the way? So the question of whether or not research is being done on whether we can create vehicles that are more efficient and what the safety aspects of the present circumstances, are we prohibited from even asking for money to do research?
Dr. MARTINEZ. No, we do have a fairly large program, PNGV, which looks at alternative forms of better fuel economy.
PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES (PNGV)
Mr. OLVER. What is PNGV?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Partnership for A New Generation of Vehicles. Right now being discussed in the marketplace are some of these new types of vehicles. Instead of focusing just on the fuel economy with numbers, we're looking at alternative ways in which to dramatically increase fuel economy, but using different types of power supplies as it were, whether it be electric or fuel cells.
As those vehicles are being developed and actually come to market, you can buy some of these vehicles through lease programs. We are charged with the issue of safety for using alternative types of materials, which is different than the types of materials we've used in the past to look at crash simulations. Using lightweight aluminum and carbon fiber vehicles are examples. We're putting several million dollars into this program.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, we are continuing to look at the issues of size and safety, as well as compatibility and aggressivity issues. All of these issues factor into the different disparity in the fleet. We looked at that issue last year and released some information at last year's hearing about the issues of size and safety.
Mr. OLVER. So this would be research into the efficacy, feasibility of new power trains but without any reference to the CAFE standard itself?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Correct. The Partnership for A New Generation of Vehicles actually has some goals for fuel efficiency and fuel economy that are done through the partnership. These issues are not necessarily directly related to the legislative approach on CAFE.
I think it's worth noting that two years ago, the idea of a new generation of vehicles that got greater fuel efficiency was under discussion. Now I think you're seeing these vehicles being seriously considered for the marketplace.
VEHICLE COMPATIBILITY
Mr. OLVER. One of the real controversies on safety in relation to the sport utility vehicles and light trucks is the position at which bumpers in many of these vehicles come. They are closer to the windows of passenger vehicles in some instances or with the rear windshield than they are with the bumpers of passenger vehicles, which is leading to some serious kinds of consequences from a safety point of view.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tell me what you're doing in those areas?
Dr. MARTINEZ. We are, I think, moving very quickly and very far ahead on that issue. As you know, we studied the database analysis, which looked at these issues, and there was a lot of conjecture about what were the exact issues causing this compatibility problem. We will move it into full scale crash testing and share that research with an international dialogue which will occur this summer in June, in conjunction with the Enhanced Safety Vehicle (ESV) Conference.
Mr. OLVER. An international dialogue?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Basically do the research, by doing the crash tests, and then share that information and begin to better look at the issues of compatibility and structural issues, that can be addressed through design changes. For example, you talk about the issue of bumper height differences and how you change that, and what are the consequences of that.
We're finding there are some design issues and design solutions already in the marketplace that begin to look at those compatibility issues.
When you look at the aggressivity of one vehicle versus another based on how they're designed, we're finding if you take the issue of weight, some of those vehicles have the same weight, but how much damage they inflict varies considerably. We think there is a design issue there that needs to be better investigated.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we did the crash tests, we wanted to go into the mode of sharing the information with researchers from around the world to see if we can look at solutions that can be implemented in the marketplace rather quickly.
VEHICLE COMPATIBILITY—INFORMATION SHARING
Mr. OLVER. The sharing of information is related to all of the manufacturers of the type of vehicles, some of the manufacturers coming from a number of different countries?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Correct, and around the world. If you look at it, the marketplace for the sport utility vehicles and the vans and light trucks, really has expanded to most all manufacturers. So we want this be a broad-based invitation.
In addition, the ESV conference occurs every two years. It is the enhanced safety of vehicles, which is the biggest draw of engineering researchers on these issues that occurs in the world globally.
The last meeting was two years ago in Australia. At that point, we brought the researchers together to look at what the international research priorities should be. One of those priorities was the compatibility issue you mentioned. We're now two years down the road and we're looking at the research aspects of it with full scale crash testing.
We will meet again in June and bring the manufacturers to look at some of the design solutions that are being discovered.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SAFETY STANDARDS COMPATIBILITY
Mr. OLVER. In the past, it has been NHTSA that has put forward some of the standards in regard to seatbelts, airbags and crumple zones?
Dr. MARTINEZ. We do it.
Mr. OLVER. Well, in the past—so there's no question, or is there a question, that it's within your purview to deal with this and get expeditiously to the point of voluntary or regulatory consistency—to develop consistency in the construction so that we can avoid the kinds of troubles that we are hearing so much about recently?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Absolutely. That is actually within our purview. Our approach is to create the knowledge first to see what the possible solutions are, and then begin to implement those solutions through different methods including research programs and regulatory aspects, whatever it takes. Right now, we are at the point of creating knowledge. Most of the discussion has been about data bases, major studies, looking at large data bases. We can now move into the crash testing aspect of it. But I think we're making considerable progress. As a matter of fact, as you know, two of the manufacturers in America, have come out and talked about how they are going to work with their parts suppliers and their designers to begin to address these issues.
Several years ago, there was considerable debate as to whether or not there were design solutions that could be brought into the vehicles. We are finding that we're better off aligning all those resources and research the solutions rather than waiting for the regulatory process to play itself out. I think we are seeing considerable movement right now, to address the issues you've raised.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CAFE STANDARDS
Mr. OLVER. To go back to the CAFE standards, there is sort of an interweave here, in part. Is the achievement of a lower fuel efficiency standard—does that require a lighter vehicle, in your view?
Dr. MARTINEZ. Weight certainly plays a part in that. Some of the discussion has been the difference between weight and mass. And that's one of the reasons why the focus has been on new and different types of materials coming into the marketplace. One of our areas of research has been, to focus on how those new materials would play out in a crash scenario; in other words, can you keep the same size but change the weight by using different materials? And then, what are the safety implications. So we're looking at that as an approach to the PNGV program.
Mr. RECHT. If I could add to that also, Mr. Olver, there have been a number of car companies recently that have stated that they're going to introduce these hybrid vehicles that combine both gas and the General Electric engine, which will effectively increase gasoline mileage quite significantly. They are coming into the market in the next couple of years. Among the items that this PNGV program is looking at are those kinds of engines, as well as new technologies that might not simply involve reduction in weight, but all with the goal of achieving about 80 miles per gallon in these engines in the next five to ten years.
Dr. MARTINEZ. Let me give you an example of the current status of hybrid fuel cells. They are fairly heavy, but it may be that you end up with the same goal of decreased emissions. You are using a different power plant altogether, and over a period of time that efficiency may even get better as they make those cells smaller and smaller.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think the paradigm that we're looking at is a little bit different than just the pure focus on the target number for CAFE. It's gotten a little bit more complex now, because the power cells and the power plant that were in the discussion stage are actually now coming into being, so we actually have a different situation to deal with.
VEHICLE DESIGN ISSUES
Mr. OLVER. I guess you partly found where I was going to go next. Clearly, if you have a particular design of engine, weight will be a key factor, it will be a proportionate factor, although aerodynamic design of the overall vehicle may help you somewhat along the way in a relatively more minor way, I think. But I do remember on this point not so very long ago, we had prohibited you from dealing with CAFE standards, and then one of the Japanese companies came out with a different design, a totally different kind of engine, and instantly the American Big 3 said they would be in there competing within a year or two with their own design. So clearly they are capable of doing it, and I'm sort of wondering, here, whether we are on this issue of the sport utility vehicles and the misalignment and so forth, whether with your research—hey are going to end up responding to that more quickly than standards get set.
Dr. MARTINEZ. I would say that I am actually quite happy to see what you said about that—looking at environmental issues as being a challenge versus an opportunity. We've now seen a mindset where there is more focus on the opportunity as a competitive edge.
We are also seeing the same thing with the LTV issues. Now that we've raised that issue—the compatibility issue has been thoroughly discussed in the press—we are seeing some of the car companies already begin to move forward on this. As a matter of fact, the ESV conference, the international dialogue, is a joint project based on the desire to work cooperatively.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you look back a few years ago, everybody said, ''Well, it just doesn't make sense; there's nothing you can do.'' I think we're in a very different situation because we have continued to move forward on this issue to explore it as the honest broker. We are finding that there are things that can be done. We are gratified to see the industry saying, ''We're going to move ahead of you on that.'' We'd like to see more of that.
LIGHT VEHICLE ISSUES
Mr. OLVER. Well, but the research has to be done in either of these cases, whether it be the compatibility issue or whether it be the CAFE standard, which goes to the question of whether or not it has to be a lighter vehicle in order to get a more efficient vehicle, which I don't think is by any means true, not necessarily true. There are a bunch of different factors.
Dr. MARTINEZ. We are very blessed in having a lot more options now with these different power plants. I think the goal remains the same, to increase fuel efficiency.
Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to go on.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Cramer.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you would, please, Mr. Wykle, indulge me and give me some summary information about the FHWA research and technology programs, the funding level—we're holding the same funding level this year as last year.
How are those competitions—from the summary information I have in front of me, they are merit-based competitions. Can you tell me how many of those programs exist, how flexible that competition is, and what you think you're mainly accomplishing by those programs?
Mr. WYKLE. Let me ask Tony to comment.
Mr. CRAMER. Sure.
Mr. KANE. Our overall budget request in R&D is a combination of both contract authority in reauthorization, as well as the General Operating Expense (GOE) request, and it totals some $496 million in research and development and technology applications, of which about $250 million is ITS, a combination of both contract authority in reauthorization, as well as GOE and the appropriations process.
There is tremendous competition in the deployment areas. There will be competition, certainly, amongst geographic areas, the States, the municipalities, etc.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Most of our program is put out in a competitive way. We utilize a variety of contracting mechanisms, some using global procurement techniques where you have a variety of firms that come in, and then we are able to assign tasks on projects. But the entire program is really one of competition. Even in terms of deployment, we have competition among the geographic areas, the metropolitan areas and the States as well. But it's a wide program, covering the physical side of the program in asphalt, steel, and concrete; the operational tests; the environmental and planning areas, as well as policy research areas.
Mr. CRAMER. How many of the programs exist? Or can you supply me with that information?
Mr. KANE. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. CRAMER. I'd like to see that.
[The information follows:]
The FHWA R&T Program consists of a number of individual R&T programs. The following is a list of the larger individual programs.
Highway Research and Development: Safety, pavements, structures, environment, real estate services, policy, planning, motor carriers;
Intelligent Transportation Systems;
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Technology Assessment and Development;
Long Term Pavement Performance;
Technology Implementation Partnerships;
National Highway Institute;
Local Technical Assistance; and
Eisenhower Fellowships.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
Mr. CRAMER. And how long does a typical program last?
Mr. KANE. It depends on the nature of the research work. Some are multi-year, particularly when we're looking at new materials and new concepts. Others are very much application-oriented; it may be contract work, where you're just synthesizing existing work, or packaging up some technology that is already developed.
So again, a big range. And if you have an interest in knowing more depth than that, we can certainly go into that, as well.
Mr. CRAMER. I'd like to know more on that, including how they are peer-reviewed.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KANE. Sure.
[The information follows:]
The length of research and technology ''programs'' varies considerably, depending on how one defines ''program'' and on the nature of the work done. At the aggregate level, the programs are ongoing: we are continually doing work in pavements, safety, etc. At the next level down, the sub-items in the budget justifications such as pedestrian/bicycle work, etc., the programs are typically 3–6 years long. Within these programs, individual research, demonstration, training, or other efforts may be one or two years in duration. These efforts are oriented toward producing particular outcomes: a research question answered, demonstrations performed in a certain number of states, training developed and delivered by technical people, etc.
Regarding peer review, there are several means used. At the highest level, there are committees composed of customer representation (included technical people who can be considered peers) which provide a continuing, independent assessment on the overall direction and strategy of the FHWA research and technology program. The Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC), administered for FHWA by the Transportation Research Board, is the prime example of such a committee. Most recently, this committee visited FHWA's Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center to review the overall direction and specific research efforts at the Center. The RTCC will begin a similar review of the technology transfer activities of FHWA this month (March 1998). The Long Term Pavement Performance Program has its own committee and AASHTO has a Task Force on SHRP (Strategic Highway Research Program) Implementation.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the level of major portions of the R&T program (pavements, structures, safety, etc.) there are Research and Technology Coordinating Groups which develop the programs and elicit review from technical peers within FHWA (but not in the research or technology applications offices) and from outside of the agency.
Particular R&T initiatives arrange for peer input and review in various ways. The work FHWA is doing in high performance concert is led by a team of technical experts, including FHWA, academic, and industry experts who give input to the research and implementation. Technical Working Groups (TWGs) are another mechanism for getting technical peers involved in reviewing R&T work.
When particular research efforts give rise to published papers, these are peer reviewed in the same fashion that comparable papers are handled if they are published in peer reviewed journals.
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Mr. CRAMER. In your opinion, what kind of accomplishments have come out of those programs?
Mr. KANE. A wide variety. If you take a look on the physical side, for example, tremendous success in new materials, composite materials, particularly in bridgework; tremendous success on high-strength concrete, high-strength steels that are going to be much more effective in terms of life cycle costs. In terms of the ITS area, a wide variety of accomplishments, as we heard earlier in the day, everything from the vehicle to traffic control systems themselves.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the environmental area, tremendous success in terms of being able to model air quality, in wetland mitigation efforts; tremendous success in the economic analysis area, where we now know and are able to really pinpoint the relationships between highway investment and economic growth and productivity in this country.
Tremendous success in being able to simulate traffic flows in different cities, a project called TRANSIMS, will really allow us in the future to be able to do much better microsimulation of traffic and be able to answer policy questions, like, what if you raised the toll? What if air quality standards changed?
We have a report highlighting, in all of these areas, the kind of real benefits we've gotten out of this program, significant benefit costs on all of them.
Mr. CRAMER. How long has the program existed?
Mr. KANE. Really, since we have existed.
Mr. CRAMER. And there seems to be, as I can see it, a mix of industry, universities, State partners participating in the program?
Mr. KANE. Correct.
Mr. CRAMER. All right. Thank you. Any additional information you can give me, I would like to have.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KANE. We have a report that highlights and summarizes it, both for the past as well as a forecast. We'll get that to you.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
A copy of the 1997 ''Research and Technology Program Highlights'' report which covers the entire FHWA Research and Technolgoy Program has been submitted to the Subcommittee.
Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL COST CONTAINMENT
Mr. WOLF. Moving on to the Big Dig issue, GAO has reported that Massachusetts is not meeting the cost containment goals for construction on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, and that further cost increases seem likely. GAO also noted that these goals form the basis for the project's $10.8 billion cost estimate, and recommended that the State decouple the goals from the project's estimate and revise the estimate to be more realistic. Federal Highway has opposed this recommendation made by the GAO, but when the cost estimate was developed in 1995, Federal Highway issued a report that characterized the goals as overly optimistic and suggested to the State that they be set at a more conservative level.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since what Federal Highway predicted in 1995 regarding an overly optimistic cost estimate has come to pass, why would you oppose revising the cost goals now?
Mr. WYKLE. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to pass that one also to Tony. He is the one who is closely monitoring that. He goes to Boston on a quarterly basis to discuss their financial plan and the status of the project, so I'll let him go into the details on that.
CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL ESTIMATE
Mr. KANE. If we take a look at the current cost estimate, Mr. Chairman, the $10.8 billion, we really are in sync with both GAO and the IG on that. The issue is being able to forecast the future and what might happen, but for well over a year and a half now we have been in continual dialogue with both the IG and the GAO on this, and you will see in their reports it's mostly about forecasting what might happen in the future. But we all are in agreement on $10.8 billion, and we've been holding to that.
I think the real reason we've been holding to it is by trying to have aggressive assumptions about what the future is going to bring, and the biggest potential area that we're talking about is really the potential cost growth during construction. We're at a phase now where the project, as of the end of January, is—in terms of completion—96 percent completed in terms of design, 36 percent completed in terms of bills on construction. By the end of this year the bulk of the construction contracts will be let. The issue of cost containment involves working with those construction companies, value engineering efforts, of which we've had about half a billion in the last two years, efforts on insurance costs, efforts on utility costs, efforts on scope changes, and we're going to aggressively pursue them. But it is our feeling and the feeling of our partner, the State, that unless you keep an aggressive goal of cost growth during construction—and our goal was to try and make that no more than 7 percent. In the past it had been higher than that, and it's really speculation as to what might happen in the future. Anyone can make forecasts, and as we dialogue with the IG and GAO, it's more of ''what happens if,'' if you get cost growth on those contracts, what will happen. But we do have contingencies built in there in the sense that the State is fully committed to find any cost increases outside of the Federal programs. But we think, philosophy-wise, it makes sense to hold a tight forecast, and to do that you then aggressively worry about scope changes, you aggressively worry about value engineering.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The program that was put in place two years ago in terms of design-to-cost when we still had a number of the designs to still go meant that we did not change the forecast of $10.8 billion. In other words, it really forced lots of value engineering on the project to hold to that forecast.
So our belief is that the best way to attack this is to hold aggressive cost-containment goals and then do everything we can to meet them. If it slips a little bit, you've got to make it up. But rather than forecasting something bad or worse in the future, we might live up to that expectation.
So it's a philosophy, that if we hold tight in terms of our forecast, we will work much harder on cost containment methods. The debates and issues as we deal with GAO and others are forecasting what's going to happen in the future. But in terms of today's estimate, we are in line with them.
One thing we have been doing, and we have always done it in the past, is sharing much more information, even in terms of the finance plan that was recently approved on an interim basis, because as we look towards what's going to happen with reauthorization, we'll clearly have to modify that. We have been exchanging information far more frequently than we did in the past.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Mr. WOLF. Sure.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL FUNDING
Mr. OLVER. Do I understand what you say in there, that the Federal share is based upon the $10.8 billion, and that anything that goes above that if the goals are not met, the State either has to pay all of, or a greater portion of, or something? I certainly heard that somewhere.
Mr. KANE. Let me try to clarify it.
In terms of specific funding for that project, namely, coming out of the Interstate cost estimate approach, that money has been capped. The last money was in ISTEA; approximately $4 billion of the total cost is directed money in terms of Interstate completion. The remainder comes from utilizing a variety of categories of Federal Aid, as well as State resources.
As you look to the future, what I was really trying to indicate is that any growth in cost for which there is the inability to utilize Federal Aid categories in a fair way—because there was a commitment to have a solid Statewide program; that was one of the things we really worked with the State on over the last several years, so that there are various Federal Aid categories, whether it's surface transportation funds or NHS funds, they were not all dedicated to this project, but rather they had a fair State-wide program. But the State is committed, as you look to the future, if reauthorization doesn't bring the amount of revenue to Massachusetts that they might have gotten in ISTEA. They are fully committed to coming in with State resources. That's what I'm indicating.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In terms of special Federal funding for the project, that has ended. Interstate completion funding was the last item for that. ISTEA was the last payment on that, so approximately $4 billion of the total $10.8 billion comes from Interstate completion funds.
Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MASSACHUSETT'S STATEWIDE PROGRAM
Mr. WOLF. When Federal Highway approved the Central Artery/Tunnel Project's finance plan, Federal Highway officials said that they expected—as you just referred to—the State to continue its $400 million Statewide road and bridge program, exclusive of the Central Artery Project. But despite that commitment, the 6-year STIP that Federal Highway approved on September 30 of last year shows dramatic reductions in both the Interstate maintenance and CMAQ programs. In particular, Massachusetts would spend only $9 million in Interstate maintenance funds over the next six years. That appears to be almost no maintenance on the Interstate. Is that level of spending for Interstate maintenance and CMAQ in the 6-year STIP adequate? And how do you support a program with no Interstate maintenance for six years, to be considered balanced? The figure doesn't look right when I look at it.
Mr. KANE. We'll give more detail on that.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL—FEDERAL/STATE PARTICIPATION
Mr. KANE. My understanding, certainly, on utilization of Interstate maintenance funds is that they are being utilized in accordance with the needs.
One issue is obligation ceiling versus overall apportionments, as well. But the balanced State program is both Federal and State resources, and so as there was a commitment Statewide to have at least a $400 million program, that's a combination of both State resources as well as Federal resources to keep that balanced program.
Mr. WOLF. Well, what the chart shows is that they have $415 million, but they're only going to spend $9 million for maintenance. And with regard to CMAQ, they have $252 million and they're only going to spend $44 million.
Is the $9 million—maybe we're looking at this wrong—is the $9 million accurate?
Mr. KANE. I'll need to get back to you on that specific one.
[The information follows:]
You are correct, $9 million is the amount of Interstate maintenance in the STIP. However, as indicated previously, FHWA bases its decision primarily on the adequacy of Interstate maintenance on a ''results basis'', as opposed to a ''level of effort'' basis. Also, the STIP does not include all State funds, such as basic maintenance, and some are allocated on a more short term needs basis. Nor does the STIP reflect any of the funds for the reconstruction and maintenance of the entire length of I–90, Massachusetts Turnpike, from the New York State line to Boston, except for the major reconstruction of the current interchange within I–93 in Boston. Nevertheless, last year, FHWA did tell the State that we thought they may need to allocate more funds to the Interstate in the future, and they should reassess what is needed to maintain the conditions of the Interstate.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KANE. The numbers I recall are more on the overall Statewide program and the commitment that they have. But on the specific Interstate maintenance——
Mr. WOLF. If $9 million is the figure, wouldn't that be not enough to maintain the Interstate——
Mr. KANE. The answer is yes. I think another issue is going to be how much State resources are also there. But we would like to give you detail on those, on Interstate maintenance and CMAQ.
Mr. WOLF. Excuse me, go ahead.
CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL—FINANCE PLAN
Mr. OLVER. May I follow up on that one, too?
You're saying that the approved plan for funding by FHWA includes $400 million. How strictly could that be adhered to, or could that be enforced, that $400 million, aside from the idea that so little of that $400 million is anything like maintenance on the Interstates, which there are quite a few miles of Interstate.
Mr. KANE. The commitment in the finance plan is that the State will have at least a $400 million annual program. That's a combination of both Federal and State resources. The STIP itself is something that the State develops. I mean, the State has made that commitment; we have seen that they have lived up to that. In fact, in most years they have exceeded it in terms of a feeling of a balanced Statewide program.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A significant share of the regular Federal Aid category of funds is going to this project during the duration of the construction. And what we wanted to make sure, and what we had as a commitment in the finance plan, was that the rest of the State would not suffer. We looked at it in terms of a total combination of State program funds as well as Federal funds.
So we have seen that the State has put in their own State resources to ensure that there is at least a $400 million program Statewide.
CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL MAINTENANCE
Mr. OLVER. But that sort of begs the question, if they have $400 million that they're committed to, but you don't really have any underlying oversight as to what they put that to, that could lead to just not doing much on the Interstates, which might be left very inadequately covered.
Mr. KANE. Well, in terms of the Interstate maintenance funds themselves, the State, under current Federal law, can transfer up to 20 percent under the current rules that you have in ISTEA. Beyond that, they can only do it if they show that they have adequate maintenance of the facility in terms of performance measures on pavements and bridges.
Mr. Olver and Mr. Chairman, we need to get back to you with more details on that Interstate maintenance activity itself.
One issue that Massachusetts has, and a lot of States have, is that you don't have an obligation ceiling to cover all of the apportionments you have. States make choices as they do their multiyear Statewide program as to which categories of apportionments they are going to utilize because they only have a limited amount of obligation ceiling to use it for.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. JEFF. Maybe again just to restate, so that we're clear about the question that was asked, what you've indicated is that the account indicates that there is only going to be spent—the chart that you have—$9 million on Interstate maintenance. That does not necessarily represent all of the dollars that will be spent on maintaining the Interstate. There may indeed be State dollars associated with that. So you can't simply read that as $9 million. ''Interstate maintenance'' refers to a category of funding; it does not necessarily represent the total amount of funding available, or that will be spent by the State on the maintaining of Interstates outside of the Central Artery Project.
I think that in our response that we will try to provide to you is an answer as to how much is going to be spent on maintaining the Interstate as opposed to how much is being spent out of the category of funds being utilized, called ''Interstate maintenance.'' I'm assuming that's your concern as opposed to how much money in the category is being spent.
Mr. WOLF. Yes.
Mr. KANE. Federal funds and National Highway System funds, as well as the Surface Transportation Program funds, can be spent on Interstate.
Mr. WOLF. My sense is that 10 or 20 years from now, as you look back on this, you will see that things were not done in other parts of the State that could have been done or should have been done. It is a big sucking sound and a big drain, and obviously there is tremendous growth up north of Boston, up in the Marblehead area and south of Boston, different places like that, in the western part of the State.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But if you would just look at that.
Mr. KANE. Yes.
ADDITIONAL CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL—ADDITIONAL FUNDING NEEDS
Mr. WOLF. The GAO reported that the project may need additional funding, and you were mentioning it briefly, in part because Massachusetts is expecting Federal funding that is up to $1 billion less than the amounts in the reauthorization bills before Congress. Since the Federal Highway Administration has indicated that it does not support additional special setaside funds, as you were talking about, or Interstate construction funds, where do you expect that they will find the rest of the money?
Mr. KANE. The finance plan indicates a variety of sources. The Turnpike has already made a commitment to the project, and there is a potential for more Turnpike resources to go into it.
Mr. WOLF. Has that resulted in an increase in tolls on the Turnpike?
Mr. KANE. On the Metropolitan Highway System, there has been a toll increase, that's correct. This project will be incorporated—in fact, is incorporated—in the Metropolitan Highway System with the two existing tunnels that are already in Boston. So it's a combined system.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fuel tax, registration fees, a variety of State resources, but the commitment is there. And in approving the finance plan, Mr. Chairman, we have called for an update as soon as reauthorization comes in, so we will fairly soon have an update of that with, then, a recommitment of what those State resources would be.
CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL CONTRACTOR STAFF SUPPORT
Mr. WOLF. The IG's office indicated that they are troubled by the level of Bechtel people who are still working on the project. Given the fact that the final design, as you said, is 94 percent complete, and is scheduled to be substantially completed by the middle of this year, the IG indicated that there should be significantly fewer Bechtel folks there.
Why have contractor support staff levels not decreased? And are you taking any action to ensure that unjustified contractor support costs are not being charged back to the contract?
Mr. KANE. We are closely working with them. In fact, in the last quarterly meeting we focused on that issue. The amount of staff that they have right now is less than what they had forecast a year ago.
The shift is over into construction, however, and what the Bechtel-Parsons team is doing, they are also in charge of all the construction engineering. So they are out there right now at the active phase of construction, and you need to have that level of oversight. The Bechtel-Parsons team did do the preliminary engineering work. Most of the design work was put out to a variety of what are called ''section designers,'' but the need right now is on construction.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we have to carefully look at whether reducing Bechtel-Parsons staff has a negative impact in terms of construction oversight, because what they have done is switched staff from the designers to the construction side of the house. So we have to weigh that carefully. We will certainly discuss that and talk with the GAO and IG on that, because I think they would have as much concern as well, that you have good construction oversight. That's the place right now where you really have to worry about future costs. The future costs from now on are really cost growth during construction. The design issues are behind us. Scope issues, for the most part, are behind us. So we really have to be careful in these next several years to focus on the areas where you could have potential cost growth, and it has changed to construction. So we really need to focus closely on that.
At the same time, realize that it is clearly a significant expense, with the level of staff that they have.
Mr. WOLF. Bechtel said that they were not going to transfer these people to construction. And now they are. So that is added cost, quite significant added costs.
Ms. JEFF. Mr. Chairman, I need to ask a clarifying question. I don't think that Mr. Kane is indicating that the same individuals who have been working on the design side have now been switched to the construction side, but rather that individuals who are employees of the company whose expertise is in construction are now being utilized.
Mr. KANE. That's absolutely right. There are some engineers who have the versatility and can do both who were actively involved in some of the preliminary engineering work, but you're absolutely right, Gloria. It's the level of staff effort that they have.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will provide more information for the record on that if you like, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Okay.
[The information follows:]
"The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Mr. WOLF. Are you all in agreement, GAO and IG and Federal Highway, pretty much overlay 100 percent on all these issues?
Mr. KANE. Well, to the degree possible. What we have clearly done is open up a much better line of communication.
BIG PROJECT OVERSIGHT
Mr. WOLF. I think this has been helpful for future big projects.
Mr. KANE. One thing we have done jointly with them, and what we are clearly doing with the IG and GAO, is trying to share good lessons learned, and this is a mutual kind of activity. The IG was certainly very impressed with the kind of monthly tracking of costs and status, the monthly reports, and they think that it's a very good tool that you could use on other projects around the country.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLF. Ar