Climate Change Impacts On The Transportation Sector

S. HRG.
1101199
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

ON THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JUNE 24, 2008
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON
78852 PDF
2013
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 5011
Sfmt 5011
S:\GPO\DOCS\78852.TXT
JACKIE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel
(II)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
JACKIE
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held on June 24, 2008 ...............................................................................

Statement of Senator Carper ..................................................................................
Prepared statement ..........................................................................................
Statement of Senator Inouye ..................................................................................
Statement of Senator Kerry ....................................................................................
Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................
Statement of Senator Lautenberg ..........................................................................
Statement of Senator Nelson ..................................................................................
Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................
Statement of Senator Thune ...................................................................................
1
31
34
1
24
36
39
35
28
30
91
36
WITNESSES
Barrett, Hon. Thomas J., Vice Admiral, Deputy Secretary, Department of
Transportation ......................................................................................................
Dickey, Ph.D., G. Edward, Affiliate Professor of Economics, Loyola College
in Maryland; Member, Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, Transportation Research Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies,
National Research Council, The National Academies .......................................
Friedman, David, Research Director and Senior Engineer, The Union of Concerned Scientists ..................................................................................................
Hamberger, Edward R., President and Chief Executive Officer, Association
of American Railroads .........................................................................................
Meenan, John M., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
Air Transport Association of America, Inc. ........................................................
Peterson, Dr. Thomas C., Climate Services Division, National Climatic Data
Center, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce .............................................................................................................
Porcari, John, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation; Chair,
Climate Change Technical Assistance Program Advisory Board, and Chair,
Standing Committee on Aviation, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials ...............................................................................
Treadwell, Mead, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission ................................
Turner, Dr. James M., Deputy Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce ......................................................
Prepared Statement .........................................................................................
2
4
51
53
56
58
63
65
71
73
17
19
40
42
81
83
9
11
APPENDIX
Alterman, Stephen A., President, Cargo Airline Association, prepared statement ......................................................................................................................
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, prepared statement ..........
Letter, dated June 23, 2008, to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from Edward M.
Bolen, President and CEO, National Business Aviation Association, Inc. ......
(III)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
JACKIE
100
95
104
IV
Page
Letter, dated June 24, 2008, to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from Ross B. Capon,
Executive Director, National Association of Railroad Passengers ...................
Letter, dated June 30, 2008 to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, from Thomas D.
Simpson, Executive Director, Railway Supply Institute, Inc. ..........................
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Thomas J. Barrett by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................
Hon. Thomas R. Carper ...................................................................................
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye ......................................................................................
Response to written question submitted to Dr. G. Edward Dickey by:
Hon. Ted Stevens ..............................................................................................
Response to written questions submitted to David Friedman by:
Hon. Ted Stevens ..............................................................................................
Response to written questions submitted to Ed Hamberger by:
Hon. Ted Stevens ..............................................................................................
Response to written questions submitted to Thomas C. Peterson by:
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John Porcari by:
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. James M. Turner by Hon.
Daniel K. Inouye ..................................................................................................
Schaffer, Captain Mary Ann, Chairperson, Aviation Sustainability and Environment Task Force, Air Line Pilots Association, International, prepared
statement ..............................................................................................................
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
JACKIE
102
99
109
110
108
117
119
120
121
119
122
123
124
123
125
114
113
106
105
112
96
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

ON THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008
U.S. SENATE,
TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m. in room
SR253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
COMMITTEE
ON
COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
AND
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order.

This Committee, with its diverse jurisdiction, has a history of rising to meet climate change challenges by advancing, in a bipartisan manner, legislation that will make a difference in the fight
against global climate change. Legislation passed by this Committee will result in a meaningful reduction of fuel consumption
and emissions by increasing fuel efficiency standards for American
cars.
In addition, the actions of this Committee have strengthened climate change research programs, addressed ocean acidification, and
ensured that adequate information and data are available to help
lawmakers, regulators, and planners, among others, make informed
decisions and adapt to climate changes.
Todays hearing regarding climate change impacts on the transportation sector is a continuation of the Commerce Committees
work to examine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the
transportation sector and determine what role the Federal Government should play in encouraging these efforts.
The transportation sector is a major indicator of the overall economic health of our Nation. Given that fact, it is important to recognize that climate affects the design, construction, safety and operations, and maintenance of transportation infrastructure and systems. For example, as we will hear today, predicted increases in
precipitation and frequency of storms will impact our transportation systems; recent flooding in the Midwest resulted in submerged highways and railroad bridges, and significant diversion of
freight traffic. In addition, severe storms have caused major airport
delays around the country.
While there is a need for the transportation sector to adapt to
the environmental changes brought on by global climate change, it
is also widely recognized that the transportation sector has contributed to the causes of climate change.
(1)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
JACKIE
2
Transportation sources account for approximately one-third of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And transportation emissions are
among the fastest-rising of all emitting sectors, due to increased
consumption of gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that greenhouse gas emissions
attributable to the transportation sector will increase 26 percent by
the year 2020.
Todays hearing will examine climate change research, mitigation, and adaption results, efforts in the transportation sector, including the surface transportation, maritime, and aviation industries. The Committee looks forward to hearing from the witnesses
about how the transportation sector can adapt to the impacts of climate change, increase fuel efficiency, and otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We have several witnesses with us today. Panel one consists of
the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the
Honorable Thomas Barrett; Acting Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Dr. James M. Turner; and a
Physical Scientist from the National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admainistration, Dr. Thomas C.
Peterson.
May I call upon Deputy Secretary Barrett.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT, VICE ADMIRAL,
DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Admiral BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and good morning.

Im pleased to appear before you today and discuss the activities
of the United States Department of Transportation as they relate
to transportations impact on climate change and the impacts that
climate change may have on the Nations transportation networks.
This Committee brings a breadth of expertise and understanding
to transportations vital role to the United States economy and our
quality of life and its impact on the global economy, so we appreciate your leadership on this important subject.
To support the Administrations climate change goals, DOT is
working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation
activities and prepare for the impacts of climate change to protect
transportation infrastructure. As we pursue these goals, like you,
we are mindful of the indispensable role that transportation plays
in sustaining and improving our economy. And, like you, we have
seen much evidence that markets provide strong incentives for innovation and improvement in efficiency.
With that in mind, under Secretary Peterss leadership, we have
focused our approach on improving vehicle efficiency, increasing
use of alternative fuels, reducing congestion, advancing the efficiency of the transportation system, and improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on transportation networks.
The Administration is leading efforts to improve the fuel economy of the Nations fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks.
Building on a record of fuel economy reforms, DOT announced a
CAFE proposal, in April, that would save a projected 55 billion gallons of fuel and reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the lifetime of the regulated vehicles, going
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
JACKIE
3
above and beyond the requirements set out by Congress under the
Energy Independence and Security Act.
In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
is working with the National Academy of Science to develop a
study of fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty
trucks.
The Administration strongly supports research on, and use of, alternative fuels. The Federal Aviation Administration, for example,
is a major partner in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative, and DOT has, and is, undertaking research required for
development of safety standards for future hydrogen vehicles and
infrastructure.
And while we look at these, improvements in the efficiency of the
existing transportation system can reduce delays and also deliver
significant environmental benefits, including greenhouse gas emissions.
The Texas Transportation Institute estimated highway congestion in the United States wastes 2.9 billion gallons of fuel annually,
translating to 2.6 million metric tons of unnecessary CO2. And all
of us have been stuck in traffic, watching our fuel gauge creep toward empty as congestion brings traffic to a crawl. DOT has responded with a congestion initiative, a multifaceted program to
ease highway, aviation, freight, intermodal, and border congestion
through direct user fees and more congestion pricing.
I would invite your attention, also, Mr. Chairmanaviation is a
somewhat unheralded but real success story in these areas. Compared to the year 2000, U.S. commercial aviation in 2006 moved 12
percent more passengers and 22 percent more freight, while actually burning less fuel and reducing our carbon input by a million
tons. This is a result of airframe, power, and air traffic system improvements. U.S. airlines, in a very competitive market, have committed to another 30 percent improvement by 2025, a goal the industry adopted before the recent spike in fuel prices. And I would
urge caution in not hamstringing this flagship U.S. industry that
has such global reach by imposed new emission regimes.
Clearly, anyone who has flown lately, though, can attest to the
fact that the current aviation system needs fundamental changes.
We recognize this and have begun to implement air traffic management procedures, and taken steps to introduce components of the
next generation air transportation system. And the FAA is moving
to accelerate implementation of that system, in terms you may
have heard, to make it more NowGen than NextGen, and theyll be
introducing test pad sites in Florida and several other U.S. city
pairs this year.
The Department is also addressing the challenges posed by climate on transportation infrastructure and systems. DOT released,
earlier this year, the Gulf Coast study, which provides and assessment of the vulnerabilities of transportation systems in the region,
and subsequent phases will focus on developing tools for State and
local officials to use as they develop their transportation plans and
make investment decisions.
We have also begun to develop a congressionally required report
on transportation impact on climate change and ways to mitigate
its impact on the changing environment.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
JACKIE
4
In sum, the Department is approaching greenhouse gas mitigation in line with the Secretarys priorities, and I know Congress is,
for a safe, efficient, reliable, and, increasingly, a clean transportation network. We take this issue very seriously, as I know the
Committee does.
We appreciate the attention and the opportunity to discuss the
issue. And I would be pleased to respond to your questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Barrett follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT, VICE ADMIRAL,
DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and distinguished Members, I am
pleased to appear before the Committee today to discuss the various activities of the
U.S. Department of Transportation as they relate both to transportations impact on
climate change and to the impacts that climate change may have on the Nations
transportation networks. I appreciate your attention on this important subject and
the expertise this Committee brings to transportation and the American and global
economy.
Addressing the challenge that global climate change presents will require a sustained effort over many years. The Bush Administration is committed to cutting
greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigating the impacts of the climate change that
occur. This Administration has devoted almost $45 billion to support climate
change-related programs, with an additional $40 billion in loan guarantees made
available to support investments in technologies that promise to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
The Department of Transportations principal mission is to ensure the safe, efficient, and reliable performance of our highway, transit, rail, maritime, pipeline, and
aviation networks. We also support the Administrations efforts to reduce the Nations greenhouse gas emissions, not only by working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation activities, but also by preparing for the impacts of climate
change in order to protect our valuable transportation infrastructure. As we pursue
each of these goals, we are always mindful of the indispensable role that transportation plays in sustaining and improving our economy, and supporting our trade,
and the importance of transportation infrastructure to the millions of Americans
who depend on it for their mobility and the competitiveness of their businesses.
These goals are all a part of the Secretarys priorities for a safe, efficient, reliable
and clean transportation network.
Reducing Transportations Impacts
I would first like to discuss the Departments approach to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Our approach focuses on: improving vehicle efficiency; increasing the use of alternative fuels; advancing the efficiency of the transportation system (often by promoting market-based measures and
technological innovations); and improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure.
Let me state at the outset that, although mandates and regulations have their
place, new technologies and private sector innovations are really the keys to effectively addressing climate change without compromising the competitiveness of our
transportation providers or the shippers and passengers that rely upon them. As
evidence, I refer you to the European aviation regulatory model that has encouraged
a decrease in overall ridership but an increase in emissions. Compare that to the
more open market approach taken in the U.S.our airlines have increased ridership while at the same time decreased emissions dramatically. Between 2000 and
2006, aviation CO2 emissions in the U.S. declined by about 4 percent. During the
same period in Europe, emissions increased by around 30 percent.
Vehicle and Engine Efficiency
The Administration has been a leader in improving the fuel economy of the Nations fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks. Our record in this area speaks
for itself. In April, Secretary Peters announced a proposal that would establish the
first new fuel economy standards for passenger cars in more than two decades, and
would update and expand fuel economy standards for light trucks. Once finalized,
this rule would raise 2011 passenger car fuel economy standards by 13 percent and
boost light truck fuel economy standards by a further 4 percent above the attribute-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
5
weighted standard set 2 years ago. Overall, the fuel economy standards of the U.S.
fleet would be raised by more than 25 percent through model year 2015.
The proposal reflects the fuel economy reforms passed by Congress in December
2007 at the Presidents urging. Indeed, the new law, the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007, incorporates many of the provisions of the Presidents
Twenty in Ten initiative, aimed at reducing light duty vehicle petroleum consumption by 20 percent in 10 years through both improved fuel economy standards and
increased use of alternative fuels.
The standards in the proposed rule would save a projected 55 billion gallons of
fuel and reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the
lifetime of the regulated vehicles. It also includes provisions for trading fuel economy credits between manufacturers and vehicle classes, as well as provisions for
carrying forward excess credits earned in earlier years. This proposal goes above
and beyond the requirements set out by Congress.
This proposal builds on earlier initiatives to raise light truck fuel economy under
prior law. The Department issued new fuel economy rules for light trucks in 2003
(covering model years 20052007), and in 2006 (covering model years 20082011).
The 2006 rulemaking implemented an innovative attribute-based standard for light
trucks that Congress extended to passenger cars in EISA. The two earlier rules are
estimated to save 13 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetimes of the regulated vehicles.
Through the Federal Highway Administrations Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), the Department is working with State and
local governments on a range of programs to improve urban air quality within the
transportation sector. For example, DOT has cooperated with the Environmental
Protection Agencys SmartWay Program initiative to retrofit trucks and truck stops
with on-board and off-board auxiliary power to run vehicle lights and air conditioning and reduce truck idling. This program has reduced fuel consumption, criteria pollutant emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions, and has expanded to include idling emissions from marine, agricultural, rail, and off-road heavy-duty engines. The Federal Transit Administration funds the development and deployment
of alternative fuel buses, including hydrogen fuel cell buses, and diesel-electric hybrid buses, as well as alternative fuels infrastructure for transit systems across the
United States.
The Department also has focused on efficiency beyond the highway. In aviation,
we have begun to implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System to
modernize the U.S. air traffic system, of which I will say more in a moment. The
Federal Aviation Administration is in the process of setting up a new program,
CLEENContinuous, Low Energy, Emissions, and Noisea research consortium focused on cost-shared efforts accelerating the maturation of lower energy, emissions,
and noise technologies for aircraft and engines and advancing cleaner alternative
fuels. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) is focused on new technologies to reduce the harmful emissions from marine diesel engines through research on alternative fuels (such as biodiesel) and reduced ship stack emissions.
Alternative Fuels
The Administration also is supporting research on and use of alternative fuels.
The EISA requires fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable
fuel by the year 2022a 500 percent increase in the use of renewable fuels. President Bush is calling on every vehicle manufacturer that serves the U.S. market to
produce flex-fuel vehicles across its fleet, providing tax incentives for drivers to buy
fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles that run on both gasoline and electricity and investing
in plug-in hybrids that can cover up to 40 miles on electricity alone.
Though corn-based ethanol is currently the primary way to meet that standard,
that will not always be the case, and so the Administration also is investing in next
generation biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. Since President Bush took office, the
projected cost of cellulosic ethanol has dropped by more than 60 percent.
Last year, the U.S. produced about 450 million gallons of biodieselup 80 percent
from 2006. Today, there are more than 968 biodiesel fueling stations, and hundreds
of fleet operators use biodiesel to fuel their trucks. Over the last 5 years, the Administration has invested about $1.2 billion in hydrogen research and development to
help bring hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to market. These vehicles use no gasoline at
all, and emit only clean water.
Even as the Administration focuses on alternative fuels and alt-fuels vehicles, we
must ensure that the environmental improvements they bring do not erode the safety levels that Americans expect. Through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, we have undertaken research
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
6
required for the development of safety standards for future hydrogen vehicles and
infrastructure.
We are exploring the potential of alternative fuels for aviationfuels that could
have benefits for energy security as well as emissions performance. The FAA is one
of the key partners in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
(CAAFI). CAAFIs participants, which include airlines, manufacturers, airports, fuel
producers, Federal agencies and international players, are implementing a roadmap
for the use of alternative fuels for commercial aviation. Commercial airlines and
manufacturers are beginning to make some headway in experimental use of biofuels
in jet aircraft. Using an unmodified Boeing 747, pilots for Richard Bransons Virgin
Atlantic have successfully flown from Londons Heathrow airport to Amsterdam
using a biofuel made of a mix of coconut and babassu oil.
System Efficiency and the Marketplace
As important as research may be, the Department is of course concerned first and
foremost about making our networks as safe and reliable as possible. Secretary Peters has made improving the performance of those networks one of the Departments
primary objectives, because severe congestion is choking our major urban areas
(and, for that matter, more and more medium-sized cities), impeding the efficient
flow of goods, and threatening our mobilityto the tune of about $200 billion every
year just on our highways. As we focus on increasing efficiency, we simultaneously
can and should reduce the amount of needless greenhouse gas (GHG) and other
emissions that those networks generate through idling, inefficient routing, and other
undesirable effects.
The problem is significant. The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that
highway congestion in the U.S. wastes approximately 2.9 billion gallons of fuel annually, translating into 2.6 million tons of unnecessary CO2 emissions every year.
We think this figure actually underestimates the costs associated with the near-constant congestion that afflicts so many of our cities and our most important highway
corridors. I think all of us have experienced this first hand while stuck in traffic
watching the gas tank empty as congestion brings highway speeds to a crawl.
The Department has responded with the Congestion Initiative, a multifaceted program aimed at easing highway, aviation, freight/intermodal, and border congestion.
As part of the Initiative, we have focused on encouraging states and localities
which, after all, own nearly all our highwaysto embrace congestion pricing and
direct user fees for both their operational and environmental benefits.
Researchers have for decades predicted the beneficial environmental impacts of
pricing, and we have recently seen real evidence of reduced emissions in cities
around the world following adoption of congestion pricing. One study found that congestion pricing reduced emissions up to 10 percent in the aggregate and as much
as 30 percent in high pollution areas.1 These benefits are obtained because efficient
pricing mechanisms reduce the number of trips taken, alter trip routes, reduce trip
duration, decrease variation in travel speeds, and facilitate more pollution-efficient
travel speeds. A study of Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics revealed significant benefits.2 Several travel demand management measures were introduced to
reduce traffic congestion during the 17 days of the games. The study found that
daily peak ozone levels dropped 28 percent and hospitalizations for asthma fell by
almost 20 percent during that time.
Moreover, with the proliferation of open road pricing technology, highway facilities can achieve free-flow conditions without intrusive tollbooths, thus obtaining the
efficiency and environmental benefits of pricing without the harmful impacts of
queued vehicles waiting in line to pay.
Real evidence of the emissions benefits of pricing is now available from Singapore,
London, Stockholm, and Germany. Through congestion pricing, London reduced
emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides by 12 percent and fossil fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions by 20 percent. Singapore uses pricing to manage
demand on its downtown road network during peak travel periods and has prevented the emission of an estimated 175,000 pounds of CO2. Stockholms congestion
pricing system, which targets congestion in the city center, has led to a 1014 percent drop in CO2 emissions. In January 2005, Germany implemented a new system
to price trucks on the autobahns. These charges, which are collected electronically
using Global Positioning System Satellites (GPS), are based not only on distance
1 Khalid (Daniel & Bekka., 1998. The Environmental Impact of Highway Congestion Pricing,
Journal of Urban Economics. Volume 47, Issue 2, March 2000, Pages 180215).
2 Friedman & Powell. 2001. Impact of Changes in Transportation and Commuting Behaviors
During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma.
JAMA. Vol. 285 No. 7, February 21, 2001.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
7
traveled and number of axles, but also on a vehicles emissions class. This system
has increased freight efficiency and cut freight greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent. A 50 percent premium charge for older, more polluting trucks has doubled the
replacement rate to new trucks.
Our focus on variable pricing and other direct user fees also responds to the drawbacks of a highway funding model that relies on gas tax revenues even as we strive
toward increased energy independence, greater fuel economy in automobiles, development of alternative fuels, and reduced emissions. The EISA, and the increasing
popularity of hybrid vehicles, presage reductions in the amount of gas tax revenue
available for investment in transportation. Concerns about the viability of gas tax
revenues are only exacerbated by the recent increases in fuel prices which have led
to reduced vehicle miles travelled on U.S. roads (Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer
miles in April 2008 than they did in April 2007, the sixth consecutive monthly
drop). As the United States works to reduce emissions and promote alternative
fuels, a transportation funding system that relies primarily on the gas tax undoubtedly contradicts the Nations overall policy objectives. Pricing and other market solutions can help address concerns about the viability of the gas tax by substituting
private capital and direct user fees for gas tax revenue.
Because of these benefits, tolling and direct user charges have won support from
a wide range of ideological viewpoints in the United Statesfrom Environmental
Defense and the Nature Conservancy to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and
the Reason Foundation. Recognizing the environmental benefits of this approach,
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom stated in his recent inaugural address that a
sensible congestion-pricing plan is the single greatest step we can take to protect
[San Franciscos] environment and improve our quality of life.
All of this is to say that we view congestion pricing as a win-win concept because
it generates revenues that can be used to expand and maintain highways or bridges
or transit, and it provides users with price signals that encourage rational decisions
about how and when to driveyielding efficiencies that are at once an environmental and economic boon.
Anyone who has flown lately can attest to the fact that the current aviation system needs fundamental changes. I briefly made reference to the Next Generation
Air Transportation System, or NextGen. As with congestion pricing, this is an area
in which efficiency improvements and environmental advances go hand-in-hand.
NextGen aims to improve our air traffic management procedures and route structures so that aircraft can choose more efficient routes, make quicker in-flight decisions to avoid weather and other traffic, and even operate more efficiently on the
ground.
The FAA and our commercial airlines have saved 300 hundred million gallons of
jet fuel and displaced over 6 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions by implementing Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM), permitting aircraft flying
in U.S. air space to operate at more efficient altitudes. FAA has achieved further
improvements in system performance through the related reforms of Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP)both of which allow for
the more efficient routing for commercial air traffic and more reliable service during
marginal weather conditions, particularly at congested airports such as Atlanta
Hartsfield. If we want to reduce jet fuel consumption and aircraft emissions without
discouraging air travel, we must transform our aviation system. As we move to push
Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADSB) into the cockpit, we anticipate still greater efficiency gains. And, because every gallon of jet fuel not burned
equates to roughly 20 pounds of displaced CO2, even small improvements yield huge
GHG savings when deployed systemwide.
These advances, combined with the imperative for commercial airlines to save
fuel, have produced reductions in GHG emissions thatcontrary to frequent criticismsare quite impressive. Compared to the year 2000, U.S. commercial aviation
in 2006 moved 12 percent more passengers and 22 percent more freight while actually burning less fuel, thereby reducing our carbon output by a million tons. U.S.
airlines have committed to another 30 percent improvement by 2025. With the recent spike in fuel prices, reduction in schedules, and retirement of older aircraft,
fuel consumption by U.S. airlines will continue to decline.
Internationally, the Department supports the International Civil Aviation Organizations continued leadership in the environmental arena and its decisive action in
developing a comprehensive plan to mitigate aviation GHG emissions and establishing a new high-level Group on International Aviation and Climate Change to
work with ICAOs 190 Member States to implement the plan. We oppose, I should
emphasize, the European Unions proposal to include aviation in an emissions trading scheme, as both unworkable and contrary to international aviation law.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
8
In 2008, we have seen auto buyers shift toward smaller vehicles and hybrids; airlines modify their fleets (and their operations) to do more flying with fuel-efficient
aircraft and to get weight off the airplane; shippers move freight to an increasingly
efficient rail network; and commuters utilize transit services in greater numbers.
These examples contain a common thread, and, of course, that thread is that the
market itselfespecially of latewill provide ample incentive for transportation
providers and consumers to travel more efficiently and with reduced emissions. The
Secretary has demonstrated a clear commitment to improving transit. Cumulative
VMT has fallen by 17.3 billion miles since November 2006, and we estimate that
greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector fell by an estimated 9 million
metric tons for the first quarter of 2008. The pain from increased fuel prices that
Americans are experiencing at the pump and in the grocery store is real and should
not be minimized, but the changes we are seeing in transportation systems response
to the high price of oil remind us that the marketplace can be a major ally in reducing transportations environmental footprint and creating the conditions necessary
to spur private sector environmental innovation.
Better Scientific Understanding
I also would like to summarize the Departments efforts to measure and prepare
for the impacts that climate change may have on our transportation infrastructure.
The Departments Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting was
designated by EISA to be the Office of Climate Change and Environment. This virtual organization is the focal point within DOT for multimodal technical expertise
on transportation and climate change. Nine DOT operating administrations contribute resources to conduct strategic research, engage in policy analysis, and ensure
coordination on multi-modal approaches to reducing transportation-related greenhouse gases and to mitigate the effects of global climate change on the transportation network. Recent and continuing research has focused on a range of topics,
including emission modeling, evaluation of State and local efforts, early action, tax
credits, alternative fuels, and urban ferries.
Most recently, the Center has focused on research requirements from EISA: first,
U.S. DOT has approved a statement of work to conduct an EISA-required report on
transportations impact on climate change and ways to mitigate transportations
contribution. The study will also consider co-benefits of fuel savings and air quality
improvement. This report will be conducted in coordination with the Environmental
Protection Agency and in consultation with the United States Global Change Research Program. Second, the U.S. DOT, in coordination with a range of other
groups, is developing a Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse to provide one-stop shopping for transportation decision-makers and planners.
As part of the NextGen effort to advance our understanding of aviations effects
on climate, the FAA has launched the Aviation Climate change Research Initiative
(ACCRI) in partnership with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) and other agencies. This initiative will help accelerate our scientific understanding to inform policy decisions in this area.
The Department also is addressing the challenges posed by the impacts of climate
change on transportation infrastructure and systems. Our Center for Climate
Change and Environmental Forecasting has been studying this question for several
years. Early this year, DOT released The Impacts of Climate Change and Variability
on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. This
study provides an assessment of the vulnerabilities of transportation systems in the
region to potential changes in weather patterns and related impacts, as well as the
effect of natural land subsidence in the region. The area examined by the study includes 48 contiguous counties in four states, running from Galveston, TX to Mobile,
AL.
Based on 21 simulation models and a range of future scenarios, the study found
that potential changes in climate, through both sea level rise and subsidence over
the next 50100 years, could disrupt transportation services in several key ways.
Twenty-seven percent of major roads, 9 percent of rail lines, and 72 percent of area
ports are at or below 4 feet in elevation above sea level, and could be vulnerable
to future sea-level rise combined with non-climate related sinking of the areas land
mass that is occurring in the area. The study is designed to help State and local
officials as they develop their transportation plans and make investment decisions.
Subsequent phases of the study are intended to focus on risks and adaptation strategies involved in planning, investment, and design decisions for infrastructure in
the Gulf Coast region and nationwide. The study was performed in partnership with
the U.S. Geological Survey and State and local researchers, and is one of 21 synthesis and assessment reports produced as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
9
A similar study that will soon be released is The Potential Impacts of Global Sea
Level Rise on Transportation Infrastructure. This study was designed to produce
rough estimates of how future climate change, specifically sea level rise and storm
surge, could affect transportation infrastructure on the East Coast of the United
States. Like the Gulf Coast Study, this studys major purpose is to aid policymakers
by providing estimates of these effects as they relate to roads, rails, airports, and
ports.
In sum, the Department is approaching greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation
in a comprehensive, multimodal, and innovative way, in line with the Secretarys
priorities for safety, system performance, and 21st century solutions. I commend the
Committee for paying attention to this important subject and appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with a group of individuals who are so knowledgeable
about our transportation network. I look forward to your questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Dr. Turner?
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. TURNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. TURNER. Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the research related to the transportation sector in areas that are
related to global climate change underway at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, or NIST.
The well-being of U.S. citizens is affected every day by NISTs
measurements, science, and standards work. Virtually every segment of the economy, from transportation to computer networks,
banking, food processing, healthcare, communication, depends on
NIST research, products, and services. More broadly, the quality of
the water we drink, the air we breathe, the energy we use, and the
food we eat depends, in part, on that work.
Just as NIST has impacted these technologies in the past, NIST
is poised to play an equally important role in our Nations efforts
to address the challenges of climate change. A large part of the
work that NIST does for the transportation sector has an impact
on climate change.
In the area of transportation, let me start with an example.
NIST conducts research and provides measurement science and
services that underpin many stages of the transportation sector in
auto manufacturing, from the production of materials, like sheet
metal for body panels, to monitoring the final quality of the vehicle
assembly. NISTs work extends beyond the car to the transportation infrastructure itself, including both fossil and alternative
fuels and emissions, to lightweight metals and composites for auto
body parts and fuel cells.
Another big area NIST works in is advanced materials, like cement, for bridges and highways. Cement production provides a
large amount of CO2, and NISTs work to improve the quality of
cement will lead to less frequent replacement.
Specific areas that I address in more detail in my written testimony include composition, volume, and weight standards for fuels
and oil to allow confidence in the trading of low and high sulfur
content fuels in competitive markets. This covers everything from
measures and standards for fossil fuels, to biofuels, from train cars
of coal, to gallons of gasoline at the pump; to gas reference standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides that enable the auto-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
10
motive manufacturers to meet the EPA standards; allow industry
to tune and trade their emissions through the EPAs sulfur dioxide
cap-and-trade system; to composition of refrigerants in automotive
air-conditioning systems to eliminate chlorofluorocarbons and find
replacements that minimize the impacts on the ozone-depletion in
the upper atmosphere; to production of roadway materials and the
composition, strength, and durability of road and bridge materials
and construction techniques to minimize greenhouse gas emissions;
to lightweight metal-forming and composites to enable manufacturers to have high-performance, high-durability, and safe materials
to increase efficiency in the automotive and aerospace industry; to
development of measurements, science, and standards infrastructure to support the development and implementation of advanced
alternative fuel sources, such as hydrogen and biofuels; and finally,
to the development of the Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010.
Automobiles and light trucks consume 79 percent of all U.S. distilled fuel and account for 19.8 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions.
Lightweight materials are a big part of the solution to reduce our
consumption, as lighter vehicles tend to use less fuel.
The Department of Energys Office of Vehicle Technology states
that lightweight materials are needed to offset the increased
weight and cost per unit of power of alternative power trains, hybrids, and fuel cells, with respect to conventional power trains.
The transportation industry, particularly the automotive and
aerospace industry, is looking for lightweight materials, such as
new lightweight aluminum and composite materials, to improve
fuel efficiency. Introduction of these materials is limited by severe
manufacturing difficulties tied to unpredictable small-scale stresses
during production. DOE and NIST scientists developed a way to
measure and map stresses on this scale using X-ray micro-beams
that are 100 times thinner than a human hair. These measurements have solved key scientific questions about how metals deform, and this knowledge will accelerate the introduction of lightweight alloys into fuel-efficient vehicles.
Before I sum up my remarks, Id like to briefly mention two of
our requested budget initiatives for 2009 that will greatly expand
our capabilities and ability to have an impact on the broader issue
of climate change.
The expansion of the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR)
is integral to our programs that impact transportation-related climate change issues because of the ability to image the interior of
operating hydrogen fuel cells. Large and small companies involved
in the manufacture or use of fuel cells, including General Motors,
DuPont, and PlugPower, have benefited from this unique capability.
Industry scientists have stated that the research performed at
the NIST Center for Neutron Research has allowed them to jump
5 years ahead in fuel cell development.
The second initiative, which is related directly to the work made
possible by the NCNR, is an expansion of our program targeted to
enable the use of hydrogen as a fuel. This initiative would expand
our work to address more of the technical challenges that need to
be overcome before hydrogen can become a practical and economic
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
11
alternative fuel, such as its propensity to embrittle materials which
could lead to problems in containment and distribution infrastructure integrity, not to mention the challenges associated with measuring and distributing it to ensure equitable sale in the marketplace.
Today, more than any other time in our history, technological innovation and progress depend upon NISTs unique skills and capability. Helping the U.S. to drive and take advantage of the increased pace of technological change is a top priority for NIST. The
technologies that emerge as a result of NISTs development of
measurement science and standard tools will enable U.S. companies to innovate and remain competitive. That absolutely includes
the need to develop both information and measures to enable the
United States and other nations to deal with the potential and real
climate-related impacts of transportation systems and components.
This concludes my remarks, and Ill be happy to answer any
questions you may have, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Turner follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES M. TURNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the research we do
related to the transportation sector on areas that are related to global climate
change underway at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The well-being of U.S. citizens is affected every day by NISTs measurement and
standards work. Virtually every segment of the economy, from transportation to
computer networks, banking, food processing, health care and communication, depends on NIST research, products and services. More broadly, the quality of the
water we drink, the air we breathe, the energy that we use, and the food we eat
depends in part on that work.
The work NIST is doing on climate change is important. Some of the drivers of
climate, such as the suns output, have small variations that change slowly over
time. As a result, climate predictions depend on developing absolute measurements
of the suns energy that can be compared accurately over decades from different sensors. Other important variables include the sizes, shapes, and chemical composition
of particles or droplets (aerosols) in the atmosphere. Whether aerosols contribute to
the warming or the cooling of the Earth depends upon their composition.
In the area of transportation, let me start with one example. NIST conducts research and provides measurement science and services that underpin many stages
of auto manufacturingfrom the production of materials like sheet metal for body
panels to monitoring the final quality of the vehicle assembly. NISTs work extends
beyond the car to the transportation infrastructure itself, including both fossil and
alternative fuels; emissions; advanced materials like cement for bridges and highways to lightweight metals and composites for auto body parts; fuel cells; and more
efficient and greener manufacturing processes:
In addition, NIST works in the following areas:
Composition, volume, and weight standards for fuels and oil to allow confidence
in trading in low to high sulfur content fuels in competitive markets. This covers everything from measures and standards for fossil fuels to biofuels, and
from train cars of coal to gallons of gasoline at the pump.
Gas reference standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides that enable automotive manufacturers to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and generally allow industry to tune and trade their emissions through the
EPA sulfur dioxide cap and trade system.
Composition of refrigerants in automotive air conditioning systems to eliminate
chlorofluorocarbons and find replacements that minimize impacts on ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere, as well as climate forcing due to these gases.
Production of roadway materials, and the composition, strength, and durability
of road and bridge materials and construction techniques to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
12
Lightweight metal forming and composites to enable manufacturers to have
high performance, high durability and safe materials to increase efficiency in
the automotive and aerospace industry.
Developing Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010.
More efficient, greener manufacturing through a partnership with EPA on the
Green Supplier Network.
Now I would like to cover some specific work NIST is undertaking to improve efficiencies in the transportation industry that could reduce the impact of the industry
on climate change. I also want to note that NIST has requested budget increases
in FY09 that would enable us to expand and accelerate our work in this area. It
also is important to note that nearly all of NISTs work is planned and done in partnership with others in industry, universities, and government at all levels.
Supporting Innovations in Fossil, Bio Fuels and Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Monitoring Emissions and Developing New Fuel Capabilities and
Standards
Fossil Fuels Standard Reference Materials (SRMs)Standards in Emissions. Beginning in June 2006 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandated ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel to make possible more efficient exhaust emissions. The
accurate determination of sulfur in ULSD at low levels is a major measurement
challenge with enormous economic consequences, mostly in avoided costs, for petroleum refineries and for every link in the distribution system. To meet this challenge,
industry must have highly accurate sulfur standards. These SRMs ensure the accurate make up of the fuel and enable compliance to EPAs regulations regarding sulfur fuels. NIST is the place to go for an SRM for a fossil fuel. NISTs first fossil
fuel SRMs were issued in 1967 and continue to be issued today.
These standards represent some of NISTs most successful products. According to
the study Economic Impact of Standard Reference Materials for Sulfur in Fossil
Fuels, NIST work returned a calculated rate of return for the program of 1,056 percent. Studies also demonstrate that NIST standards for sulfur in fossil fuels have
a net value to society of more than $409 million since 1984.
Biofuels. Biofuels have gained popularity worldwide both as a renewable energy
source and as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move away from dependence on fossil fuels. NIST is participating in this arena. The United States,
Brazil and the European Union have convened a task force of experts to study existing biofuels standards and catalog similarities and differences between them. Out
of this partnership, NIST and Brazil are collaborating on the development of joint
measurement standards for bioethanol and biodiesel by the end of 2008.
Getting an Accurate Fill-Up. Working very closely with State weights and measures organizations, NIST has long maintained the standard for ensuring that consumers actually receive a gallon of gas every time they pay for one. Now NIST researchers are incorporating the properties of hydrogen in standards that will support the development of hydrogen as a fuel in vehicles. One of the challenges in the
use of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is the seemingly trivial matter of measuring fuel
consumption. Consumers and industry are accustomed to high accuracy when purchasing gasoline. Refueling with hydrogen is a problem because there are currently
no mechanisms to ensure accuracy at the pump. Hydrogen is dispensed at a very
high pressure, at varying degrees of temperature and with mixtures of other gases.
NISTs research and new technological innovations will enable accuracy in hydrogen
fill-ups.
Fuel Research for Aviation, Aerospace and Vehicular Transportation. NIST has a
major effort underway to characterize and model fuel fluids. All reformulations of
these fuels changes the way they operate and NIST is working to identify how they
are affected. These liquid fuels have long been the most convenient fuel source for
all sectors of transportationaircraft, rockets, cars, trucks, locomotives and military
vehicles. The design and specification of these fuels has environmental considerations. Redesigning fuels with environmental considerations as a factor can only be
done after NIST does its job of understanding how different additives and formulations affect the fuel.
Enabling the Use of Hydrogen Fuel. As mentioned above, NIST is working to enable the use of hydrogen as a fuel. Hydrogen offers the possibility of lowering the
impact of motor vehicles on the environment, and reducing our Nations dependence
on foreign oil. While the burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide and other
emissions harmful to the environment, hydrogen fuel can be made from many energy sources, including renewables, and produces zero emissions.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
13
Technical challenges need to be overcome to make hydrogen-powered vehicles
more practical and economical. Fuel cells need to operate as reliably as todays gasoline engine. We need systems that can store enough hydrogen fuel to give consumers
a comfortable driving range. We need science-based standards that will guide local
officials in establishing codes for building and fire safety as they relate to something
like a hydrogen fueling station. And we need a technical infrastructure to ensure
the equitable sale of hydrogen in the marketplace, as exists today for gasoline.
Expansion of research efforts at NIST is essential to achieving widespread use of
hydrogen as a fuel. The distribution and sale of hydrogen will require entirely new
systems for ensuring equity in the marketplace. In Fiscal Year 2009, NIST has requested $4 million to accelerate its research in this area. NIST has been a leading
provider of data on the chemical and physical properties of hydrogen for more than
50 years. It has statutory responsibility under the Pipeline Safety Act of 2002 (P.L.
107355) to develop research and standards for gas pipeline integrity, safety, and
reliability. It is the lead U.S. agency for weights and measures of vehicle fuels, and
it develops test protocols for stationary fuel-cell systems, covering issues of efficiency, performance, and compatibility with the power grid for interconnection purposes.
NISTs Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) is the premier facility for real-time,
three-dimensional imaging of hydrogen in operating fuel cells. NISTs operations
have won awards and wide praise for providing the diagnostics that industry needs
to make fuel cells more reliable and less costly. The unique resources developed at
this NIST facility will also help reduce technical barriers for efficient hydrogen production and storage. Indeed, NIST participates in two of the three Centers of Excellence established by DOE to develop better means of hydrogen storage.
Transporting and Distributing Hydrogen. Gasoline consumption in the U.S. exceeds 388 million gallons per day and at $4 a gallon that is a growing investment.
Producing hydrogen fuel from domestic energy sources will increase domestic control
and substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One barrier to this switch is
pipelines. There are currently 700 miles of hydrogen pipelines in operationthat is
in comparison to 1 million miles of natural gas pipelines. To move to a more nationwide use of hydrogen, safe and effective pipelines have to be developed. This work
will also be part of the NIST Fiscal Year 2009 Hydrogen initiative request of $4 million dollars to accelerate research in this area. NIST is working on both sensor development to monitor the pipelines and steel and material testing to ensure the
safest pipeline possible. NIST is working to establish the codes and standards necessary to ensure safe distribution of hydrogen fuels. The future hydrogen economy
will depend on efficient transport of fuel across the U.S. In order to use the existing
network of pipelines, tests have to be developed to test for the degradation that is
likely to occur to the metals that can be caused by hydrogen weakening the pipeline.
By establishing the unique test facilities and standard test procedures, we will provide pipeline operators with critical data on the durability of pipeline material in
high-pressure hydrogen gas environments.
Hydrogen Storage. Hydrogen is promoted as a petroleum replacement that presents an attractive alternative for fueling automobiles and trucks while maintaining
a cleaner global environment. A major roadblock associated with the use of hydrogen is the inability to store it efficiently. Because hydrogens properties have been
shown to embrittle metals and because current storage technologies limit the potential range of hydrogen powered vehicles, NIST is working on measurement tools to
determine hydrogens absorption/desorption characteristics that will accelerate discovery of new materials that can be used to store hydrogen for use across the U.S.
Fuel Cell Research. This is another area where innovations can have an impact
on the environment. A huge array of emerging technologies, from new portable electronic devices to smart energy vehicles, depend on the successful development and
deployment of efficient, lightweight, reliable and cost-effective fuel cells. The potential market for these new products represents billions of dollars to the U.S. economy. NISTs Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) works with General Motors and
others in this area. NISTs expertise is essential for making fuel cells less costly and
more reliable.
To develop fuel cells for practical use, NIST researchers are developing measurement methods to characterize the nanoscale structure and dynamics of polymer
membranes inside the fuel cell to enable stronger fuel cells. Industrys use of the
unique facilities and instruments at NIST will help reduce technical barriers for efficient hydrogen production, storage, and use.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
14
Supporting Innovation in Advanced MaterialsLightweight Materials and
Nanocomposites
In addition to the work NIST is doing in the area of hydrogen fuel, other researchers at NIST are looking at materials that will make more efficient cars, airplanes
and trains. These efficiencies also will strongly benefit the environment by introducing lighter, more fuel efficient transportation.
Automobiles and light trucks consume 79 percent of all U.S. distilled fuel and
emit 19.8 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. Lightweight materials are a big part
of the solution to reduce our consumption. The Department of Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies states that lightweight materials are needed to offset the increased weight and cost per unit of power of alternative powertrains (hybrids, fuel
cells) with respect to conventional powertrains.
Lightweight Materials for Automobiles. The transportation industry in general,
particularly the automotive industry, is looking for lightweight materials such as
new lightweight aluminum and high-strength steel alloys to improve fuel efficiency.
Introduction of these alloys is limited by severe manufacturing difficulties tied to
unpredictable micron-scale stresses during production. NIST and industry scientists
developed a way to measure and map stresses on the micron scale using X-ray
microbeams that are 100 times thinner than a human hair. These measurements
have solved key scientific questions about how metals deform and this knowledge
will accelerate the introduction of new lightweight alloys into fuel-efficient vehicles.
NIST is partnering with the automotive industry to accelerate the introduction of
aluminum and high-strength steel into automobile production and is collaborating
with the Argonne National Laboratorys Advanced Photon Source and the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory to measure stresses in deformed metals at the nanoscale
level.
NIST Center for Metal Forming. The NIST Center for Metal Forming is developing the measurements, standards and analysis necessary for the U.S. automotive
industry and metal suppliers to transition to new ways of forming metals. This will
enable the industry to transition to new advanced and lightweight materials more
easily as more accurate data and material models will lead to more accurate die designs, reducing redesign and new model development costs. The reduction of sheet
metal forming redesigns through improved material data and models is projected to
save the U.S. auto industry a large portion of the $600 million lost per year on redesigns.
Determining the Life Cycle and Environmental, Health and Safety Performances
of Polymer Nanocomposites. Polymer nanocomposites, defined as material systems
in which one or more dimensions is less than 100 nm, have greatly improved performance properties relative to traditional polymeric materials and are forecast to
make significant in roads in the near future in high volume markets including infrastructure, automotive, and aerospace industries. However, use of these materials in
products is hindered by the lack of performance data for them, as well as significant
societal concerns regarding the release of significant quantities of nanomaterials
into the environment during or at the end of the product service life. Critical information and data is lacking for characterizing and predicting life cycle performance
and in-service release rates of nanoparticles from polymer nanocomposites. Although
current research focuses on nanoparticle exposure during the manufacturing process, in-service release of nanoparticles from nanocomposites is expected to be greater by several orders of magnitude. NIST will develop and apply measurement
science over a wide range of length and time scales to enable a comprehensive understanding of life cycle performance and nanoparticle release rates of polymer
nanocomposites.
Timely, accurate, and precise material life cycle performance estimates will enable
a revolutionary transformation from initial cost to life cycle cost-based materials selections. Information regarding nanoparticle release rates over the life cycle of nanocomposite materials will ensure safety in commerce by directly addressing public,
environmental, and regulatory concerns regarding the environmental, health, and
safety aspects of these materials. This research will also foster innovation throughout the nanocomposites supply chain such as material and product manufacturers,
and end users and improve the competitive position of U.S. industry in the global
market.
While NISTs work in the automotive and related industries is important to reducing our impact on the environment, there are many ways in which NISTs research
in the area of transportation infrastructure could reduce our impact on our climate.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
15
Supporting Innovation in Transportation Infrastructure Via Concrete
Research That Will Have an Impact on the Environment
Most of the U.S. and the worlds infrastructuretransportation structures, tunnels, airports, buildings, dams, industrial plantsis made out of concrete. There has
been significant work in the area of concrete technology over the last few decades
to greatly improve processing and properties making concrete more sustainable.
Why is this important to climate change? The cement and concrete industry is a
large generator of greenhouse gas, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), during the manufacturing production process. One U.S. ton of cement produces about one ton of CO2
and the annual world production of cement2.5 billion tonsis equal to a 39 percent estimated share of world man-made CO2. In 2006, the U.S. produced 96 million
tons of cement and 37 million tons were imported for use in the U.S. It is estimated
that 1.5 percent of U.S. man-made CO2 generation comes from concrete production.
And while this is a large number, cement production is forecast to greatly increase
over the next 2040 years because of burgeoning demand for new and replacement
infrastructure.
In the U.S., the energy efficiency of cement production is already high, and is
probably only capable of fairly small improvements. One is limited to reducing the
CO2 that is given off from the raw materials by partially substituting another material for the cement in concrete, such as the substitution of non-CO2 containing materials for a portion of the limestone in the raw materials. Around the world, the two
most common minerals used to substitute for cement are fly ash and granulated
ground blast furnace slag. The use of fly ash and slag in concrete can actually improve the properties of concrete, especially the durability.
NIST is planning to incorporate research on fly ash into our research program in
this year and is currently collaborating with several research institutions in submitting joint proposals in response to a Federal Highway Administration Broad Area
Announcement pertaining to fly ash. In addition, our researchers have published extensively on the incorporation of fly ash into concrete for other Federal agencies.
Let me highlight some of NISTs work to address the needs of the concrete industry itself. All of our work will improve our understanding of how cement and concrete actually work, and ultimately should make possible improvements in the formulation and use of cement that could save hundreds of millions of dollars in annual maintenance and repair costs for concrete structures and the countrys infrastructure. This work should also lead to improving the properties and performance
of concrete while decreasing energy costs and reducing the CO2 emissions from its
production.
Using NIST State of the Art Tools to Study Concrete. Using the most modern tools
of materials research, researchers from NIST and industry are exploring one of the
oldest but most complex construction materialscement.
Cement may be the worlds most widely used manufactured materialmore than
two billion metric tons are consumed each yearbut it also is one of the more complex. And while it was known to the Romans, who used it to good effect in the Coliseum and Pantheon, questions still remain as to just how it works, in particular
how it is structured at the nano- and microscale, and how this structure affects its
performance. NISTs investigations should lead to a better understanding of the contribution of the nanoscale structure of cement to concrete durability, and how to improve it.
Processing of High-Performance Concrete: Mixing and Flow Properties. NIST researchers are looking at ways to develop cement paste and mortar measurement
techniques. Researchers are also looking at models of mortar and concrete flow, and
guidelines for optimizing the proportioning and processing of high-performance concrete (HPC). At present, there are no generally accepted guidelines for formulating
and mixing HPC and no standard tests for measuring the workability of HPC in
terms of fundamental flow quantities such as yield stress and plastic viscosity. In
the selection of mixture proportions, many methods exist for present-day concretes,
but none has received general acceptance and only a few are based on performance
rather than prescription; all require the making and testing of numerous batches,
which is not the most efficient way to test. We need to link the mixture composition
with performance, including flow properties. A method for predicting the flow properties of HPC from mixture proportions will result in a significant reduction of cost
in designing HPC mixtures with optimum performance, both in the fresh and hardened states. NIST is developing models to simulate various scenarios to address this
issue and to improve the performance of concrete.
Virtual Cement and Concrete Testing Laboratory (VCCTL) Cement Hydration
Modeling. A new hydration model is part of a NIST/industry consortium to design,
develop, document, and validate a novel, next-generation computer model of microstructure development of hydrating cement paste. The hydration of portland cement
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
16
pastes is an extremely complicated phenomena involving many chemical reactions.
The VCCTL consortium is committed to the development of a computer model,
based on accepted reaction thermodynamics and kinetics that can make reliable predictions of the kinetics of 3D microstructure development and its dependence on
various chemical admixtures. Such a model could become a valuable research tool
for cement and admixture companies and could help them reduce the amount of
physical testing that they currently perform.
Micro- and Macrostructural Characterization of High-Performance Concrete. NIST
is developing methods for characterizing of the micro- and macrostructures of cements and high-performance concrete. To understand how concrete will react under
certain circumstancesin numerous environmentsone has to understand concrete
at the micro level. The methodology developed by NIST will form the basis for assessing and predicting concrete composition and texture influences on performance.
This project will lead to an improved understanding of concrete degradation and
therefore reduce the need for repeated replacement of concrete and thereby reducing
the CO2 emissions associated with the production of cement.
Simulation of the Performance and Service Life of High Performance Concrete.
NIST is also looking at computer simulation algorithms for the service life of highperformance concrete. The service life of HPC depends on almost all performance
properties, such as transport properties like resistance to chemical penetration and
mechanical properties like elasticity. These properties need to be predicted at the
design stage, so that HPC can be designed for durability and lifecycle cost requirements, not just strength requirements. The only accurate way that different kinds
of HPC can be handled is to base such predictions on fundamental materials science
that includes microstructure, cement chemistry, concrete mixture design, and expected curing. Since concrete is made up of particles at many length scales (e.g., cement, fly ash, silica fume, sand, gravel), quantitative characterization of particle
shape is needed so that real particles can be used in these kinds of quantitative
models.
Adaptive Concrete Technologies. NIST researchers are investigating adaptive concrete technologies including internal curing and the incorporation of phase change
materials into concrete to increase its service life. Field concrete is exposed to a wide
variety of environmental conditions and distress. These environmental factors often
result in premature degradation and/or failure. Examples include early-age cracking
due to shrinkage and degradation as a result of repeated cycles of freezing and
thawing, and deterioration due to damaging reactions of chemicals (chloride, sulfate,
and alkali ions, etc.). An adaptive concrete is one that dynamically and actively responds to these stimuli in such a manner as to reduce their impacts. The results
of this research may encourage the industry to have another look at what composition is truly optimum for applications such as pavements and bridge decks, where
durability is much more important than strength.
Doubling the Service Life of Concrete. NIST is working to have a dramatic effect
on the concrete industry through doubling the service life of new concrete by altering the composition of concrete. One of the main goals of high performance concrete
is to increase service life. Under most chemical erosion scenarios, the service life of
concrete depends on its reaction to external chemicals entering it. There are a number of ways to significantly increase the service life of concrete including reducing
the porosity and adding mixtures to provide increased resistance to the infiltration
of chemicals. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of these modifications is a large
increase in the propensity for early-age cracking, and the desired barrier performance of a dense concrete is easily compromised by the formation of just a few cracks.
Time until the steel reinforcement in the concrete rusts is related to the depth of
concrete cover, so that if you increase the thickness of concrete over the steel by
50 percent, you get approximately double the expected service life. More concrete
covering the rebar may not be feasible because of design constraints, and both additional concrete and changing the composition to resist chemicals can add considerable cost to construction. NIST researchers propose a different approach to modification of the physical properties of the concrete structure by using a combination of
electrical conductivity, ion diffusivity, and viscosity measurements.
In addition to these programs, NIST cement Standard Reference Materials
(SRMs) have underpinned product quality for the cement industry for nearly 50
years. The cement SRMs series has proven to be essential to laboratories that certify concrete products for performance and that evaluate mechanisms for concrete
corrosion and failure.
Summary
For 107 years, NIST research has been critical to our Nations innovation and
competitiveness by directly supporting technological advances in broad sectors of the
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
17
economy that will quite literally define the 21st centuryas well as improve the
safety and quality of life for all our citizens.
Today, more than at any other time in history, technological innovation and
progress depend on NISTs unique skills and capabilities. Helping the U.S. to drive
and take advantage of the increased pace of technological change is a top priority
for NIST. The technologies that emerge as a result of NISTs development of these
tools are enabling U.S. companies to innovate and remain competitive. That absolutely includes the need to develop both information and better tools to enable the
United States and other nations to deal with the potential and real climate-related
impacts of transportation systems and components.
To ensure that NIST programs deliver the highest impact, the Institute, working
with our stakeholders in Congress, industry, academia, and other government agencies, will continue to identify the most critical measurement, standards, and technological challengesincluding our efforts that relate to the transportation sector and
climate change. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and Members
of the Subcommittee, throughout this process.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Turner.

Dr. Peterson?
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS C. PETERSON, CLIMATE
SERVICES DIVISION, NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER,
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA,
AND INFORMATION SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. PETERSON. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to talk to
you today on the impacts of climate change on transportation.
When the National Research Council started focusing on this
topic a few years ago, they didnt find very much solid information
on it. Im pleased to be able to report to you today that this is no
longer the case. In addition to the paper the National Research
Council commissioned me to write on climate variability and
change with implications for transportation, earlier this year the
National Research Council released its report on the potential impacts of climate change on U.S. transportation. Also, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program recently released its report on the
impacts of climate variability and change on transportation in the
Gulf Coast and a report on weather and climate extremes and how
they are changing. This latter report, of which Im one of the authors, is relevant to transportation because transportation is particularly sensitive to changes in extremes, and it was just released
last Thursday.
There are five key aspects of climate change that are of greatest
relevance to transportation. The first is increases in very hot days
and heat waves. Very hot days can cause railroad tracks to buckle
and road pavement to rut more easily. They limit some outdoor
maintenance activities and can force aircraft at higher elevation
airports to lighten their loads.
The second is the increases in Arctic temperatures which are
causing a thawing of permafrost on which some transportation infrastructure was built. Also, the melting of Arctic sea ice is raising
the potential future opening of a summertime Arctic sea lane,
which could save thousands of miles on some shipping routes.
The thirdglobal sea level is rising, and in many parts of the
country this will be noticed when storm waters flood farther inland
than they would have without sea level rise. In some areas of the
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
18
country, such as along the Gulf Coast, local sea level rise can be
much greater than global rise, due to land subsidence.
The fourth is increases in heavy precipitation. Flooding from
heavy rain damages many types of transportation infrastructure.
And the last feature is increases in hurricane intensities. The
number of hurricanes is not projected to increase, but it is likely
that their intensity will. Intense hurricanes impact transportation
infrastructure through stronger winds, heavier precipitation, and
higher storm surges.
NOAA helps the Nations transportation industry identify and
manage risk associated with climate variability and change by
serving as a centralized source of relevant and timely weather and
climate information needed to support commerce. Specifically,
NOAA actively supports the transportation industry in three ways.
The first is through the creation of basic data and models that
transportation planners rely on for both adjusting to real-time
weather impacts and for making long-range infrastructure decisions.
The second is through NOAAs participation in scientific assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
These reports synthesize state-of-the-art scientific understanding
that planners need when looking decades into the future.
And the third is outreach and education to data users in transportation and other sectors. For example NOAA hosts annual data
user workshops which both educates transportation data uses on
what relevant data and services NOAA can provide and also educates NOAA on the needs of the transportation sector.
User-specific information is needed, because climate change will
affect transportation and transportation infrastructure in multiple
ways over the lifetime of the infrastructure, which can be long. The
lifetime of roadways is typically 25 years; railroads, 50 years; and
bridges and underpasses, 100 years.
When planning a new bridge, for example, designers can take
into consideration, among other things, current traffic and potential future traffic; current weather and climate, and potential future weather and climate. The design of the 8-mile-long Confederation Bridge, which connects Prince Edward Island to the Canadian mainland, did just that by taking into account the possibility
of a 3-foot rise in sea level due to climate change.
Many other adaptation measures can be adopted. For example,
there are methods of laying railroad track that can raise the temperature at which they buckle; some pavement options are more resistant to rutting during hot weather than others; and larger culverts can be placed under railroads and highways to accommodate
heavier precipitation.
In summary, to help the Nation respond to this challenge, NOAA
provides climate information to the transportation sector to aid in
its efficient and safe operation and to help guide infrastructure design to withstand future climate change.
The environmental information NOAA provides is crucial for decision makers in the transportation sector and many other critical
areas of the economy every day.
Thank you, again, for inviting me to testify. Im happy to answer
any questions you may have.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
19
[The prepared statement of Dr. Peterson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS C. PETERSON, CLIMATE SERVICES DIVISION,
NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE,
DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Thomas Peterson, a
physical scientist with NOAAs National Climatic Data Center. I am pleased to
present a summary of our understanding of the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure as well as a description of NOAAs role in creating and providing key information on climate change to transportation decision-makers. I am
an author of a National Research Council (NRC) commissioned paper released this
past March on Climate Variability and Change with Implications for Transportation, along with other colleagues from NOAA and the Department of Energys
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
My testimony will draw from the NRC paper as well as from three other timely
reports of which I am an author of the report on climate extremes:
The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation by the NRC
Transportation Research Board (TRB) which was released March 11, 2008.
Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and InfrastructureGulf Coast Study, U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
Synthesis and Assessment Report 4.7, released March 12, 2008.
Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, U.S. Climate Change
Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Report 3.3, released June 2008.
Climate Change and Its Impacts on Transportation Operation and
Infrastructure
According to the NRC report, five aspects of climate change impact transportation
operations and infrastructure: (1) increases in very hot days and heat waves, (2) increases in Arctic temperatures, (3) rising sea levels, (4) increases in intense precipitation events, and (5) increases in hurricane intensity.
Increases in Very Hot Days and Heat Waves
It is highly likely (greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence) that heat extremes and heat waves will continue to become more intense, last longer, and be
more frequent in most regions during the twenty-first century. In 2007, the probability of having five summer days at or above 43.3 C (110 F) in Dallas was about
2 percent. In 25 years the models indicate that this probability increases to 5 percent; in 50 years, to 25 percent; and by 2099, to 90 percent. Very hot days can have
an impact on operations; for example, by limiting periods of outdoor railroad track
maintenance activity due to health and safety concerns. High temperatures can
have a big impact on aircraft by influencing the limits on payload and/or canceling
flights. This is due to the fact that, because warmer air is thinner (less dense), for
any given take-off speed the wings of airplanes create less lift when temperatures
are high. This causes lower lift-off load limits at high-altitude or hot-weather airports with insufficient runway lengths. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include rail-track deformities, thermal expansion on bridge joints and paved surfaces,
and concerns regarding the integrity of pavement.
Increases in Arctic Temperatures
Arctic warming is virtually certain (greater than 99 percent probability of occurrence), as temperature increases are expected to be greatest over land and at most
high northern latitudes. As much as 90 percent of the upper layer of permafrost
could thaw under higher emission scenarios. The greatest temperature increases in
North America are projected to occur in the winter in northern parts of Alaska and
Canada as a result of feedback effects of shortened periods of snow cover. By the
end of the twenty-first century, temperatures could increase by as much as 10.0 C
(18.0 F) in the winter and 2.0 C (3.6 F) in the summer in the northernmost areas.
For the rest of North America, the projected annual mean temperature increase
ranges from 3.0 to 5.0 C (5.4 to 9.0 F), with smaller increases expected near the
coasts. Examples of impacts on operations include a longer ocean transport season
and more ice-free ports in northern regions, as well as the possible availability of
a northern sea route, or a northwest passage. Examples of impacts on infrastructure
include a short season for ice on roads and thawing of permafrost, which causes subsidence of roads, rail beds, bridge supports, pipelines, and runway foundations.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
20
Rising Sea Levels
It is virtually certain (greater than 99 percent probability of occurrence) that sea
levels will continue to rise in the twenty-first century as a result of thermal expansion and loss of mass from ice sheets. The projected global range in sea level rise
is from 0.18 m (7.1 in) to 0.59 m (23.2 in) by 2099. These estimates do not include
subsidence in regions of the Gulf of Mexico and uplift along portions of the New
England and Alaskan coasts. They also do not include the dynamics of land ice in
frozen regions such as Greenland and Antarctica, which could increase the projection for sea level rise. The Gulf Coast Study estimates that a relative sea level rise
of 0.5 to 4 feet is quite possible for parts of the Gulf Coast within 50 years, due
primarily to land subsidence. With an increase of 4 feet in relative sea level, as
much as 2,400 miles of major Gulf Coast roadways could be permanently flooded
without adaptation measures. Other examples of the impacts of sea level rise on operations include more frequent interruptions in coastal and low-lying roadway travel
and rail service due to storm surge. Sea level rise will cause storm water levels to
be higher and flow further inland, exposing more infrastructure to destructive wave
forces. Higher storm water levels will in turn require reassessment of evacuation
routes, changes in infrastructure design, siting, and development patterns, and the
potential for closure or restrictions at several of the top 50 airports, as well as key
maritime ports that lie in coastal zones. With 50 percent of the population living
in the coastal zone, these airports and ports provide service to the highest-density
populations in the United States. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include reduced clearance under bridges; erosion of road base and bridge supports; inundation
of roads, rail lines, subways, and airport runways in coastal areas; more frequent
or severe flooding of underground tunnels and low-lying infrastructure; and changes
in harbor and port facilities to accommodate higher tides and storm surges.
Increases in Intense Precipitation Events
It is very likely (greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence) that intense
precipitation events will continue to become more frequent in widespread areas of
the United States. Examples of impacts on operations include increased flooding of
evacuation routes, increases in weather-related delays and traffic disruptions, and
increases in airline delays due to convective weather. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include increases in flooding of roadways, rail lines, subterranean tunnels,
and runways; increases in scouring of pipeline roadbeds and damage to pipelines;
and increases in road washout, damages to rail-bed support structures, and landslides and mudslides that damage roadways and tracks.
Increases in Hurricane Intensity
It is likely (greater than 66 percent probability of occurrence) that tropical storm
intensities, with larger peak wind speeds and more intense precipitation, will increase. However, it is presently unknown how 21st century tropical storm frequency
will change compared to the historical data. Increased storm intensity can lead to
increased likelihood of negative impacts to operations and infrastructure, even
though the number of storms may not be changing. Examples of impacts of increased storm intensity on operations include more frequent and potentially more
extensive emergency evacuations; and more debris on roads and rail lines, interrupting travel and shipping. Examples of impacts on infrastructure include a greater probability of infrastructure failures, increased threat to stability of bridge decks,
and harbor infrastructure damage due to waves and storm surges.
In addition to the five major aspects of climate change listed above, cold extremes
are likely to decrease. This change should have mostly positive impacts on transportation, such as a decrease in ice buildup on marine infrastructure. Also, if the snow
season is shorter, roadway maintenance will be easier and highway safety will improve.
In summary, climate change will affect transportation operations and infrastructure in multiple ways. Transportation infrastructures have long lifetimes. For roadways it is typically 25 years, railroads 50 years, and bridges and underpasses 100
years. When planning a new bridge, for example, designers can take into consideration (among other things) current traffic, potential future traffic, current weather
and climate, and potential future weather and climate. As illustration of such an
adaptation measure, the design of the 8 mile long Confederation Bridge, which connects Prince Edward Island to the Canadian mainland, took into account the possibility of a 1m (3 feet) sea-level rise due to climate change. Many other adaptation
measures can be adopted. For example, there are methods of laying railroad track
that raise the temperature at which it will buckle, some pavement options are more
resistant to rutting during hot weather than others and larger culverts can be
placed under railroads and highways to accommodate heavier precipitation. To help
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
21
the Nation respond to this challenge, NOAA provides climate information to the
transportation sector to aid in its efficient and safe operation, and to help design
infrastructure to withstand future climate change.
NOAAs Role in Providing Climate Information
NOAA helps the Nations transportation industry identify and manage risks associated with climate variability and change. NOAA supports the transportation industry by serving as the centralized source of relevant and timely weather and climate information needed to support commerce. NOAAs contributions include historical and real-time data, monitoring and assessments, research and modeling, predictions and projections, decision-support tools.
For example:
NOAAs Climate Prediction Center produces seasonal forecasts used for planning for transport on waterways and stockpiling supplies such as sandbags or
salt for roadway (among other functions).
NOAAs National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) develops national and global
datasets that have been used to maximize climate resources and minimize the
risks posed by climate variability and weather extremes.
NOAAs Earth System Research Laboratory, working with the Federal Highway
Administration, develops decision-support software applications that use weather forecasts to generate predictions about roadway conditions and recommendations for the frequency of snow plowing and deicing. These efforts help to increase roadway safety and cost-savings due to reduced unnecessary roadway
maintenance.
NOAAs Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory develops climate models to
prepare projections of future climate conditions.
NOAAs Climate Program Office supports fundamental research aimed at fulfilling NOAAs goal to understand and describe climate variability and change
to enhance societys ability to plan and respond.
NOAAs National Weather Service and NCDC produce many publications that
describe the weather and climate of the United States, participate in national
and international climate research assessments, and fulfill millions of data customer requests each year.
NOAAs National Ocean Service provides information on local vertical land
movement and local relative mean sea level trends and provides coastal managers with coastal resilience tools and training.
Climate change presents a substantial challenge for future policy and business decision-making, and the demand for climate information from NOAA has increased
over the past decade and continues to grow. Designers of transportation infrastructure can use NOAAs climate change information to help guide the design and construction of new infrastructure, so it will withstand climactic changes throughout
its designed life time.
NOAA actively participates with other Federal agencies and other organizations,
and often takes a leadership role in collaborative climate change assessments and
reports. NOAA has worked on both domestic efforts, such as the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP) report on changes in extremes in North America,
and international efforts, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). These rigorous assessments synthesize the latest climate science to provide
authoritative information on how the climate has changed in the past and is expected to change in the future. These reports are widely accessed by the transportation industry.
NOAA has taken a proactive role in understanding the emerging data and information needs facing a variety of data users and decision-makers. As climate services
continue to evolve, NOAA recognizes that local, regional, state, and private entities
require better information to understand how their localities are contributing to,
will be affected by, and can adapt to a changing climate. It is NOAAs goal to provide relevant, user-specific climate information to meet this demand. NOAA has
begun to address this through problem-focused initiatives developed collaboratively
with users, such as the transportation industry.
For example, in 2007, NCDC hosted a specialized NOAA Data Users workshop to
identify the climate data and information requirements of the energy, insurance,
and transportation sectors, in the context of a changing climate. The workshop also
explored how those emerging information needs might guide future products and
services. The feedback gained from this workshop provided an understanding of the
needs of each industry, enabling NOAA to maximize the value of the climate products and services it delivers. For instance, in addition to NOAAs role as provider
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
22
of historical, current and modeled environmental data, these industries are interested in data about the probability of risk associated with a changing climate.
In summary, NOAA is striving to meet the rising demand for climate data and
products, which support decision-making in a number of nationally significant industries including transportation. Government and industry leaders recognize the
inherent value in planning for future climate change through an enhanced climate
services partnership between the public and private sectors.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to discuss the effects of climate change
on our Nations transportation operations and infrastructure. I look forward to
working with the Committee on any further information you may require for your
deliberations on this topic.
References
CCSP, 2008: Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Savonis, M.J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R. Potter
(eds.)]. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA, 445 pp.
CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North
America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas R. Karl, Gerald
A. Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and William L. Murray
(eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAAs National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C.,
USA, 164 pp.
Peterson, Thomas C., Marjorie McGuirk, Tamara G. Houston, Andrew H. Horvitz and Michael
F. Wehner, 2008: Climate Variability and Change with Implications for Transportation, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290Many.pdf,
90 pp.
NRC, 2008: The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board Special Report #290, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 218 pages.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Dr. Peterson.

My staff has prepared several very technical questions, but Id
like to ask other questions, if I may.
None of you have mentioned the price of gasoline at the pumps,
or suggested what it should be tomorrow or the following day. I
would venture to say that if gas prices were set at $2.50 a gallon
this morning, we would not be holding this hearing, nor would
Presidential candidates be concerned about climate change, emissions, or greenhouse gases.
And so, Ive done some studying, and Im not certain whether the
information Im receiving has any bearing. For example, Ive been
told that 94 percent of the oil we consume in the United States
comes from countries or dictatorships, 6 percent by private capitalists. Does that make any sense94 percent by countries like Saudi
Arabia, Iran, the Emirates, nationally owned companies like in
Venezuela; and 6 percent by private sourcesdoes that make
sense? Any of you.
[No response.]
The CHAIRMAN. We have no idea where the oil is coming from?
[No response.]
The CHAIRMAN. Ive been also told that if all the oil consumed in
the United States each day51 percent consumed by passenger
cars, 12 percent by trucks, buses, and trains, 7 percent by aircraft,
24 percent by industry, and the rest, different places. Does that
make sense?
Admiral BARRETT. Senator, Iwere obviously more focused on
transportation, but, in response to your first question, my understanding is, aboutsomething a little less than 40 percent of our
supply comes from domestic sources, and the remainder comes
from overseas. And I dont know how to characterize it. I dont have
any information on the nature of the places we get it. But, obvi-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
23
ously, Congress, certainly the Administration, is focused on energy
security and energy independence; its a fundamental issue for the
country.
With respect to transportation, what I would offer you is that
about 95 percent of the fuel used in transportation is based on petroleum in one form or another. There are some amounts that come
from the power gridelectric, on railand theres some amount
some small amount comes from natural gaspower compressors.
So, the net is that our transportation systems are heavily reliant
on fossil fuel, and obviously the supply of that fuel to the effectiveness of our transportation networks and our economy is vitally important.
The CHAIRMAN. Ive been told, by responsible people, that all of
the major automobile manufacturers in the United States are prepared to build automobiles that will run on alternative fuel once
we determine what that alternative fuel is to be. Now, if we look
at articles, youll see one organization advocating electricity; another, hydrogen; another, biofuel; one says do what Brazil does,
raise sugar cane; others say corn, et cetera. But yet, at the same
time, automobile manufacturers say, If we decide, will we have
distribution points? At the present time, less than 1 percent of our
gas stations provide other-than-petroleum sources. Whats the solution?
Admiral BARRETT. Senator, thank you.
Ifrom a transportation perspectiveagain, to go back to your
initial entry point, on the fuel pricemarket forces dramatically
will affect the transportation systems, and also what types of alternatives. Obviously, Congress and certainly the Administration are
promoting alternate fuels, renewable fuels, new technologies, different technologies, battery technologies, hybrids, clean diesel,
more efficient diesel, a multitude of initiatives. And I dont think
that the market has settled out, in terms of what the American
consumer will find most efficient and affordable and functional for
their transportation needs. And I think part of what has to happen
is, as manufacturers in the marketplace bring these technologies
forward, I think theboth the opportunities and the challenges associated with them in the costs will surface. And I think the market will be in the best position to help sort this out over time.
I think, obviously, from our perspective, we have ratcheted up,
substantially, the mandated fuel economy standards. As you know,
in April we proposed new CAFE standards for passenger cars and
light trucks. That will increaserequire an increase, if the rules
are adopted, of 25 percent in the fuel economy of the major U.S.
vehicle fleets by 2015. That would save you somewhere in the order
of 521 million metric tons of CO2. Thats a very aggressive standard. It exceeds what Congress set down in the Energy Independence and Security Act. Congress mandated about a three-and-ahalf-percent-a-year improvement. The Administrations initial target was about 4 percent, and the rule weve proposed is about 4
and a half percent. And how the manufacturers get to that standard, I believe, will be a combination of the types of initiatives you
spoke about. And I think the market will lean toward the most effective ones at the end of the day.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
24
The CHAIRMAN. Ive been further advised by economists that the
hike in price is not under the control of the marketplace; the marketplace supply-and-demand theory has very limited impact. Speculators, maybe, account for about 10 percent of the hike. And nowhere can anyone suggest that the cost of production has gone up
that high. So, somebodys making a ton of money. Is that assumption correct?
Admiral BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I think what clearly has gone
on is, the demand, globally, has gone up dramatically over the past
several years, not just in the United Statesthis is a global market; its gone up dramatically in places like China, its gone dramatically up in places like India, it certainly has increased in this
country, as well.
So, again, to the best of our knowledge, this is fundamentally
driven by supply and demand. And thats why, candidly, you know,
the solution to this problem iswe hear lots of alternativeswe,
kind of, have to do everything. Weve got to increase domestic supplies. Weve got to drive more efficient vehicles. Weve got to make
our systems more efficient. Weve got to take a different lookI
know this Committee willat transportation, and more flexibility
in transportation funding. You know, the vehicle miles traveled in
April of this year are down substantially from where they were last
year, driven by the prices you mentioned. And also, transit ridership is going up. People are shifting their choices, if you will, in response to these market pressures. And so, I think we need a multifaceted approach, and obviously were going to work, and continue
to work, very hard at that.
But, to the best of my knowledge, sir, this is primarily driven by
supply and demand over an extended period of time. This is not
new; its justtheres less margin, theres less flexibility. Were getting up to the, kind of, limits of what the available supply is, and
we need to think very seriously about expanding that supply, particularly domestically, as you mentioned, in areas such as offshore
or areas such as ANWR. We need to think very seriously about
that, and improve our supplies.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Stevens?
Senator STEVENS. Senator Kerry was here ahead of me.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kerry?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator KERRY. Admiral Barrett, Im a little surprised, first of

all, to hear you extolling the Administrations initiative with respect to CAFE standards, since the Administration fought them
every step of the way and the level were going to is well below
what most of us believe we ought to be going to. And I wonder if,
since your own figures on the savings and the standards were calculated on a $2.25 pricewhether now that doesnt have to be completely revised, since were almost double that.
Admiral BARRETT. Senator, our prices were calculated based on
the information provided by Department of Energy, the standard
package prices that the Government uses. But, candidly, the mandate we have in the law was to address the most feasible possible,
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
25
given technology availability, as well as, you know, the art of the
possible and 18-month cycles in advance for manufacturers to adjust their times, and also the cost.
Senator KERRY. What do you
Admiral BARRETT. The cost
Senator KERRY.mean by the art of the possible?
Admiral BARRETT. In other words, the technology has to be available
Senator KERRY. Well, the National Academy of Sciences says it
is, you could double it now.
Admiral BARRETT. Not speculative. I mean, it canttheres also
a huge cost factor. The cost of the standards we
Senator KERRY. Come back to the
Admiral BARRETT. Yes, sir.
Senator KERRY.to the expectations. I mean, the National Academy says that a lot of people out thereyou can get 170 miles to
a gallon tomorrow if you use a battery and plug-in and hybrid.
Admiral BARRETT. Well, and I think the manufacturers are trying to bring those forward. But, I dont think
Senator KERRY. Do you think the market is moving fast enough
to respond to that?
Admiral BARRETT. I think its moving veryI think its moving
increasingly rapidly.
Senator KERRY. And
Admiral BARRETT. And I think youll see more increase in that.
And
Senator KERRY. Do you think wed be better off if the market
moved faster?
Admiral BARRETT. I think the market is moving faster
Senator KERRY. Do you think wed be better off if the market
moved faster?
Admiral BARRETT. I think the market will move in line with the
technology. I just
Senator KERRY. No. No, no, no.
Admiral BARRETT. Theres a cost
Senator KERRY. Would we be better off as a country if the market moved faster?
Admiral BARRETT. Well, I think there are tradeoffs. The cost to
the consumer, of what we have proposednot anything further, as
you discuss; what we have proposedis somewhere between $300
and $900 a vehicle. Thats substantial impact, also, that needs to
be factored in.
Senator KERRY. But we
Admiral BARRETT. I also cant
Senator KERRY.we did factor it in. In 2004, I proposed a
$4,000-per-vehicle credit to the consumer.
Admiral BARRETT. Well
Senator KERRY. Thats a worthwhile tax expenditure, isnt it?
Admiral BARRETT. Well, itI think thats an issue for the Congress. Iwhat I alsoI justcandidly, Senator, I appreciate your
interest in this, and I understand the concern youre raising. What
we put out as a proposalwere open for comments until July 1
we will take seriously the feedback. And obviously, we will look at
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
26
whats going on in the market and whats going on with fuel as we
consider a final rule.
Senator KERRY. Well, the final rule is predicated on a notion that
were going to try to achieve that standard by 2030, isnt that correct?
Admiral BARRETT. Well, its staged, so actually a lot of the standard will be achieved by 2015, and then 2020 is the out year for the
final standard2020.
Senator KERRY. Chinas going to achieve that standard next year.
Admiral BARRETT. Im notIm not aware of that. China has nowhere near the number of vehicles we have, either, sir.
Senator KERRY. Theyre growing rapidly, arent they?
Admiral BARRETT. They are growing. But, theyre still
Senator KERRY. Doesnt it matter that they think they can put
vehicles in place that can establish that standard by next year?
What does that say about us?
Admiral BARRETT. Again, weve proposed what we believe is feasible and achievable, in line with the law. Weve actually exceeded
the requirement in the law. But, I dont know, specifically, what
the Chinese
Senator KERRY. Wheres the Administrations proposal with respect to high-speed rail, and rail as a whole, in the country?
Admiral BARRETT. Well, I think raila number of things are
going on. Certainly, freight rail is a hugely efficient way of moving
freight. Its near capacity across the country.
Senator KERRY. And wheres the proposal to expand capacity on
high-speed rail?
Admiral BARRETT. Well, again, I think thats something that,
again, is in a research-and-development area. I think Congress is
obviously interested, and we are interest, alsoas well. But, the
technology for some of the high-speed rail is enormously expensive.
And unlike in some other places, were using existing infrastructure. You know, itsit takes a lot of work. And it would probably
be feasible only in very heavily trafficked corridors.
Senator KERRY. Well, we have some of those, Mr. Barrett. We
have trains today that could go 150 miles an hour, and they cant
go 150 miles an hour because the Baltimore Tunnel wont allow
them to, because the
Admiral BARRETT. Youre right.
Senator KERRY.bridges wont allow them to. And you dont
have any proposal whatsoever to fix those things.
Admiral BARRETT. Well, I think, again, investment in infrastructure is enormously important.
Senator KERRY. Well, of course it is. Thats what Im talking
about. But, wheres the proposal?
Admiral BARRETT. For high-speed rail? We
Senator KERRY. For any of these things.
Admiral BARRETT. Well, we have proposedwe, in fact, have
spent enormous amounts of money on improving transit infrastructure, improving highway infrastructure, and trying to bring market
forces to bear to improve the flow, to eliminate the congestion. And
I think the passengers are moving, based on those prices.
Senator KERRY. Well, I have to tell you that its more than passing disappointing.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
27
Let me ask you what is the guiding operative management target
under which Department of Transportation, Department of Energy,
and others are proceeding with respect to global climate change?
This hearing is obviously on global climate change. This is the 20year anniversary of Jim Hansen coming up here and telling us that
its happening now, 20 years ago. Now we know its happening,
even to a greater degree and faster than was predicted. Id like to
know what the operative estimate is of your Department as to
where a potential, sort of, catastrophic tipping point may be, and
how fast you have to respond to these infrastructure challenges.
And I do that particularly in light of the fact that there are predictions, for instance, thatjust last week, The Washington Post
ran a story headlined, Extreme Weather to Increase with Climate
Change, and, Our scientists now agree that the droughts are
going to get drier, the storms are going to get stormier, the floods
are going to get deeper with climate change. Thats a quote. They
warn of more flooding, like were seeing in Iowa today, more heavy
downpours, more droughts. In March, the Department of Transportation found that the Gulf Coast would put a substantial portion
of the regions transportation infrastructure at risk. Storm surges
in the Gulf Coast will flood more than half the areas major highways, almost half of the rail miles, 29 airports, and virtually all of
the ports.
So, given these predictions, which keep coming at us, under what
time-frame do you believe youre operating, in terms of the infrastructure expenditures necessary to respond to these threats?
Admiral BARRETT. Senator, I think the answer is, first, youand
you highlighted itthe Gulf Coast study we did is regionally focused. With respect to transportation infrastructure, the first step
is understanding the potential implications in local areas, because
they vary. And a follow-on to that study will involve the East
Coast. But, the impacts will be different. Gulf Coast, obviously,
youve got the potential for sea level rise, temperature changes,
storm intensity, all affecting the things you do. So, I think the first
thing we are trying to do is understand better, and particularly regionally, what the actual implications might be so that people who
repair and renew and expand transportation infrastructure, which,
to a large extent, rests in the states, as well as the Federal Government, can adjust to that over time as they repair and renew and
build out.
But, I think there is no timeline, specific, but we clearly need to
understand what needs to be done, and, as we plan new projects
for example, we had instrumented, in the Gulf region, a cable-stay
bridge when Katrina came through. We have the data from the
wind-loading on that bridge, and were trying toand we are assessing the implications of that for bridge design across the country. And I think you will see adjustments to how we design, build,
and install bridges to withstand climate better, and the impacts of
climate change, whether its increased storms or higher river levels.
And so, the technology to do this is within our capability. We will
make the adjustments as rapidly as we can. But, theres no specific
time. Its a serious issue, its got our attention, and, working with
the Congress, we are doing our very best to address it.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
28
Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, my time is up, and I appreciate
your indulgence here.
Id just close by saying there really is a specific time, sir. Jim
Hansen, who is hugely respected, first warned of this, 20 years ago,
and weve been slow to respond to it. The science is only coming
back stronger and more rapidly and greater. Jim Hansen has now
revisedright now, today, in these daysis warning us that we
have less cushion than the scientists thought when they revised
the cushion from several years ago. So, its gone from 550 parts per
million of greenhouse gases, to 450, and now, they believe, less
than that.
There is a time-frame here. Theyve said weve got 10 years to
get this right. And if youre saying to us, you know, theres no timeframe, and thats, sort of, the attitude of where we are, I think this
is going to be very difficult to get done. And I think its, frankly,
inappropriate, that that is where a major department, the Department of Transportation, stands today. I think there ought to be
vast commitments in incentives, tax incentives, grants, expenditures to put America on a course, here, to deal with this.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Stevens?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator STEVENS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask that you put my statement in the record that I
would have made if I had gotten here on time. I do apologize for
being late.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.
Senator STEVENS. And Im constrained to say that I think my
friend from Massachusetts seems to think that we ought to change
the world overnight. We did adopt a new CAFE standard, the first
since the 1970s; and were implementing it. China has not called
in the cars that are polluting. Theyve set new standards for their
new vehicles, if and when they get them.
I think the problem we have to deal with is the impact of some
of these changes on the individual American and on our states. Our
state had, as Ive said in this statement, a report that the effects
of climate change stand to increase our maintenance and replacement costs for public infrastructure by $6 billion over the next 20
years. Now, were a small state. The impact of that on the taxpayer
and upon the people of our state is going to be overwhelming if we
have to start meeting some immediate standards. The question has
got to be, What do we do first?
Now, I applaud you, Mr. Barrett, for what youve said, in terms
of the attempts that the administration is making to get people to
move, across the board. Nobody can do it overnight, all at once.
But, I think the CAFE standards that weve established are really
a step in the right direction. Were trying to find ways to really
measure the effects of alternative energies and how much we can
afford to move, and how quickly we can move on those.
I would say, those people who have opposed our exploration in
the Arctic of Alaska and of developing our resources offshore have
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
29
put us behind the eight ball right now. If President Clinton hadnt
vetoed the ANWR bill in 1995, we would be producing an extra 2
million barrels of oil a day, and that income to our state and to our
Nation would enable us to be making some of the changes that we
have to make. The only way we can make them now is to raise
taxes. And how do you raise taxes on people that are currently now
paying for oil at $140 a barrel instead of $8 a barrel, which is what
we paid when we completed the Alaska Oil Pipeline?
Now, Mr. Secretary, what Id really like to know is something
different, and that is, have you conferred with the people in the
aviation industry? How are they going to meet these changes? The
cost of aviation fuel is going up as rapidly, or more rapidly, than
that for automobiles. In my state, 70 percent of the destinations in
my State can be reached only by air, and were seeing enormous
change. National airline after national airline is canceling their
flights to my state. Well be isolated in another 2 years. Now, what
can we do to meet the problems of these international and national
airlines?
Admiral BARRETT. Senator, thank you. I think they are enormously challenged. At the same time, they are leading American
industry with respect to technology. And, as I indicated in my
statement, they have actually been able to improve their fuel efficiency and reduce their carbon emissions when other international
airlinesEU, for examplehave not been able to do it; theyre
moving in the opposite direction.
We clearlyone of the principal things were doing is try to accelerate bringing forward what is commonly termed next generation technology to allow the management of the air traffic system
that we operatethe FAA operatesto allow them to operate
much more efficiency and reduce their carbon burn. We are providing grants, through our Airport Improvement Programs, to
bring ground equipment forward that uses less fuel. But, aviationa lot of the burn is in the routes, its getting them the ability
to get from point to point more efficiently. Weve changed the routing in the air, weve brought forwardallowed them to spacesafely, I might addcloser together at certain altitudes. We have
worked closely with the Department of Defense to open up military
airspace as part of the national airspace when weve had holiday
traffic. Again, it reduces the fuel burn to the airlines. Were working very closely with them to try and do everything we can to minimize the burden the Government puts on them, in terms of managing their flight profiles.
Andbut, I dont want to underestimate it. Their model, their
business model of your major carriers is not built on 135-dollar-abarrel fuel, and its a substantial challenge. And were going to
move, again, as quickly as we can. The FAA certainly is.
As an example, one of the issues were working with thewith
RNAVand youre familiar with these, Senatorcontinuous-descent approaches to allow airlines inwhere we can do it safely
to come down on a direct approach, basically throttle back into an
airport. FAA is moving testbed into Florida to bring this forward.
Weve done tests in Louisville to work incrementally to reduce the
fuel burn. Its that simple. Theres a direct line between fuel burn
and carbon footprint and cost.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
30
Airlines are offloading weight, as you know. Were managing that
for safety. Thats another concern. As these things are takenas
these measures are taken, were working very closely with them to
make sure their flying remains as it is, a very safe mode of transportation.
Senator STEVENS. Well, thats good. Im glad to hear it.
Have you analyzed the effect of cap-and-trade legislation on
building our enormous natural-gas pipeline to Alaska?
Admiral BARRETT. Not specifically, no. But, I would say that capand-tradeweve done a couple of things in the Department. We
have triedfor example, Pipeline Safety Administrationto look at
ways to move gas through lines at higher volume and get more efficiency out of an existing line; move moreincrease the capacity.
But, cap-and-trade, with respect to transportation systems, has
to be approached very carefully. Mobile sources and sources that
move product are not the same as power plants. And, again, the
cost structure of the business models are totally different. And if
we are not very careful about improvingand were globalif we
impose, carelessly, cap-and-trade regimes in transportation, it can
have a very negative, even devastating effect. So, we havent looked
specifically at your question. Id be glad to, and provide some feedback to you.
Senator STEVENS. Well, I wish you would, because I was told
that the application of cap-and-trade, the credits that would be required during the construction phase alone for a pipeline of that
size, really, it would be the largest project in the history of the
United States financed by private capitalthat, for all the trucks
and everything else that are going to be used in this construction
phase over a period of 56 years, that the costs would be increased
by at least 20 percent if they had to go out and buy credits under
that concept for the pollution thats taking place, notwithstanding
the fact that the completion of the line would bring about the delivery of an enormous amount of new additional natural gas, which
is not as polluting as the coal that people are using in many of the
areas that would be supplied. There doesnt seem to be any leeway
for those who want to move to try and get a more efficient type of
energy available. I think that cap-and-trade legislation would kill
that pipeline.
Admiral BARRETT. Sir, no, I agree, in general. Cap-and-trade in
transportation is very treacherous and needs to be looked at very
closely.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator STEVENS. I do have some questions to be submitted to
Im going to be going out of the hearing after
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT
OF
HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM
ALASKA
The effects of climate change on the transportation sector is an important issue,

particularly in Alaska, and I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing.
The University of Alaska recently released a report on potential impacts of climate change on transportation and public infrastructure in Alaska. The report
found that the effects of climate change stand to increase maintenance and replace-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
31
ment costs of public infrastructure in Alaska by up to 20 percent, or an additional
$6 billion over the next two decades.
We can mitigate these impacts and reduce costs through study and research on
improving the planning, design, construction, and operation of transportation systems.
We must also explore the potential for increased energy efficiency and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. Recently, I have supported
legislation to increase the corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles.
Conservation measures and alternative energies need to be part of our long-term
strategy, but the idea that we can transition from fossil fuels anytime in the next
20 years is not realistic.
Worldwide oil demand is expected to increase to 116 million barrels a day by
2030. We do need to explore ways to ease our dependence on fossil fuels in the
transportation sector, but the investments required to make this transition are enormous.
This is why I continue to argue that revenues from new domestic sources of oil,
including ANWR, should be devoted to climate change adaptation and alternative
energy development to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I welcome our witnesses today, including Mead Treadwell who has traveled all the
way from Anchorage to be here, and I look forward to your testimony.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

Senator Carper?
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To our witnesses, welcome. Thank you for joining us today, for
your testimony, and for responding to our questions.
I just want to follow up on a couple of comments that our colleagues have made in some discussion a bit earlier on CAFE. The
CAFE legislation, which I think all of us here worked on to enact,
has the practical effect of, not literally but figuratively, removing
about 60 million vehicles off of our roads, in terms of reduced CO2
emissions, by 2020. Thats no small accomplishment. If we dont
figure out how to drive less, though, instead of how to drive more,
it will be an accomplishment for naught.
We were speculating earlier about whether or not we needed to
go further than CAFE, further than 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
My guess is that market forces will get us there a lot faster than
the legislation that weve passed. And I think that will be a good
thing.
I have a couple of questions, and I have a statement for the
record, if I could, more effective, but a couple of questions.
Senator CARPER. And the first question, I think Ill direct it to
Dr. Peterson to start off with and others might respond, if they
wish. The transportation sector is responsible, I believe, for almost
one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions, making it among the
largest source in our economy; I think, second only to power plants.
How should the U.S. surface transportation policy be updated to
support the goals of climate change legislation?
Dr. PETERSON. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to that
question, but its somewhat out of my area of expertise. Weve been
focusing on how climate change will impact transportation, rather
than focusing on how transportation is impacting climate change
and what should be the change in policies should be with regard
to transportation.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
32
Senator CARPER. Let me ask a slightly different question, but a
related one. Should the transportation sector be responsible for
one-third of the emission reductions for CO2 that are necessary to
meet targets that scientists say is necessary?
Dr. PETERSON. Should transportation be required for one-third of
the reductions or a different amount? Again, thats out of my area
of expertise. But, as we look forward
Senator CARPER. Once, in another hearing, I asked a witness a
question like that, and it was beyond his area of expertise, and he
just said to me, Next question?
[Laughter.]
Senator CARPER. You can
Dr. PETERSON. Next question?
[Laughter.]
Senator CARPER. Let me just bounce that same question off of
Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett, you want to take a shot at that, and well give Dr.
Peterson a pass, here.
Dr. PETERSON. Thank you.
Admiral BARRETT. Senator, thank you very much. And Id agree
with your observation, by the way, that the market doesseems to
be working. And as gas prices are going up, we are seeing shifts
in behavior that affectand, over time, will affect even more
transportation.
But, I thinkone way to approach it is, I think we clearly recognize it and desire to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that
comes from transportation. We can improve the energy efficiency of
transportation vehicles, such as with CAFE. We can substitute energy sources that are lower in emissionalternate fuels, renewable
fuels. We can do things, like were doing with congestion pricing,
that improve the flowbetter technology, signal timingthat leverage the systems weve got; and then reduce, you know, how
much motorized activity goes onvehiclesand how much.
But, the intermodal piece is important, too. I mean, youre seeing
shifts to rail, to ships, to ways that are intrinsically more efficient,
and the market is driving that. I dont know if thats whatresponsive. But, I think the goal is to drive it down, across the board.
Senator CARPER. I take the train back and forth to Washington
almost every day. I live in Delaware and I dont get off the train
at BWI, but if I wanted to, I could literally take a bus from my
house to the train station, catch the train, take the train to BWI,
get off, take a shuttle to the terminal, and then fly to just about
any place around the world. We dont always make it easy for people to get from a train to an airport terminal, but we do at BWI,
and I think we do the same thing at Newark, Delaware.
Let me just do a follow-up, if I can, Mr. Barrett. I think, in your
testimony, you talked about congestion pricing, and you mentioned
it just a moment ago, as well, and other travel demand management techniques, and I missed your statement, but I believe you
may have cited Germanys experience with this. But, as Im sure
you know, Germany has invested a lot of money in transit. Theyve
invested a fair amount of money in other driving alternatives that
are not always available in American communities, like what I described for my own community for myself if I wanted to fly out of
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
33
BWI. But, without the safe, convenient driving alternatives, do people really have the kind of options that they need, other than, in
some cases, paying the tolls, or, in other cases, changing the time
of their commute, which they might like to do, but their employers
may have another idea about that? And doesnt this severely limit
the potential benefit of congestion pricing, which, frankly, I still
find is an interesting option, but its not without its problems?
Admiral BARRETT. No, I think itone of the options it does is potentially does create funds to invest in other alternatives. You mentioned Germany, but if you look at London or you look at Stockholm, you look at some of the other examples where theyve put,
for example, cordon-type pricing approaches in, one of the things
they do with the funds they gain is invest it to improve transit and
improve the alternatives that youre speaking about, so that, you
know, ultimately, the publicly has more choice available to them.
And certainly, I think the idea of providing more flexibility to both
State and local officials as they make those regional investment decisions is important.
Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you.
This could be a question for any of our panelists, but transit
agencies across the country are struggling to meet the increasing
demands resulting from high gas prices. This is actually a goodnews story, I think, because weve seen SEPTA ridership growing
in my own region of the country, by 5 to 10 percent; weve seen
some transit agencies with as much as 2025 percent growth in
ridership. Ridership on Amtrak is up, I think, this year to date, by
about 10 to 15 percent; last year, it was up by close to 10 percent,
as well. But, transit agencies across the country are struggling to
meet increasing demands resulting from high gas prices, as you
know. And, at the same time, more people are turning to transit
as a clean, affordable way to travel. In fact, the typical public
transportation user, on average, needs to buy, Im told, about half
as much gasoline as a person without access to transit. And I
would just ask anyone on this panel, is the Federal investment in
public transportation adequate to serve our public in an era of high
gas prices?
Dr. Turner, I can tell youre dying to answer that question.
[Laughter.]
Dr. TURNER. Well, sir, your perceptive powers are amazing.
[Laughter.]
Dr. TURNER. This is a little bit out of our area of expertise, but
let me just describe for you the things that were doing at NIST.
Were basically attacking this at three levels, starting with the
atmosphere. We are working with NOAA, which is a sister agency
of ours within the Department of Commerce, to make very accurate
measurements of the gases that are in the atmosphere, to help
with calibrating satellite instruments and to make very accurate
measurements of the solar radiance on the atmosphere, and also to
look at the impact of aerosols, because NOAA needs that information to put into their climate models to make the predictions that
are necessary.
Were also looking at some very near-term things, such as
biofuels and hydrogen as alternatives in the mix that people will
have. Weve been very active with Brazil and the EU to develop
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
34
standards and methods of measuring, to assure that commerce can
take place equitably in biofuels.
The U.S. auto manufacturers have also been a very significant
user of our neutron facility, which is used to improve fuel cells,
which support a hydrogen economy. Were also working to tackle
the problem of embrittlement that hydrogen has on metals that
would be used in a pipeline. So, were looking at that also.
One of the other things that were doing is to look at what can
be done with respect to cement. Its something so basic, so fundamental, but it turns out that, for each ton of cement produced, you
produce a ton of carbon dioxide. And so, one of the things were
looking at is the replacement of cement, in manufacturing concrete,
with fly ash. Fly ash is a byproduct of electricity production, and
so, any increase that we can have in the production of concrete,
using fly ash as opposed to cement, would have immediate impact
on the carbon footprint thats out there.
Senator CARPER. All right, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired. Could I just add a
quick P.S., if I may? I wont ask another question.
When I was Governor of Delaware, if we wanted to build a road
or a highway or a bridge, the Federal Government paid for 80 percent of it. Eighty percent. If we wanted to do a transit investment,
the Federal Government provided 50 percent of it. If we wanted to
investif it made more sense to put in intercity passenger rail, the
Federal Government provided nothing. And Im sure we made investment decisions, that were probably wrong decisions, because of
the difference in those modes ofor measures of Federal support.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT
OF
HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM
DELAWARE
This is a very important hearing, one that I hope will be repeated in the other
committees with jurisdiction over transportation.
The transportation sector is responsible for 30 percent of this Nations carbon
emissions and growing. Yet emissions from the transportation sector can be more
difficult to address than stationary sources.
This is because we have millions of tiny, mobile smokestacks manufactured by different companies, fueled with fuel from different companies and sources and operated by millions of different people with varying demands and needs.
No matter the challenge, it is an area we must address in order to meet our carbon reduction targets and we already have the tools to do so.
There are three broad areas that must be dealt with: the efficiency of vehicles,
the carbon content of fuels and how much people drive. Last year, this committee
took the lead in passing a bill to increase the fuel efficiency of cars from 25 mpg
to 35 mpg by 2020.
We also promoted the use of alternative fuels by passing a renewable fuels standard, requiring the production of 21 billion gallons of advanced renewable fuels, also
by 2020.
The final area that needs some attention is making our transportation system less
congested and more efficient. This means fixing bottlenecks, intermodalism and
more options to driving.
American ingenuity is going to bring us the Chevrolet Volt in the very near futurea car that will go 640 miles without needing to be recharged or filled up.
There are also companies hard at work developing renewable fuels. One example
is Coskata, a U.S. company that says it will be able to produce ethanol from practically any sourceincluding garbage, plant waste and used tiresfor $1 per gallon.
Now we, in government, need to show the same amount of ingenuity and address
the efficiency of the transportation system we have built.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
35
There is much we can learn from state and local governments that have already
begun to invest in alternatives to driving, saving their constituents thousands of
dollars when the cost of gas goes up.
Some states and local governments have found that when transportation and development decisions are made together the whole system works better, people save
money on transportation, property values rise and pollution decreases.
To support these important efforts, the Federal Government will have to work
across agencies and modes of travel to find the most effective way to move people
and freight.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, particularly from the Department
of Transportation, about how we can break down these silos and find ways to make
it safe and convenient for people and goods to get where they are going, whether
it is by car or truck, train, plane, ship or all of the above.
We will have to address that here in Congress, as well. In the Senate, transportation is handled by three different committeesair and rail in this Committee,
highways at Environment and Public Works and transit at Banking. I am fortunate
enough to serve on all three.
As we develop a climate change bill and prepare to reauthorize the surface transportation program, we need to bring these three committees together to consider
how to move people and goods, not just cars, trains and ships. By doing so, we can
save Americans money at the pump, reduce congestion and reduce the carbon and
other pollutants being emitted today.
The CHAIRMAN. There is a vote pending at this moment. Senator

Nelson will ask one question, and we will stand in recess.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator NELSON. We have 7 minutes left to vote, so you all are

saying, with climate change, roads will buckle, bridges will wash
out, railroads will be destroyed. If the seas rose 2 feet, in my state
of Florida, were talking aboutwhat kind of investment in transportation would be thrown out the window as a result of that?
Admiral BARRETT. I would guesssurmise, substantial. But, I
again, I would take the approachthe Gulf Coast, trying to quantify specifically where thosewhat rail would need to be rerouted,
what roads would need to be readjusted. I think you need very specific analysis at a local and/or regional level. And obviously, were
working toward that. Understanding the specific impacts is enormously important.
Dr. TURNER. Sir, one of the things that I would add is that one
of our initiatives in our 2009 budget looks more broadly at making
communities more disaster-resilient. This would be for water,
winds, fires, and so forth.
Senator NELSON. And thats the point. In a state like Florida,
where 80 percent of the population is on the coast, its very difficult
to go in and redo all of that infrastructure. And the cost is just
going to be enormous. So, wed better start figuring out something
to do so that the seas dont rise.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The hearing will stand in recess. Well be back in about 10 minutes.
[Recess.]
The CHAIRMAN. We shall resume the hearing.
Ive been asked by Senator Thune to submit his remarks and
questions for the record. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The information previously referred to follows:]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
36
PREPARED STATEMENT
OF
HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM
SOUTH DAKOTA
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Chairman and Vice Chairman for holding todays hearing on the transportation sectors impact on climate
change and climate changes impact on our transportation infrastructure.
When discussing the topic of transportations impact on carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions, we must start with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
In addition to the historic increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards and other
energy efficiency programs, this bill included an expanded renewable fuels standard.
The 2007 Energy Bill requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by
2022. The new RFS also includes significant requirements for lifecycle greenhouse
gas emission reductions.
New corn ethanol plants must produce ethanol with a 20 percent reduction in
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.
Advanced biofuel and cellulosic ethanol, which constitute the majority of the new
RFS, must have a 50 percent reduction and 60 percent reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to regular gasoline.
Mr. Chairman, this landmark piece of legislation cannot be overlooked when discussing transportation sectors impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
Moving forward, we must continue to meet the challenges of high fuel costs and
greenhouse gas emissions with common sense policies that reduce emissions while
keeping U.S. businesses competitive, our economy growing, and family budgets intact.
Climate Changes impact on the transportation sector:
On account of aging and outdated infrastructure, we have economic challenges
that are real, tangible, and identifiable today. Many of these infrastructure challenges are going unmet.
Based on projections of population growth and government funding streams such
as the Federal Highway trust, fund we know that these challenges will only grow
in the future and resources will increasingly fall short of meeting these real shortand mid-term challenges.
I encourage the Committee to proceed with caution when considering proposals
that allocate scarce Federal resources based on climate models or projections of
weather patterns far into the future.
The CHAIRMAN. May we have a 2-minute recess?
[Recess.]
The CHAIRMAN. You are here earlier than expected.
Ms. Klobuchar?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for waiting. And thank you, to our witnesses.
Everywhere I went this weekend, this issue of the interaction between changes to our climate and our transportation systemconfronted me from our airlines executives at Northwest Airlines, who
testified yesterday about the effect on the fuel and their need to do
something differently there, to a bus line, called Jefferson Bus
Line, that I did an event with, and their brochures show 100 penguins getting on their bus, to show how, by using public transportation, we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, like, 55 cars for
every bus, to a very sad moment when we went to look at the
floods in southern Minnesota, right on the Iowa border, and went
to a very rural part of our state, where a man was driving a business owner to get a sump pump, in the middle of the night, to help
his daughter, and suddenly the road just opened up and caved in.
Its literally from this wall to that wall, a country road, down probably, I dont know, 10 yards, and he died in this. And we went to
the site with some of the rescue workers that tried to save his life.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
37
But, it made me thinkvery close to my heartabout the effect
that changes in our world are having on our transportation system.
So, I know, Dr. Peterson, you talked about some of the work that
might need to be done for bridges and for roads and for other
things if we continue to see changes to our climate resulting in
more storms and tornados and everything else. Could you elaborate
on that a little bit?
Dr. PETERSON. Yes, thank you.
One of the things were realizing, as the climate is changing, is
that it is not only changing now, or has changed in the past, but
that it will change even more rapidly into the future, and we need
to take this into consideration as were designing infrastructure.
Some of the questions about infrastructure are a result of how long
it has been in service. For example, some coastal railroad tracks
were laid shortly after the Civil War, and the climate has changed.
Sea level has risen since then, and is expected to continue to rise
in the future. So, we need to have a continuing effort to take adaptation measures. Not only at the present time, but continuing into
the future. To always try to include the latest information as we
design structures to withstand the future climate as it is evolving
and going on.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, of course, we, here in Congress, have
a responsibility to try to figure out how to fund it, and right now
we are looking at a potentially bankrupt Highway Trust Fund if we
dont do something different there. And I dont expect you to give
us that answer, but its clearly, as I hear about the adaptations you
think that we need, that were going to have to look at more infrastructure funding.
Have you looked, also, at the effect on the Great Lakes? Because,
with the exception of this year, over the past 80 years weve seen
Lake Superior at its lowest levelits still low now, it was just
lower the year beforedue to climate change, because the water is
evaporating. Its different than the sea. The ice melts quicker, the
water evaporates, and the water levels are going down, so were
having severe problems with barge traffic coming in.
Dr. PETERSON. Yes, as the ice recedes and there is less ice, there
is more evaporation with a general trend towards more drying in
the midsection of the continent. We were just working on a figure,
last week, of Great Lakes water levels with different model projections into the future, going out to 2100, and all of the Great Lake
levels were projected to decrease under all the different global
warming scenarios we were looking at.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. I just wondered if that was
unique to our lake.
And then, I wanted to turn toMr. Deputy Secretary, to some
of the issues of the biofuels, which both you and Dr. Turner mentioned. And we are one of the leading states for biodiesel, were
ahead of our time on ethanol, and are now ahead of our time, in
terms of looking to that next stage of ethanol, which is cellulosic,
with prairie grass andIve seen plants in my state. Guys have
laptop computers showing how we can grow it on all the highway
medians. And my husband and I wonder how were going to harvest it. It looks a little dangerous. But, the point is that there are
all kinds of possibilities to go into this next stage of ethanol, and
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
38
I just wondered what you see as the potential of biofuels if we go
beyond where we are now with corn?
Admiral BARRETT. Senator, thanks. Obviously, alternative and
renewable fuels are something that offers some possibilities. What
we are looking at is both the research and technology necessary to
allow these fuels to operate safely. Safety is always our primary
concern. And, as you bring ethanol, alcohol-based fuels, into transportation networks, the ability to move them and distribute them
safely is a concern. So, were investing a fair amount of research
in that, and obviously working with a lot of partners.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I probably missed the main point. I
mean, the main point, when were talking about climate change
and the interaction with transportation, is, not only is it energyindependent, but its actually theif done right, the prairie grass,
the cellulosic is actually carbon-negative, as opposed to the corn,
which reduces carbon dioxide by, I think, 20 percent over the fuel,
but this could actually be carbon-negative, so it could reduce
Admiral BARRETT. And Iin broad terms, we obviously have to
make our vehicles more efficient, we have to make our systems
more efficient, we have to look for alternative and renewable
sources, we have to improve our supplies. I think its multifaceted.
I also think it will take time. The market will help determine how
quickly it can be brought forward and how it works for American
consumers and their vehicles.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, Dr. Turner, one of the things were
looking at is some higher blends. Lets say, weyou know, we have
E85 in Minnesota, but we alsoE10, E20, but we could do some
higher blend of fuel, where its part gas and then its part biofuel,
whether its from algae or whatever were going to develop in this
country. Have you looked at that for standards for certification? I
know theres alsoitsbeing in a big snowmobiling state of Minnesota, there are also some issues for smaller engines with higher
biofuel blends that were going to have to look at and make sure
that theyre still going to be able to work. But, could you talk about
that? Because that could be a very promising development, if we
actually up the percentage of biofuels in all of ourin all of our
fuel.
Dr. TURNER. Yes, Senator. As youre aware, measurements and
standards are our core competency, and we certainly are looking at
that. Were also looking a bit beyond that, to look at different catalysts that may be available to make the process of producing the
ethanol more efficient. Also, we are looking at the possibility of
synthetic molecules that would have a greater energy content than
the ethanol thats currently produced.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly.
Dr. TURNER. Were looking at things, across the board, as well as
looking globally at the other countries that will be playing in the
ethanol economy, to make sure that we have a level playing field
and we have common terminology and common definitions and are
able to trace back to common standard references for precisely
what is ethanol, so that our consumers can have confidence that for
each dollar they pay, they get what they think theyre getting.
Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I just think sometimes thisbiofuel
things get very confusing for people, but its an infant industry,
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
39
and it clearly needs to get more efficient as we go forward. But,
when we look at other countries, like Brazil, theyve done a lot with
this, and its possible, if we do this right, we can actually do something about climate change at the same time.
So, thank you, to all three of you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, Ill wait until the second

panel comes, please.
The CHAIRMAN. OK.
Then, Id like to thank Admiral Barrett, Acting Director Turner,
and Senior Scientist Peterson. We thank you very much. Your testimony will be most helpful.
And well be submitting many questions. We look forward to your
answers.
Our next panel consists of the Chair of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Climate Change
Technical Assistance Program, and the Secretary of Transportation
of the State of Maryland, the Honorable John D. Porcari; then the
Affiliate Professor of Economics, Loyola College in Maryland, on behalf of the National Research Council, Three Stratford Road, Baltimore, Dr. G. Edward Dickey; Research Director of the Clean Vehicles Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. David Friedman;
President and Chief Executive Officer, AmericanAssociation of
American Railroads, Mr. Edward Hamberger; Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Air Transport Association, Mr.
John M. Meenan; and the Chairman of the Arctic Research Commission, Mr. Mead Treadwell, of Anchorage.
Id like to recognize Mr. Lautenberg for his opening statement.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize
for my late arrival.
I saw a phenomenon this morning that is almost noteworthy; and
that was, I came down on an airplane that was on time. It is very
unusual.
[Laughter.]
Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, one-third of Americas
greenhouse gas emissions comes from cars, trucks, and buses. And
Dr. James Hansen, NASA scientist, said, just last week, and I
quote, If we dont begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the
next several years, then we are in trouble. And weve got to begin
by getting cars off the road, more people onto passenger rail, buses,
subways, and other types of mass transit. Already, more and more
people are riding public transit, and its more efficient, more convenient, and, with these high gas prices, certainly more affordable.
Now, as all know, gas has skyrocketed in price from $1.50 a gallon in 2000 to more than $4.00 a gallon today. And thats why, in
the first 3 months of this year, the number of people taking masstransit options rose more than 3 percent, just in the first 3 months,
over the same period last year. And Im a user of trains on a regular basis, and its just more and more crowded, people jamming
the cars and the stations.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
40
Amtrak also set records last month, both in number of riders and
amount of revenue. And the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak bill, which we
hope to finalize soon, and send to the President for his signature,
will lead to even more rail options for travelers. But, for travelers
who still need or choose to drive, we must continue improving the
fuel economy of our cars and trucks.
Last year, we took the historic step of increasing the fuel efficiency of our vehicles for the first time in decades. But, that same
day, the Bush EPA denied a waiver to allow California, New Jersey, and 14 other states to set fuel economy at even the higher
standard of 40 miles a gallon by 2020. Now, if this waiver were
granted, it would take the equivalent of more than 6 million cars
and trucks off the road. Congress must act to overturn the Presidents action.
Weve also got to act to ensure more efficient movement of
freight. Trains are at least six times more energy efficient than
trucks, and barges are more than eight times more efficient. I
chaired a Subcommittee hearing a couple of weeks ago on freight
transportation needs, and, based on what I learned, I plan to introduce tax relief legislation which will encourage greater use of ships
and barges, or, as we call it, short sea shipping between U.S. ports.
By investing in fuel efficiency, mass transit, and better freight
strategies, we can both bring relief to the people at the pump and
fight global warming for generations to come.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to go out of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lautenberg, will you yield?
I regret I must leave this hearing. And so, I will be relinquishing
the chair to Senator Lautenberg.
And I thank you very much, members of the panel. But, I have
two other meetings to attend. So, thank you.
Senator LAUTENBERG [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Ex-Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator LAUTENBERG. I dont do this lightly.
We welcome the panel, and Im pleased to be here with my friend
Senator Stevens from Alaska. You heard the Chairman bring in the
list of our panel, and Im pleased to have you all here. And I would
ask that you give your testimony.
And, unfortunately, because of the size of the panel, were going
to be fairly strict in the limit of 5 minutes, so we ask you to summarize your testimony.
And, if you would, first, Mr. Porcari.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PORCARI, SECRETARY,
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; CHAIR,
CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ADVISORY BOARD; AND CHAIR, STANDING COMMITTEE ON
AVIATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Committee.
Im John Porcari, Secretary of the Maryland Department of
Transportation, and Im here on behalf of the American Association
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
41
of State Highway and Transportation Officials in my capacity as
Chair of the Climate Change Technical Assistance Advisory Board.
And let me say that, first, the State DOTs are working to be part
of the climate change solution. As you have noted, transportation
represents approximately one-third of greenhouse gas emissions,
and its estimated that highway vehicles generate 72 percent of
those emissions.
To make a positive contribution to the issue of global climate
change, AASHTO believes transportation policies need to reduce
dependence on foreign oil, reduce energy consumption, and reduce
travel demand relative to current trends. To achieve these goals,
AASHTO has called for reducing oil consumption by 20 percent in
10 years, doubling the fuel efficiency of new passenger cars and
light trucks by 2020, in the fleet by 2030, and reducing the growth
of vehicle-miles-traveled from the predicted 2 percent per year to
1 percent per year.
To reduce vehicle travel, AASHTO has endorsed doubling transit
ridership by 2030, significantly expanding the market share of passengers and freight moved by rail rather than trucks, reducing the
percentage of commuters who drive alone to the 1980 levels, and
increasing the percentage of those who ride transit, carpool, walk,
bike, and work at home.
Additionally, were utilizing a publication we call the AASHTO
Transportation and Climate Change Primer to outline, for State
and industry transportation leaders, the current thinking on climate change and transportation.
We have also initiated a climate change technical assistance program to supply states with timely information, tools, technical assistance, and assistance in meeting climate change challenges.
Let me briefly turn to the points that we believe should guide
Federal policy in this area.
First, the challenge before us is to reduce total greenhouse gas
emissions worldwide. We need to develop national policies that reduce our own emissions, and, where possible, contribute to the
broader global effort to reduce emissions.
Second, reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will require a major contribution from every country and every economic
sector, including transportation. No one can sit on the sidelines.
Transportation agencies stand ready to do our part.
Third, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will involve many separate initiatives. In the transportation sector, we need improvements in fuel economy, greater usage of low-carbon fuels, better
management of our transportation system to reduce congestion and
smooth traffic flows, and we need to take steps that reduce the
growth in vehicle miles traveled.
Fourth, we should focus on finding solutions that yield the greatest emissions reductions at the lowest cost. In other words, cost-effectiveness should be a major consideration in setting policy.
Fifth and finally, we need major technological breakthroughs in
order to have any chance of dramatically cutting global emissions
of greenhouse gases. For transportation, this means improvement
of fuel economy, but ultimately a transition to entirely new fuels
and new propulsion systems.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
42
With these breakthroughs and significant reductions, we believe
we can still allow for the travel growth to support the economy.
In recent decades, road travel has greatly increased, while the
emissions of many harmful air pollutants have been significantly
reduced. Technological innovation has made this possible. Reducing
greenhouse gas emissions presents a new challenge, and technological advances will be just as important.
Were also seeing a tempering of growth in travel, due, in part,
to the higher fuel prices. Rather than growing at 2 percent or more
annually, weve seeing the average vehicle-mile-traveled growth of
one-half of 1 percent since 2004.
Recently, USDOT reported the cumulative vehicle miles of travel
for 2008 declined by 2.1 percent. Its feasible, through a combination of measures, to achieve major reductions in greenhouse gases
from road travel in the U.S. Relieving traffic congestion is also essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The optimal speed
for motor vehicles is about 45 miles per hour. At lower speeds,
emissions are several times higher. If we can reduce the fuel
burned by vehicles stalled in traffic, that is a gain. If we can improve the flow of traffic so fuel is burned at a more optimal efficiency, that will also produce a gain.
In my own State of Maryland, under the leadership of Governor
Martin OMalley, weve developed a statewide greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint reduction strategy. Our goal is to reduce
emissions between 25 and 50 percent by 2020, and to obtain a 90percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Those transportation policies that will help implement this include: slowing the
growth of VMT, supporting the development and use of improved
techniques and fuels, and examining other strategies, such as promoting sustainable transit communities and transit-oriented development.
Were also evaluating what climate change and sea level rise will
mean to our transportation infrastructure, given that Maryland
has 4,360 miles of shoreline. Now, fortunately, as a multimodal
State DOT with one transportation trust fund for highways, transit, ports, and airports, we can work across the board to meet these
goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porcari follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN PORCARI, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; CHAIR, CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ADVISORY BOARD; AND CHAIR, STANDING COMMITTEE ON AVIATION, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Good morning, I am John Porcari, Secretary of the Maryland Department of
Transportation. Thank you for the invitation to speak today on an issue of critical
importance to the Nationclimate change and national strategies to address climate change.
I am appearing on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). I chair AASHTOs Climate Change Technical
Assistance Program Advisory Board and the Standing Committee on Aviation. I will
also touch on some Maryland activities and initiatives.
AASHTO and its members are working diligently to be part of the climate change
solution. AASHTO has undertaken a number of climate change activities, including:
Organizing a Transportation Vision Conference in Spring, 2007 which included
discussions regarding sustainability and climate change;
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
43
Publishing, in April 2008, a Primer on Transportation and Climate Change; and
Developing a Climate Change Technical Assistance Program to supply AASHTO
members with timely information, tools and technical assistance to assist them
in meeting the difficult challenges that arise related to climate change.
These and other materials will be provided to the Committee staff for use by the
Committee.
In May, 2007 AASHTO brought together transportation experts from across the
nation, representing users, builders and providers of our transportation system for
a three-day Transportation Vision and Strategies for the 21st Century Summit. The
resulting report, A New Vision for the 21st Century, recognized the difficult challenge of expanding the transportation networks capacity to serve a growing population and communities and an expanding economy while simultaneously reducing
the environmental footprint of the system. To address this challenge, AASHTO
adopted the Triple Bottom Line approach, to encourage sustainable development
by evaluating performance on the basis of social, economic and environmental impacts. The triple bottom line calls for:
Robust economic growth,
Better than before health of the environment, and
Improved quality of life for all citizens.
AASHTO further recognized that to make a positive contribution to the issue of
global climate change, transportation policies need to reduce dependence on foreign
oil, reduce energy consumption, and reduce travel demand, relative to current
trends. To achieve these goals AASHTO called for:
Supporting the Presidents goal to reduce oil consumption by 20 percent in 10
years,
Doubling the fuel efficiency of new passenger cars and light trucks by 2020, the
entire fleet by 2030, and
Reducing the growth of vehicle miles traveled from the predicted 2 percent per
year to 1 percent per year.
To achieve the proposed reduction in VMT growth, AASHTO proposed:
Doubling transit ridership by 2030,
Significantly expanding the market share of passengers and freight moved by
rail rather than trucks,
Reducing the percentage of commuters who drive alone to 1980 levels, and
Increasing the percentage of those who ride transit, carpool, walk, bike and
work at home.
The AASHTO Transportation and Climate Change Primer was developed to provide AASHTO members with an introduction to the issue of climate change and its
implications for transportation policy in the United States. The paper is organized
into five parts:
Part I summarizes the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the causes
and impacts of climate change.
Part II provides an introduction to climate change policy issues.
Part III discusses trends in greenhouse gas emissions from road transportation.
Part IV reviews potential measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
road transportation.
Part V identifies issues for further study.
The Primer is based on the most recent research in the field. Its purpose is to
outline for AASHTO members the current thinking of governmental agencies, researchers, and advocacy groups on the issue of climate change and transportation.
General Observations
In my testimony today, I will focus on the issue of climate change as it relates
to the surface transportation system, specifically highways. I will begin with a few
general points that we believe should guide Federal policy in this area.
First: The challenge before us is to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions, worldwide. In the end, it is the global total that matters. This means we need to develop
national policies that reduce our own emissions and, where possible, contribute to
the broader global effort to reduce emissions.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
44
Second: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will require a major contribution from every country and every economic sector, including transportation.
No one can sit on the sidelines and wait for others to carry the burden. As transportation agencies, we stand ready to do our part.
Third: The effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will involve many separate
initiatives. There is no silver bullet. We should not get so caught up in debates
about competing approaches that we lose sight of this bigger picture. In the transportation sector, this means we need improvements in fuel economy; we need greater usage of low-carbon fuels; we need better management of our transportation system to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flows; and we need to take steps that
reduce the growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Fourth: We should focus on finding solutions that yield the greatest emission reductions at the least cost. In other words, cost-effectiveness should be a major consideration in setting policy. Congress will be asked to consider many proposals in
the name of climate change. The question that must be asked is: How much emissions reduction will this policy deliver, and at what cost?
Fifth, and finally: Technological innovation has been the key to environmental
progress in many areas. That will be even truer with greenhouse gas emissions.
Quite simply, we need major technological breakthroughs in order to have any
chance of dramatically cutting global emissions of greenhouse gases. For transportation, this means not only improvement in fuel economy, but ultimately a transition to entirely new fuels and new propulsion systemsfor example, plug-in hybrid
vehicles, zero-emission fuel-cell vehicles, and large-scale use of next-generation renewable fuels such as cellulosic ethanol.
Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Road Travel
According to the policy analysis seen to date, transportation represents approximately one third of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is estimated that highway vehicles generate 72 percent of those emissions.
Between now and 2030, the U.S. Government forecasts that fuel efficiency will
continue to improve and renewable fuels will gain market share, but also vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) will continue to grow at 1.6 to 1.9 percent annually, outpacing
the gains in fuel efficiency. The result is that, according to DOEs forecasts, greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector are projected to increase gradually between now and 2030.
Clearly, it is important to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the
U.S. transportation system, but how? It is a difficult challenge, but the challenge
can be overcome. Recently, AASHTO published a reportthe Primer on Transportation and Climate Changewhich analyzed this issue.
The Primer developed four scenarios showing how much greenhouse gas emissions
could be reduced under a range of assumptions about fuel economy and growth in
vehicle miles traveled. These scenarios assumed that fuel economy would increase
faster than currently forecasted by USDOEincreasing to 50 or 100 miles per gallon in 2050. (For this study, miles per gallon was measured in gasoline equivalent, which is a measure that converts greenhouse gas emissions from electric or
hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles into an equivalent amount of gasoline usage). The scenarios considered in the primer also assumed the VMT would grow at either 1.5 percent or 1.0 percent annually, which would be slower than the USDOEs forecasts.
AASHTO found that under these scenarios, major reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions are achievablein the range of 60 to 80 percent under the more optimistic scenarios.
These scenarios are intended to illustrate the point that significant reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions from road travel can be achieved, if we have major breakthroughs in fuel economy and a slight tempering of travel demand growthwhile
still allowing for travel demand to increase at a rate at least equal to population
growth.
So is it realistic to achieve these dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions?
First, in terms of fuel economy: We have all seen the tremendous increase in sales
of gas-electric hybrid vehicles, which were rare up until just a few years ago. The
auto manufacturers are working on developing entirely new vehicles, such as plugin hybridsfor example, the Chevy Voltthat runs entirely on electricity. Researchers are also working on other innovations in vehicles and fuels, including next-generation (cellulosic) ethanol and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. The seeds of tomorrows
technological breakthroughs have already been planted.
And in terms of vehicle miles traveled: The VMT growth trends have been tapering off in recent years. Rather than growing at 2 percent or more annually, we have
seen average VMT growth rates of approximately 0.5 percent (one-half of a percent)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
45
since 2004. And very recently, the USDOT reported that cumulative vehicle miles
traveled for 2008 declined by 2.1 percent. Higher gasoline prices have played a role
in this shift, as have demographic factors. But the bottom line is this: we are not
seeing runaway growth in VMT; in fact, we are seeing just the opposite. The tempering of VMT growth provides another indication that it is feasiblethrough a
combination of measuresto achieve major reductions in greenhouse gases from
road travel in the U.S.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Innovation in Vehicles and
Fuels
In recent decades, the volume of road travel has greatly increased, while the emissions of many harmful air pollutants have been significantly reduced. Technological
innovation has made this progress possible: todays vehicles are more fuel-efficient
and employ far more sophisticated emissions-control technologies than those on the
roads in the 1970s. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions presents a new challenge,
and in some ways a greater one. But technological advances will be just as important to meeting this challenge as they have been to achieving environmental goals
in the past.
As the AASHTO scenarios illustrate, technological innovation is essential to
achieving emissions reductions. There are several ways that Congress can help encourage innovation in vehicles and fuels. I will briefly cover several of the most important ways that Congress can assist in this area.
Strengthening Vehicle Emission Standards
In 2007, Congress increased the CAFE standard for passenger vehicles and light
trucks to 35 mpg, which must be achieved by 2020. The law also creates a framework under which CAFE standards may further increase between 2021 and 2030
for passenger cars and light trucks, and establishes a program under which fueleconomy standards will be set for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks. There could
also be separate legislative or regulatory initiatives to continue raising fuel-economy
standards, as a way of making continued progress toward reducing greenhouse gas
emissions despite increasing travel demand.
In addition, California and several other states have adopted stricter vehicle emission standards than those established by the Federal Government. However, these
standards cannot take effect unless a waiver is granted by EPA, and in December
2007, EPA denied the waiver. California and other states have filed a lawsuit to
overturn the waiver, and that case is now pending. If the California standards are
eventually allowed to proceed, or are adopted in some form at the Federal level,
they will contribute to further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Researchers have suggested another regulatory option, which focuses specifically
on greenhouse gas emissions. This concept involves setting greenhouse gas emission
standards for vehiclesthat is, a standard for the grams of greenhouse gases emitted per mile of travel. This type of standard would more precisely reflect the underlying goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not just reducing the amount of
fuel consumed. This standard could be defined so that it covers all greenhouse gases
emitted by vehicles, including methane and nitrous dioxide, not just CO2.
Low-Carbon Fuel Standards
Federal legislation has set goals for the total amount of biofuels to be produced
in 2022 (36 billion gallons), but has not set an overall goal or requirement for reducing the carbon content of transportation fuels. However, California has adopted a
low-carbon fuel standard, which calls for a 10 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2020. Additional states, and possibly the Federal Government, could adopt low-carbon fuel standards in the future. If such standards are
adopted, it will be important to consider the life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases
associated with each fuel. Some of the benefits of using low-carbon fuels may be offset by the additional greenhouse gas emissions that result from clearing land and
growing crops to produce the fuels.
Cap-and-Trade Program/Carbon Tax
Any system for pricing carbon (whether it involves a cap-and-trade program or a
carbon tax) could include transportation fuels. For the consumer, the increased cost
of carbon would show up in the price of gasoline at the pump. Estimates differ about
how much a system of carbon pricing would affect gasoline prices. However, there
is general agreement that the effect on gasoline prices would be noticeable but not
dramatic in relation to the price increases that have occurred in recent years.
The enormity of the potential revenues from a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program would give rise to important policy decisions about how to spend those revenues and whether to make offsetting tax cuts. Certainly, there would be a strong
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
46
policy preference for funding activities that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as increased investments in transit, better management of our transportation system to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flows, and removing barriers
to high density development. Congress should also consider dedicating a portion of
the revenues from such a program to help meet the costs of adapting to climate
change, including the costs of adapting the Nations transportation infrastructure.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Reducing the Growth in Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT)
While technological change is essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
there is also a role for strategies that help to limit the growth in travel demand.
As discussed above, the total VMT has grown much faster than population growth
for the past several decades, but appears to have slowed considerably in the past
few years. The average annual increase in VMT between 1990 and 2005 was approximately 2.2 percent. By contrast, population increased only about 0.8 percent
per year during this period. Between 2005 and 2007, VMT growth occurred at a
much slower rateapproximately 0.5 percent annually. Recent reports indicate that
over the 12 month period between March 2007 and March 2008, VMT declined by
4.3 percent
This recent data suggests that the VMT growth rates are moderating. It is unclear at this point whether the lower growth rates are merely a temporary departure from historical trends or a sign that future VMT growth will be much lower
than in the past. Certainly, it is plausible that continued record high oil prices will
cause motor fuel prices to remain high or increase, which could continue to dampen
growth in VMT. In addition, changing demographics (an increase in retirees as the
baby boomer generation reaches 65 years of age) could also help to reduce the rate
of VMT growth, since people over the age of 65 generally drive less than the rest
of the population.
There are many factors that can affect the future growth rate of VMT. Among the
most important factors are economic trends and demographic forces, which are
largely beyond the influence of government policies. For example, a strong economy
and rising average incomes tend to produce increases in VMT; conversely, large and
sustained increases in fuel prices will tend to dampen the growth in VMT.
Against the backdrop of these larger trends, government policies also can play a
rolealbeit a limited onein influencing VMT growth. Strategies that can be used
include: (1) increasing investments in transit and intercity passenger rail, (2) expanding other alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel, and (3) encouraging
land uses that minimize the number and length of auto trips.
Expanding Transit Service and Intercity Passenger Rail
Transit service provides an alternative to automobile travel and, under certain
conditions, can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge is how to make
the most of transits potential, given that it serves a relatively small share of travel
in the United States (1 percent of passenger miles traveled) and major transit system expansions require significant public sector funding. Additional research will be
required to determine how much of a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions
could be achieved through increased transit ridership and which types of transit investments would yield the greatest (and most cost-effective) reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
While expanding transit service may not yield major reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, there are still good policy justifications for increasing investments in
transit service. For example, transit service continues to play a key role in maintaining mobility within large and densely population metropolitan areas, especially
for populations that lack access to an automobile. In addition, expanding transit
service can facilitate higher-density land use patterns that help to reduce the need
for auto trips. These considerations, in combination with the potential greenhouse
gas emission reduction benefits, provide support for continuing to expand transit
service as an integral part of the transportation system.
Expanding Alternatives to Single-Occupant Auto Travel
In addition to transit, passenger travel also occurs by walking, biking, carpooling,
vanpooling, and telecommuting. To the extent that auto driving in single-occupant
vehicles can be shifted to these alternatives, greenhouse gas reductions can be
achieved. Telecommuting is likely to be a highly cost-effective strategy for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, as telecommuting costs are quite low, with potentially a
net savings per ton of greenhouse gas reduction, after factoring in reduced auto operating costs.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
47
Changes in Land Use Patterns
Land use decisions play an important role in determining the demand for automobile travel. Existing land use patterns in many areas make automobile travel a
necessity for most trips. Higher-density land use patterns, combined with increased
availability of transit service, could help to reduce the demand for automobile travel
without reducing mobility.
A key question is how to bring about those types of changes in land use, which
can be difficult because land use decisions are primarily made by local governments.
Government efforts should be focused on removing the barriers to higher-density
land use patterns, not regulating lifestyle changes. Example of such barriers include, local land use policies, such as zoning and parking regulations and local reliance on land use taxes which tend to make localities favor commercial development
rather than residential development. In addition, efforts should be made to tie the
location employment centers with affordable housing and tie high density development with transit services.
As with transit, an important question to consider is how much greenhouse gas
emissions reduction can be achieved by shifting to higher-density and less auto-dependent land use patterns. This issuethe magnitude of the effect on VMThas
been addressed in several reports. These reports indicate that changes in land use
can reduce VMT growthover a 40 to 50 year timeframeby approximately 5 to
10 percent.
Reducing Greenhouse Gases Through Congestion Relief and Other
Operational Strategies
In tandem with efforts to develop cleaner vehicles and fuels and to reduce growth
in VMT, it also is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion and encouraging more efficient operation of motor vehicles.
Congestion Relief
Traffic congestion contributes to greenhouse gas emissions because vehicle engines operate less efficientlyand therefore produce higher emissions per mile
when they are driven at low speeds in stop-and-go traffic. The optimal speed for
motor vehicles with internal combustion engines is about 45 mph. At lower speeds,
CO2 emissions per mile are several times higher than at 45 mph. At higher speeds,
CO2 emissions per mile increase as well, but somewhat less sharply. As such, congestion relief can play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If we can reduce
the amount of fuel burned by vehicles stalled in traffic that is a gain. If we can improve the flow of traffic so fuel is burned at more optimal efficiency rates then that
will also produce a gain.
Driver Behavior
In addition to vehicles, fuels, and VMT, the way motorists actually operate their
vehicles affects greenhouse gas emissions. The March 2007 TRB report notes that:
Recent EAP data suggests that a significant component of greenhouse gas emissionsas much as 22 percentresults from inefficient operation of motor vehicles.
These inefficiencies could result from factors beyond the drivers control, such as
traffic congestion, and also could reflect a drivers own behavior, such as high-speed
driving, vehicle maintenance, and tire pressures. Driver education and other policies
could help to promote more efficient vehicle operations, which would help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
The Impacts of Climate Change on the Transportation System
While my testimony today focuses primarily on the role of the transportation system in emitting greenhouse gases, I will also briefly addresses the Transportation
Research Boards (TRBs) recent report on the potential impacts of climate change
on the U.S. transportation system.
Based on numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies, the TRB report identified five
climate changes of particular importance for the transportation system in the U.S.:
Increases in very hot days and heat waves,

Increases in Arctic temperatures,
Rising sea levels,
Increases in intense precipitation events, and
Increases in hurricane intensity.
These changes in climate will affect the transportation system in many ways. The
TRB report noted several specific examples. Just a few of these examples include:
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
48
Operational and maintenance impacts of excessive heat. Periods of excessive
summer heat are likely to increase wildfires, threatening communities and infrastructure directly and bringing about road and rail closures in affected areas.
Longer periods of extreme heat may compromise pavement integrity (e.g., softening asphalt and increasing rutting from traffic); cause deformation of rail
lines and derailments or, at a minimum, speed restrictions; and cause thermal
expansion of bridge joints, adversely affecting bridge operation and increasing
maintenance costs.
Increased flooding of coastal roads and rail lines. The most immediate impact
of more intense precipitation will be increased flooding of coastal roads and rail
lines. Expected sea level rise will aggravate the flooding because storm surges
will build on a higher base, reaching farther inland. . . . [The IPCC] identifies
coastal flooding from expected sea level rise and storm surge, especially along
the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, as one of the most serious effects of climate
change. Indeed, several studies of sea-level rise project that transportation infrastructure in some coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic
will be permanently inundated sometime in the next century.
Disruption of coastal waterway systems. [A] combination of sea level rise and
storm surge could eliminate waterway systems entirely. For example, the Gulf
Coast portion of the intercoastal waterway will likely disappear with continued
land subsidence and disappearance of barrier islands. This will bring an end to
coastal barge traffic, which helps offset rail and highway congestion; all ships
will have to navigate the open seas.
Impacts on Alaskan infrastructure. The effects of temperature warming are already being experienced in Alaska in the form of continued retreat of permafrost regions (see the discussion of Alaska below), creating land subsidence
issues for some sections of the road and rail systems and for some of the elevated supports for above-ground sections of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Warming
winter temperatures have also shortened the season for ice roads that provide
vital access to communities and industrial activities in remote areas.
Several other studies have also concluded that climate change is likely to have
widespread and severe impacts on transportation infrastructure. These studies include:
U.S. DOT Gulf Coast Study. This study examined the potential impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure in the Gulf Coast region. The
study recognized four key climate drivers in the Gulf Coast region: rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels, and increasing
storm intensity. It suggested a range of possible responses, including raising
transportation facilities in low-lying areas; hardening them to withstand storm
events; relocating them to areas that are less vulnerable; and expanding redundant systems where needed.
ICF Studies of Sea-Level Rise. This two-part study focused specifically on the
potential impacts of sea-level rise (not climate change in general) on transportation infrastructure. Phase 1 assessed impacts of sea-level rise on the District
of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Phase 2, which is still
under way, will evaluate impacts of sea-level rise on seven additional States on
the East Coast: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and the Atlantic Coast of Florida.
As these studies reflect, there is a growing consensus that climate change has already begun to have impacts on the transportation system and that those impacts
will become more severe over time as the global climate continues to warm.
Adapting to climate change will present challenges for all levels of government.
Rather than a single national program or strategy, there will likely be many initiatives undertaken in response to the specific climate-related threats that exist in
each region.
For the transportation system, the adaptation challenges will be substantial.
There is a need for adaptation planning at the State and local level, because of the
important role of State and local governments in maintaining and operating the
road system. According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, five States
have adopted adaptation strategies (as of January 2008) as part of their comprehensive climate action plans, while six others have started adaptation planning efforts.
In addition, cities and counties have begun to address adaptation as part of their
climate plans. King County, Washington (which includes Seattle) has established an
inter-departmental team to develop adaptation plans and has even produced a
guidebook on this issue. New York City has addressed adaptation as part of
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
49
PlaNYC, which calls for planning to protect critical infrastructure and high-risk
communities from the effects of climate change.
Maryland Activities and Initiatives
The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is undertaking various efforts and activities to reduce GHG emissions in Maryland, including participating
in developing a statewide Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Footprint Reduction Strategy
(GHG Strategy) and promoting sustainable transit communities. MDOT is also active in evaluating what climate change and sea level rise will mean to our transportation infrastructure given Marylands 4,360 miles of tidal shoreline and our transportation systems proximity to these areas.
In April 2007, Governor Martin OMalley established a Climate Change Commission through Executive Order that includes: sixteen agency heads, six members of
the General Assembly, private sector representatives from environmental groups
and power companies, and local government representatives. This Commission is
charged with:
Developing a plan of action to address climate change;
Preparing for climate change impacts in Maryland;
Establishing goals and timeframes; and
Reporting each year (Nov. 1) on a plan of action including updates, timetables
and draft legislation for the coming legislative session.
Our preliminary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 25 and
50 percent between 2006 and 2020 and to obtain 90 percent reductions by 2050. The
Commissions preliminary report and list of strategies in various focus areas will be
made public in mid July. Transportation-related policies in the GHG Strategy include strategies to slow the growth of VMT, support the development and use of improved technologies and fuels, and other emissions reduction strategies.
Fortunately, Maryland is in a unique position to work across all modes of transportation to implement GHG reduction strategies. As a multi-modal agency with a
flexible transportation trust fund and responsibilities for highway, transit, port and
airport capital development and operation, MDOT has the opportunity to act effectively. The department has already undertaken various strategies to reduce the
growth in VMT including, developing park and ride lots, investing in transit expansions, encouraging telecommuting, providing ridesharing and guaranteed ride home
support, and progressing bike and pedestrian projects. Additional mitigation strategies include: requiring idling reduction in MDOT contracts, utilizing hybrid buses
and cleaner MARC engines, providing truck stop electrification, tree planting, use
of biodiesel by MDOT trucks, and purchasing hybrid cars for our fleet.
Climate change is bringing transit into the forefront of national policy discussions.
In Maryland, transit communities are a priority, however, we need a new financial
paradigm for supporting transit. Maryland is actively pursuing the establishment
of public/private partnerships related to transit oriented development while creating
an equity position for the public sector.
To date, most public private activity has been related to highways. Maryland is
working to encourage private investments in transit. We are anxious to find ways
to establish public private partnerships that allow the private sector to benefit from
the states investment in transportation while sharing some of the benefit with the
state. We would like to create public private partnerships that allow the state to
take an equity position in land, projects and businesses that benefit directly from
the transportation asset, or in the transportation asset itself, if it is privatized.
Under this structure, ongoing equity returns could be directed toward transit operating costs.
Conclusion
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will require a major contribution
from every country and every economic sector, including transportation. At the same
time, our Nation needs a strong transportation system to maintain its competitiveness in the global economy and to expand economic opportunity in all regions and
among all parts of the population. We need a strong transportation system to maintain and improve the quality of life by providing a high level of mobility while minimizing impacts to communities and the environment. We need to achieve our transportation goals in a way that is environmentally sustainable. This includes efficiently reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases from the transportation sector
as well taking other actions to minimize our carbon footprint.
The effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will involve many separate initiatives. Transportation sector initiatives include, improvements in fuel economy;
greater usage of low-carbon fuels; better management of our transportation system
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
50
to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flows; and taking steps that reduce the
growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Technological innovation is the key to progress in greenhouse gas emissions reduction. With increases in fuel economy and a shift to cleaner fuels, it is possible
to reduce greenhouse gases while there is some growth in VMT. In the short term,
the market will produce additional fuel economy and increased use of alternative
fuels. New technologies including hydrogen fuel cells and plug-in electric hybrids are
expected to enter commercial production in the next decade. In the period between
2020 and 2050, these and other zero-emission vehicles which no longer burn petroleum are expected to dominate the automotive market. These technologies alone
may make it possible to reach the carbon emission goals set by many Governors and
mayors for 2050.
The growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a reflection of overall growth in
our economy and our population. However, VMT growth is already flattening due
to increasing fuel prices and long-term demographic changes. Regardless of current
VMT trends and anticipated technological innovations in automotive fuel economy
and fuels, additional measures should be taken to manage demand. Such measures
include: increasing transit ridership, finding alternatives to single occupant auto
travel and removing the barriers to high density land use development.
Greenhouse gas policies should be based on sound, comprehensive data, including
data regarding the cost and feasibility of accomplishing emissions reductions. It is
ineffective to set an arbitrary target without knowing how that target could be
achieved. We should focus on finding solutions that yield the greatest emission reductions at the least cost.
Also, greenhouse gas policies need to take a broad and balanced approach as climate change solutions will vary from state to state and region to region. As such,
individual states/regions should have the flexibility to implement the strategies that
will work in their particular circumstances. It is imperative that transportation
leaders be involved in the climate change discussion at all levels of government to
assist in developing emissions reductions strategies and goals.
Finally, strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector cannot be effectively evaluated or carried out on a project level. A broad, systems-level approach is needed.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the importance of the subject you
have under discussion today is of vital national importance. It is in the interest of
us all to take on the challenge as vigorously and effectively as we can. On behalf
of the AASHTO member states, I promise that we will continue to work with you
in that effort.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari. And I

note that you are required to leave promptly, and Senator Stevens
hasnt asked to throw any questions at you, so I would just have
one.
And Id like to know what kind of impacts of climate change are
considered before DOT undertakes a new project to build a new
road. Should they be required to identify climate change impact?
Mr. PORCARI. Its a very good question, Senator. Werewith
Maryland as an example, we are currently, actually, mapping all
of the projected climate change impacts on all of our transportation
infrastructureroads, rails, bridges, and tunnels, aviation, et
cetera. Going forward, in both the location in the design of facilities, we will be taking this into account. I would point out that we
have a number of facilities that are severely impacted, like the Port
of Baltimore, a number of our bridges and tunnels, and highway
network. You have similar examples, throughout the country,
where you first have to map what the impacts will be, and then
mitigate that in new construction, and reconstruction of older
projects.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Just one more thing. How complicating a
factor is it to make judgments on the effect on climate? Does it require months of study or is it relatively simple computer formulation?
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
51
Mr. PORCARI. Senator, were really plowing new ground here.
Tosome of the transportation decisions that were making, such
as doubling transit ridership, tripling our MARC commuter rail capacity, are relatively straightforward. We know those will have a
positive impact. We are now turning to the process of getting down
to the project-specific level and trying to quantify those impacts,
positive or negative. It is one of the things that AASHTO is doing
nationally that we can do through this technical assistance program, is provide the framework for all the states to make those
kind of evaluations in the future.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Porcari.
Mr. PORCARI. Thank you.
Senator LAUTENBERG. And thank the other panelists for their patience in letting us go ahead.
Dr. Dickey, let me hear from you, please.
STATEMENT OF G. EDWARD DICKEY, PH.D., AFFILIATE
PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, LOYOLA COLLEGE IN
MARYLAND; MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND
U.S. TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
BOARD, DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. DICKEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.

My name is Edward Dickey. Im Affiliate Professor of Economics
at Loyola College in Maryland, and I served as a Member of the
National Research Councils Committee on Climate Change and
U.S. Transportation.
The charge given to our Committee was to examine the potential
consequences of climate change on U.S. transportation. Our definition of transportation covers all the modes. Most of us usually
focus on transportations impact on climate change, where the emphasis is on strategies to mitigate these effects. This study was
concerned with the converse, examining the potential impacts of
climate change on transportation infrastructure and operations and
identifying appropriate adaptation strategies.
The main findings of our work are presented in Special Report
290, The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. The report begins with an acknowledgment that global
warming is a real, observable, phenomena, and that resulting climate changes will be marked by weather and climate extremes and
surprises, not gradual shifts.
A second finding is that the use of historical weather and climate
data may no longer provide an accurate forecasting guide for infrastructure planning and design.
Third, climate change will likely impact all regions of the country
and all modes of transportation. Flooding of coastal transportation
infrastructure probably poses the greatest risk, because of rising
sea levels, coupled with storm surges and land subsidence.
Fourth, climate change will require significant changes in the
planning, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of
transportation systems.
Last, transportation professionals should acknowledge the challenges posed by climate change, and incorporate current scientific
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
52
knowledge into the transportation planning process. Investment
choices made today will influence how well the transportation infrastructure adapts far into the future.
Our recommendations can be divided into two broad categories.
We begin with the process of making decisions.
First, government agencies and private owners should inventory
critical infrastructure to determine which systems are vulnerable
to the impacts of climate change.
Second, transportation providers should incorporate climate
change into their capital improvement programs, facility designs,
maintenance practices, operations, and emergency response plans.
Third, planners and engineers should use risk-based approaches
that identify the tradeoffs between improved performance levels
against the cost of achieving them when analyzing investment
choices.
Fourth, better communication is needed among transportation
professionals, climate change scientists, and other related disciplines.
Fifth, ongoing and planned research on climate science and decisionmaking tools should incorporate the needs of transportation decisionmakers. And decisionmakers, on the other hand, should define the types of climate data that would be most useful to them.
Turning to the issue of adaptation to climate change, we have a
number of additional recommendations.
Sixth, recent experiences with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita emphasize the importance of making transportation an integral part
of response plans to handle emergencies, and how these plans are
executed.
Seventh, greater use of technology would enable infrastructure
providers to monitor climate change and its possible deleterious effects on structures and systems.
Eighth, we need new design standards that incorporate climate
change. The Committee recommends that the U.S. Department of
Transportation take the lead, along with professional organizations
across all modes, to initiate, immediately, a multiyear, multi-agency research program.
Ninth, in the short term, whenever possible, we need to rehabilitate or construct new transportation infrastructure to higher design
standards, especially in vulnerable regions.
Tenth, transportation organizations, such as the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, in cooperation with the Federal Government, should develop mechanisms for
sharing best practices.
Eleventh, we would be remiss if we did not mention that land
use is an important issue. Much of our population now lives near
the coasts, placing themselves, their homes, their businesses, and
their transportation systems at greater risk. Land-use planning
and zoning decisions are made primarily by local governments, and
often involve competing interests that transportation planners cannot resolve. However, greater collaboration among these parties
could go a long way toward putting these issues on the table, and
such collaboration should be required in the reauthorization of
transportation programs.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
53
Twelfth, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which acts
as the insurer of last resort for homeowners in designated flood
hazard areas, should re-evaluate the risk reduction effectiveness of
the National Flood Insurance Program, in view of projected increases in intense precipitation and storm activity. As a minimum,
updating flood insurance rate maps to account for sea level rise
and to incorporate land subsidence should be priority in coastal
areas.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dickey follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF G. EDWARD DICKEY, PH.D., AFFILIATE PROFESSOR OF
ECONOMICS, LOYOLA COLLEGE IN MARYLAND; MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND U.S. TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD,
DIVISION ON EARTH AND LIFE STUDIES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL,
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Edward Dickey. I am Affiliate Professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland
at Baltimore and served as a member of the Committee on Climate Change and
U.S. Transportation of the National Research Council. The Research Council is the
operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, chartered by Congress
in 1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology.
Our study was initiated by the Executive Committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and funded by TRB, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Transit Cooperative Research Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dr. Henry G. Schwartz, Jr., retired chairman of
Sverdrup/Jacobs Civil, Inc., and member of the National Academy of Engineering,
chaired the expert panel of 13 members who conducted the study.1 Our reportSpecial Report 290: The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation
provides transportation professionals with an overview of the scientific consensus on
the current and future climate changes of particular relevance to U.S. transportation, including the limits of present scientific understanding as to their precise
timing, magnitude, and geographic location; identifies potential impacts on U.S.
transportation and adaptation options; and offers recommendations for both research and actions that can be taken to prepare for climate change.
The study concludes that transportation professionals should acknowledge the
challenges posed by climate change and incorporate current scientific knowledge
into the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems. Every mode of transportation and every region in the United States
will be affected as climate change poses new and often unfamiliar challenges to infrastructure providers. Focusing on the problem now should help avoid costly future
investments and disruptions to operations.
Challenges of Climate Change
Climate change will affect transportation primarily through increases in several
types of weather and climate extremes. Climate warming over the next 50 to 100
years will be manifested by rising sea levels coupled with storm surges and land
subsidence, increases in very hot days and heat waves, increases in Arctic temperatures, more frequent intense precipitation events, and increases in the intensity of
strong hurricanes. The impacts will vary by mode of transportation and region of
the country, but they will be widespread and costly in both human and economic
terms and will require significant changes in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems.
1 Other committee members are Alan C. Clark, Houston-Galveston Area Council, Texas; G.
Edward Dickey, Loyola College, Baltimore, Maryland; George C. Eads, CRA International,
Washington, D.C.; Robert E. Gallamore, Gallamore Group, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware; Genevieve
Giuliano, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; William J. Gutowski, Jr., Iowa State
University, Ames; Randell H. Iwasaki, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento;
Klaus H. Jacob, Columbia University, Palisades, New York; Thomas R. Karl, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, North Carolina; Robert J. Lempert, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California; Luisa M. Paiewonsky, Massachusetts Highway Department, Boston; Christopher R. Zeppie, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
54
The past several decades of historical regional climate patterns commonly used
by transportation planners to guide their operations and investments may no longer
be a reliable guide for future plans. In particular, future climate will include new
classes (in terms of magnitude and frequency) of weather and climate extremes,
such as record rainfall and record heat waves, not experienced in modern times as
human-induced changes are superimposed on the natural variability of the climate.
Decisions transportation professionals take today, particularly those related to the
redesign and retrofitting of existing transportation infrastructure or the location and
design of new infrastructure, will affect how well the system adapts to climate
change far into the future.
Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation
Inventory Critical Infrastructure
Potentially, the greatest impact of climate change on North Americas transportation system will be flooding of coastal roads, railways, transit systems, and runways because of a global rise in sea level coupled with storm surge and exacerbated
in some locations by land subsidence. The vulnerability of transportation infrastructure to climate change, however, will extend well beyond coastal areas. Therefore,
Federal, state, and local governments, in collaboration with owners and operators
of infrastructure such as ports and airports, and private railroad and pipeline companies should inventory critical transportation infrastructure to identify whether,
when, and where projected climate changes in particular regions might be consequential.
Incorporate Climate Change into Investment Decisions
Public authorities and officials at various governmental levels and executives of
private companies are making short- and long-term investment decisions every day
and should incorporate climate change into their long-term capital improvement
plans, facility designs, maintenance practices, operations, and emergency response
plans. (See box below, which lays out a six-step approach for determining appropriate investment priorities).
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624DICK1.eps
Adopt Strategic, Risk-Based Approaches to Decision Making

The significant costs of redesigning and retrofitting transportation infrastructure
to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change suggest the need for more strategic, risk-based approaches to investment decisions. Transportation planners and
engineers should incorporate more probabilistic investment analyses and design approaches that apply techniques for trading off the costs of making the infrastructure
55
more robust against the economic costs of failure and should communicate these
trade-offs to policymakers who make investment decisions and authorize funding.
One model is the California Seismic Retrofit Program, which uses a risk-based approach to analyze vulnerability to earthquakes and criticality of highway bridges to
determine priorities for retrofitting and replacement.
Improve Communication
Transportation decisionmakers note that one of the most difficult aspects of addressing climate change is obtaining the relevant information in the form they need
to plan and design. Transportation professionals often lack sufficiently detailed information about expected climate changes and their timing to take appropriate action. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USDOT, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other relevant agencies should work together to institute a process for better communication among transportation professionals, climate scientists,
and those in other relevant scientific disciplines, and establish a clearinghouse for
transportation-relevant climate change information. In addition, better decision support tools are needed to assist transportation decisionmakers. Ongoing and planned
research at Federal and state agencies and universities that provides climate data
and decision support tools should include the needs of transportation decisionmakers.
Integrate Evacuation Planning and Emergency Response into Transportation
Operations
Projected increases in weather and climate extremes underscore the importance
of emergency response plans in vulnerable locations and require that transportation
providers work more closely with weather forecasters and emergency planners and
assume a greater role in evacuation planning and emergency response. Climate extremes, such as more intense storms and more intense precipitation, will require
near-term operational responses from transportation providers and greater attention
to emergency response in transportation operations and budgets. Transportation
agencies and service providers should build on the experience in locations where
transportation is well integrated into emergency response and evacuation plans.
Develop and Implement Monitoring Technologies
Monitoring transportation infrastructure conditions, particularly the impacts of
weather and climate extremes, offers an alternative to preventive retrofitting or reconstruction of some facilities in advance of climate change. Greater use of sensors
and other smart technologies would enable infrastructure providers to receive advance warning of potential failure due to water levels and currents, wave action,
winds, and temperatures exceeding what the infrastructure was designed to withstand. Federal and academic research programs should encourage the development
and implementation of these technologies.
Share Best Practices
As the climate changes, many U.S. locations will experience new climate-induced
weather patterns. The geographic extent of the United Statesfrom Alaska to Florida and from Maine to Hawaiiand its diversity of weather and climate conditions
can provide a laboratory for best practices and information sharing as the climate
changes. Drawing on existing technology transfer mechanisms, relevant transportation professional and research organizations should develop a mechanism to encourage sharing of best practices to address the potential impacts of climate change.
Reevaluate Design Standards
Environmental factors are integral to transportation infrastructure design. However, engineers have not given much thought to whether current design standards
are sufficient to accommodate climate change. Climate change projections indicate
that todays 100-year precipitation event is likely to occur every 50 years or perhaps
even every 20 years by the end of this century. Reevaluating, developing, and regularly updating design standards for transportation infrastructure to address the impacts of climate change will require a broad-based research and testing program and
a substantial implementation effort. USDOT should take a leadership role along
with professional organizations in the forefront of civil engineering practice across
all modes to initiate immediately a federally funded, multiagency research program.
The program should focus on the reevaluation of existing design standards and the
development of new standards as progress is made in understanding future climate
conditions and the options available for addressing them. A research plan and cost
proposal should be developed for submission to Congress for authorization and funding. Until new standards are developed, infrastructure rehabilitation projects in
highly vulnerable locations should be rebuilt to higher standards.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
56
The development of appropriate design standards to accommodate climate change
is only one of several possible adaptation strategies that may require Federal leadership, research, and funding. Federal agencies have not focused generally on adaptation in addressing climate change. Better collaboration could help focus attention
on these issues and shape existing research programs. USDOT should take the lead
in developing an interagency working group focused on adaptation.
Include Climate Change in Transportation and Land Use Planning
One of the most effective strategies for reducing the risks of climate change is to
avoid placing people and infrastructure in vulnerable locations. Transportation planners are not currently required to consider climate change and its effects on infrastructure investments. Land use decisions are made primarily by local governments,
which have too limited a perspective to account for the broadly shared risks of climate change. Integration between transportation and land use planning is uncommon. Federal planning regulations should require that climate change be included
as a factor in the development of public-sector, long-range transportation plans;
eliminate any perception that such plans be limited to 20 to 30 years; and require
collaboration in plan development with agencies responsible for land use, environmental protection, and natural resource management to foster more integrated
transportation-land use decisionmaking.
Evaluate the National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Insurance Rate Maps
The Federal Government is the insurer of last resort for homeowners in specially
designated flood hazard areas. The National Flood Insurance Program, administered
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the flood insurance
rate maps (FIRMs) that determine program eligibility do not take climate change
into account. FEMA should reevaluate the risk reduction effectiveness of the National Flood Insurance Program and the FIRMs, particularly because climate change
may trigger more intense storms and sea-level rise will extend the scope of flood
damage in some special flood hazard areas. At a minimum, updated FIRMs that account for sea level rise (incorporating land subsidence) should be a priority in coastal areas.
Develop New Organizational Arrangements
The impacts of climate change do not follow modal, corporate, or jurisdictional
boundaries, yet decisionmaking in the transportation sector is based on these
boundaries. Current institutional arrangements for transportation planning and operations were not organized to address climate change and may not be adequate for
the purpose. Some models of cross-jurisdictional cooperation exist. Among them are
regional authorities for specific facilities (e.g., the Alameda Corridor); regional and
multistate emergency response agreements; and state-mandated regional authorities, such as those responsible for air quality improvement. Similar arrangements
could emerge to address the effects of sea-level rise on coastal real estate and infrastructure, drought on shipping along inland waterways, and hurricanes in the Gulf
Coast region. However, state or Federal incentives may be required to ensure the
development of such organizational arrangements at the regional or multistate
level.
Actions to prepare for climate change can be taken almost immediately. Some
steps can be undertaken by local governments and private infrastructure providers.
Others depend on Federal and state action. In all cases, leadership and continuing
commitment are essential.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I would be happy to address any questions the Committee might have.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Friedman?

STATEMENT OF DAVID FRIEDMAN, RESEARCH DIRECTOR AND
SENIOR ENGINEER, THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Im the Research Director and a Senior Engineer for the Union
of Concerned Scientists. Thank you for holding this hearing, because the topic is extremely urgent.
Put simply, global warming is the largest long-term environmental threat facing the country and the world. If we are to avoid
the worst impacts of climate change, our country must cut global
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
57
warming pollution by at least 80 percent in 2050, when compared
to emission levels in the year 2000. Of course, we cant just sit
around and wait, for decades, to begin. U.S. global warming pollution must be cut by more than 20 percent below 2000 levels by
2020.
For transportation to play a role, we need to rethink the system.
In doing so, we will not only dramatically lower global warming
pollution, we will cut our addiction to oil, we will save consumers
billions, and we will create new high-quality jobs throughout America.
One of the important tools that must be put in place is an economy-wide cap-and-trade policy. But, while a cap is essential to
curbing global warming pollution, it will not push the transportation sector to do its share over the next 20 to 30 years.
Recent analysis from the Energy Information Administration
shows that others must pick up the slack. As a result, it will be
more expensive to control global warming pollution.
A cap-and-trade market fails transportation consumers, because
there are too few alternatives to going about our daily travel. Consumers and corporations need better vehicles, viable alternatives to
cars and freight trucks, and sustainable fuels with a low global
warming pollution footprint. And they need these solutions as soon
as possible, much faster than the market can provide.
This Committee is already quite familiar with policies to require
better vehicles. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, by requiring at
least a 10-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel economy for cars and
trucks, will cut new vehicle global warming pollution by nearly 30
percent. It will also save consumers money at the pump. At todays
$4.00 per gallon, the 35-mile-per-gallon minimum is the equivalent
of cutting gas prices by more than one dollar. The Committee also
opened the door to fuel economy standards for medium- and heavyduty trucks. But, the Committees work is far from over. Rail, air,
and shipping can also benefit from improved efficiency.
There is also more work to be done in the fuel economy of cars
and trucks of all shapes and sizes. Despite the fact that their own
analysis indicates that we could reach the 35-mile-per-gallon minimum fuel economy standard by 2015that is 5 years earlythe
Department of Transportation is relying on a flawed rulemaking
that, at best, just barely puts cars and trucks on the road to 35 by
2020.
In their work, NHTSA relied on gas price projections of $2.25 to
$2.50 per gallon. Gas is over $4.00 a gallon today. Even the head
of the Energy Information Administration recently publicly said
that the Department of Transportation should use their high oil
and gas price scenario, not the scenario they used.
Further, NHTSA effectively ignored the cost of global warming
and assumed hybrids would not be available until 2014, despite the
fact that the Toyota Prius, a hybrid, is the ninth-best-selling car in
the country today. Instead of doing the bare minimum to satisfy
the law, NHTSA should put cars and trucks on a path to 40 miles
per gallon by 2020, and at least 50 by 2030. This will cut global
warming pollution from new cars and trucks in half by 2030, and
would save about 50 billion barrels of oil through 2050.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
58
Of course, efficiency isnt enough. Both urban and suburban
areas need greater access to public transportation. As of 2001, less
than one-third of the U.S. population lived within about a block of
a bus line, and only about one-quarter lived within 5 miles of a rail
stop. Consumers also need improved access to high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, bike lanes, and more affordable housing near where they
work. Corporations need many of the same solutions.
For these options to work, we will need money to fund them and
the willingness to use them. Whether it is pay-as-you-drive insurance, road-user fees, per-mile congestion fees, charging per mile
rather than per year or per gallon can create a revenue stream to
allow us to repair our roads and bridges, plus to provide funding
for transit and other alternatives. We are already paying these
costs, but consumers dont see it in their daily lives. Making them
visible will provide a direct incentive to use the newly available alternatives.
In addition, we also need to clean up our fuels. By 2050, we need
the equivalent of 150 to 200 billion gallons of gasoline with as
much as an 80-percent reduction in global warming pollution compared to todays gasoline.
To supply this fuel, we must tap into sustainable biofuels, renewable electricity, and clean hydrogen. But, these resources will not
appear overnight, nor will the vehicles that must be sold to use
these low-carbon fuels. We need to institute a low-carbon fuel
standard. And, because plug-ins, fuel-cell vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles are currently significantly more expensive than even
hybrids, we will need a combination of performance-based vehicle
incentives and an ultra-low-carbon vehicle requirement. Policies
like these will help us rethink our transportation system.
Mr. Chairman, I am an engineer, and, as such, I was trained to
be a problem-solver. And climate change is the largest long-term
environmental threat there is. We have the necessary solutions to
deal with this problem. What we have lacked is the will.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID FRIEDMAN, RESEARCH DIRECTOR
ENGINEER, THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
AND
SENIOR
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to

testify before you today. I am a research director and senior engineer with the
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). UCS is a leading science-based nonprofit that
has been working for a healthy environment and a safer world for over 30 years.
The topic of this hearing, transportation and climate change, could not be more
urgent. Put simply, global warming is the single biggest long term environmental
threat facing the country and the world. But within this threat are buried opportunities. Every step we take to curb transportations role in global warming will also
cut Americas oil addictionand most, if not all, of these will also save consumers
money. At the same time, the investments we make to become the worlds leader
in climate change solutions will strengthen our economy as we export the technology
that will be essential to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
Transportation, Targets, and Climate Caps
If we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, our nation and the world
must adopt a target that will keep global temperature from rising more than 2 C
above pre-industrial levels. That means stabilizing the concentration of global warming pollutants in our atmosphere at no more than 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent. Analysis by UCS shows that one part of achieving this goal means
the United States must cut global warming pollution by at least 80 percent compared
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
59
to emission levels in 2000.1 In addition, UCS analysis indicates that U.S. global
warming pollution must be cut by more than 20 percent below 2000 levels by 2020,
and at least 50 percent below by 2030.
There is no single silver bullet that will dramatically cut U.S. global warming pollution and no single sector will be able to carry the full burden. Instead, the country
will have to put in place a comprehensive climate and energy policy that encourages
a diverse portfolio of solutions in every sector. Transportation, including the cars and
trucks consumers drive every day, will have to play a significant role in meeting
this essential 80 percent reduction minimum and all options for cutting pollution
from transportation must be on the table. The good news is that every sector, including transportation, has many tools at its disposal.
The debate has already begun on one of the most important tools that must be
put in place to limit the total amount of global warming pollution humans create:
a cap-and-trade policy that would ensure that the U.S. is on a path to do its part
to limit global temperatures from rising above 2 C, including at least an 80 percent
reduction in U.S. global warming pollution by 2050.
This cap must apply to all sectors, including transportation, but even that will
still not be enough to ensure that transportation does its part. While it needed significant strengthening, the recently discussed Climate Security Act (S. 2191) provides a good example of the strengths and weaknesses of cap-and-trade policy. By
2030, EIA estimated that S. 2191 would cut global warming pollution by more than
30 percent compared to emissions in 2000.2 However, at the same time that most
sectors are projected to contribute reductions of 40 percent to 80 percent, the transportation sector is projected to continue to increase.
Figure 1. Energy Information Administration Analysis of the Climate
Security Act (S. 2191).
Supporting Transportation Climate Policy on a Three-Legged Stool

The transportation sector simply does not do its share under a cap-and-trade system. Instead, despite the fact that many transportation solutions can save money
while cutting global warming pollution, other sectors must pick up the slack to ensure that the overall cap is still met. This dynamic is a sign of market failures that
will lead to higher costs than are necessary for controlling global warming pollution.
Put simply, the market fails transportation consumers because there are too few
alternatives to doing things other than the way we have been doing them for the
past sixty years:
1 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/globallwarming/emissions-target-report.pdf.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624FRIED1.eps
2 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/index.html.
60
Most of the planes, trains, ships, and automobiles we rely on were designed during the days of cheap oil when fuel efficiency was not a priority. Manufacturers
have been slow to respond to recent consumer demands for fuel economy. In addition, consumers have shown themselves slow to change. Gas prices have more
than tripled since 2000 and consumers have only just begun to shift their purchasing and driving habits.
Both personal travel and goods movement have evolved around our extensive
and dispersed national highway system. Compact, walk-able or bike-able communities and easy access to transit are the exception rather than the rule. Consumers and corporations lack choices to substitute for reliance on our cars and
trucks.
The transportation sector is almost exclusively reliant on fossil fuels, a fuel with
a very high global warming footprint. Alternative fuels meet only about 0.2 percent of U.S. transportation fuel needs.
These faults can be fixed by moving beyond the piecemeal approach that has historically characterized U.S. energy and transportation policy and instead applying
a comprehensive approach that addresses these three market failures to build a
solid foundation to support transportations role in a national cap-and-trade policy.
Increasing Fuel Economy
To tackle global warming, reduce Americas oil addiction, and save consumers tens
of billions of dollars, we must give consumers and corporations new options to use
fuel more efficiently when they travel or ship goods. This can be achieved either
through vehicle global warming pollution standards or by setting fuel economy
standards.
Through the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, this Committee led the Nation forward
on fuel economy for cars and light trucks for the first time in more than three decades. And for the first time ever, the door was opened to fuel economy standards for
medium and heavy duty trucks thanks to this Committee.
The projected benefits of just the light-duty portion of the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act highlight the importance of keeping efficiency a top priority. Meeting the
minimum fuel economy requirement of 35 miles per gallon would cut global warming pollution for new cars and trucks nearly 30 percent by 2020. The minimum will
also reduce oil consumption by nearly 9 billion barrels through 2030, rising to about
30 billion barrels saved through 2050. And finally, boosting fuel economy from todays 25 mpg average to 35 mpg will save consumers the equivalent of reducing the
price of todays $4 per gallon gasoline by more than one dollar.
The example of car and truck efficiency must be repeated and reinforced throughout the transportation sector. Delivery trucks and 18-wheelers could increase fuel
economy from todays level of less than 7 mpg for new vehicles to 1011.5 mpg by
2030. This represents a boost of 5070 percent while maintaining or expanding todays hauling capacity. However, because of language in Ten in Ten, it may be at
least 8 years before this committees medium and heavy duty standards are put to
work. Given the significant impacts the freight sector will feel from climate change,
this committee should work to accelerate the Department of Transportations reporting and rulemaking responsibilities in this area.
Rail, air, and shipping can also benefit from improved efficiency. For example, rail
efficiency could be improved by about 1 percent per year starting in 2015.
Finally, there is more work to be done on the fuel economy of cars and trucks.
A recent UCS report indicates that automakers can cost-effectively boost the
fleetwide average fuel economy of cars and trucks to 40 mpg by 2020 and to more
than 50 mpg by 2030.3 Yet the recent notice of proposed rulemaking from the Department of Transportations National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), at best, just barely puts cars and trucks on the road to the 35 mpg minimum by 2020.4
Instead of doing the bare minimum to satisfy the law, NHTSA should put cars
and trucks on a path to 40 mpg by 2020 and at least 50 mpg by 2030. This would
cut global warming pollution from new cars and trucks in half by 2030 and would
save about 50 billion barrels of oil through 2050.
NHTSA appears unwilling or unable to move the country on this path and this
Committee should exercise its oversight authority to ask NHTSA to fix a variety of
flaws used in setting their proposed standards:
3 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/redesign-documents/cleanlvehicles/UCS-Setting-the-Standard.pdf.
4 http://www.ucsusa.org/news/presslrelease/new-fuel-economy-proposal-star-0111.html.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
61
While gasoline prices soared above $3 per gallon this winter and have crossed
$4 per gallon this summer, NHTSA relied on projections of $2.25$2.50 per gallon.
While carbon dioxide is currently trading at more than $40 per metric ton in
Europe, NHTSA used a value of $7 per ton. NHTSA even considered $0 per ton
to be in the range of possible values, implying that global warming does not
exist or will cause no harm.
NHTSA left out the military and strategic costs of Americas oil addiction.
NHTSA assumed light trucks would grow in market share, but between 2005
and 2008 the market share of light trucks sold from January to May dropped
from 54 percent to 48 percent.
NHTSA assumed hybrids were not available until 2014 despite the fact that the
Toyota Prius, a hybrid, is the 9th best selling car in the country today.
NHTSA based its rulemaking on costs and benefits on the margin rather than
the total costs and benefits of improved standards.
Changes along these lines would redirect NHTSAs efforts to the intent, not just
the letter, of the law passed as part of Ten in Ten. NHTSAs own analysis confirms
that simply switching to total benefits, even with their poor gas price assumptions,
would have led them to propose a fleetwide average of at least 35 mpg by 2015
five years earlier than the required minimum.5 More realistic gas prices, even only
setting the standard based on the marginal benefits, would also have led NHTSA
to propose a fleetwide average over about 35 mpg by 2015.6
Making matters worse, not only will NHTSAs poor analysis shortchange consumers and lead to lower global warming pollution reductions, we can expect a similar approach to shortchange trucking companies and the environment when NHTSA
address fuel economy standards for medium and heavy duty vehicles. This Committees oversight role is essential to avoiding this outcome.
Smarter Travel, Freight, Cities
While great strides can be made to improve vehicle efficiency, it is unlikely that
technology alone will be able to keep pace with growing demand for personal and
freight travel if we continue on our current path. As a result, despite the potential
for parts of the transportation sector to increase efficiency by 50 percent or 100 percent, global warming pollution from transportation will continue to increase beyond
current levels.
For example, if projected trends from the Energy Information Administrations
Annual Energy Outlook 2008 continue through 2050, medium and heavy duty vehicles could see demand increase by more than 130 percent. If the fuel economy of
all delivery trucks and 18-wheelers on the road were increased by about 70 percent,
that would still not be enough to compensate for the increase in demand. As a result, global warming pollution in this sector would still rise by more than 20 percent
in 2050 compared to levels in 2000. Compared to a goal of an 80 percent reduction
in global warming pollution, a 20 percent increase clearly wont cut it.
Growing travel demand is a core barrier to avoiding the worst impacts of climate
change, but historical travel growth has also been a key part of U.S. economic
growth. The challenge is to rethink and redesign our transportation system to allow
for continued economic growth without as many miles.
As with efficiency, the first step is to ensure that consumers and corporations
have alternatives other than business as usual. Both urban and suburban areas
need greater access to public transportation, which produces significantly less global
warming pollution per person than cars and trucks. As of 2001, less than one-third
of the U.S. population lived within about a block of a bus line, while only about 40
percent lived within a half mile.7 The situation is even worse for rail, where only
about 10 percent of U.S. population lived within a mile of a rail stop, while only
about one quarter lived within five miles.8
In addition to transit, consumers need improved access to high occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lanes, bike lanes, and more affordable housing near where they work. Corporations need many of the same things. While 18-wheelers provide a lot of flexibility in the freight world, it takes 57 times more energy to ship a ton of goods
5 Page III6 in NHTSAs Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis for their proposed fuel economy standards for Model Year 20112015 cars and light trucks.
6 Ibid., pages IX12 and IX13.
7 Public Transit in America: Analysis of Access Using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, February
2007.
8 Ibid.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
62
on a truck than on railswitching more miles from long-haul trucking to rail will
put a real dent in global warming pollution from freight. Trucks and buses might
also benefit from their own dedicated lanes where they are not caught up in as much
stop and go traffic, making highways safer as well.
For these various new options to work, two key resources are needed: the money
to fund them and the willingness to use them. Thankfully, in many cases, a system
that makes sure people and products carry the full cost of their travel can help with
both. Whether it is insurance, wear and tear on highways and bridges, or the costs
of the pollution produced from tailpipes, charging per mile rather than per year or
per gallon can create both a revenue stream for the needed investments and a more
direct incentive to try out the newly available approaches.
Some examples of these approaches include:
Pay as you drive insurance: If you drive less, you are less likely to get into an
accident. Paying for insurance by the mile rather than just by the car would
both provide a more equitable distribution of insurance payments and encourage people to drive less.
Per mile road user fees: Current highway construction and maintenance costs,
and some transit costs, are covered by per gallon fuel taxes. Because fuel efficiency must go up to address global warming, projected tax receipts will go
down compared to a business as usual scenario. Per mile road user fees, adjusted to vehicle weight, could maintain a steadily growing revenue stream to
keep our roads and bridges from falling apart while encouraging consumers and
corporations to seek less expensive alternatives.
Per mile pollution or congestion fees: Accidents and wear and tear are not the
only costs associated with every mile we drive. Vehicles of all sizes cause smogforming and toxic pollution that lead to increased health care costs and even
fatalities. Traffic also costs time because of the delays created by congestion.
Per mile pollution and congestion fees can become steady funding sources to
hold people responsible for the damage they create while creating a funding
stream for alternatives, plus they would provide another incentive to drive less.
Per mile pollution and congestion fees tied to air travel and freight could be
great ways to finance high-speed rail or simply much needed reinvestment into
the countrys conventional rail infrastructure.
Location efficient mortgages: Current tax codes give consumers the same break
on their mortgage interest no matter where they live. While these tax breaks
have helped many live out the American dream of owning a house, they have
also helped lower the cost of owning homes that are farther from where people
work, increasing daily travel. Revamping that tax code to provide greater tax
breaks for those who live closer to work or transit will still help people realize
a part of the American dream while ensuring it does not become a nightmare
of pollution and congestion.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but instead points the way to policies
and practices that could help cut projected personal travel by 25 percent to 35 percent by 2050 (15 percent20 percent by 2030) and could contribute to reducing the
amount of freight that is trucked by 20 percent or more by 2050. Even more innovative approaches, such as reserving downtown areas for walking, biking, and public
transit, or directly integrating our personal and freight vehicles with a mass transit
system, could be part of a smart growth revolution that allows us to rethink how
we move people and goods.
Fueling Up with Low Carbon Alternatives
The combination of investments in improved vehicle efficiency and alternatives to
continuing historic growth in travel can go a long way to cutting global warming
pollution from the transportation sector. However, if our economy continues to grow
as it has over the last 20 years, these solutions will not be enough to cut global
warming pollution from transportation by at least 80 percent compared to levels in
2000.
To reach those deep cuts while continuing to strengthen our economy, we must also
tap into transportation fuels that do not release significant amounts of carbon dioxide. If we combine all of the approaches above for our light-duty cars and trucks,
then by 2050 we will still need to supply the equivalent of 80 to 110 billion gallons
of gasoline with 7080 percent less global warming pollution than todays fuel. For
medium and heavy duty trucks, we will need the equivalent of another 30 to 40 billion gallons of gasoline with 7580 percent less global warming pollution. And for
the remainder of the transportation sectors, we will need yet another 40 to 50 billion gallons of low carbon fuel.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
63
That means, by 2050, we will need the equivalent of 150 to 200 billion gallons of
gasoline with as much as an 80 percent reduction in global warming pollution compared to todays gasoline. And, while biofuels will play an important part in a low
carbon future, it is unlikely, at best, that we can sustainably produce sufficient lowcarbon biofuel in the U.S. A more realistic estimate of sustainable biofuel potential,
one that minimizes tradeoffs between food and fuel and does not encourage deforestation in other countries, would be closer to 40 to 50 billion gallons, unless breakthroughs are achieved in novel biomass resources.
To supply the rest of transportations needed energy, we must to tap into renewable
electricity and clean hydrogen. But these resources will not appear overnight, nor
will the vehicles that must be sold to use these low-carbon fuels. We will need multiple policies to bring about the needed fuel revolution:
A low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) must be put in place to cut global warming
pollution by 10 percent by 2030 and up to 80 percent by 2050. While the recently
passed Renewable Fuel Standard applies global warming pollution standards to
biofuels, the required amount would only represent about 10 percent of current
demand, leaving 90 percent of transportation fuel unregulated.
An ultra-low carbon fuel standard is also needed to accelerate demand for fuels
that dramatically cut global warming pollution. While a 10 percent low carbon
fuel standard may be appropriate for 2030, it will mainly put a stop to dirty
fuels such as liquid-coal and encourage fuels with only modest improvements.
To created demand for the cleanest biofuels, electricity and hydrogen, there
should be a carve-out in the LCFS for a minimum volume of the cleanest fuels.
Vehicle incentives and an ultra-low carbon vehicle requirement will also be essential to ensure that the vehicles are there to use the fuel. Fuel cell vehicles,
battery electric vehicles, and plug-ins are currently significantly more expensive
than conventional vehicles or even hybrids. Economic incentives and requirements will be needed to overcome the valley of death experienced by new technologies.
Conclusion
If left unchecked, climate change will have direct and significant impacts on our
transportation system. But that same system can be an essential part of the solution set to help avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
The U.S. needs to move away from a piecemeal approach to transportation energy
and environmental policy and instead adopt a comprehensive set of policies that will
tap into both the near term and long term solutions that are available or on the
drawing boards. This will require a longer term perspective and a combination of
consistent, significant, and sustained policies. Yes, we do need to rethink our transportation system, but in doing so, we will not only dramatically lower global warming pollution, we will save consumers billions, create new jobs in America and ultimately cut our addiction to oil.

And now, Mr. Hamberger, welcome.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
RAILROADS
Mr. HAMBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, Senator Stevens.
The Association of American Railroads appreciates this opportunity to address the issue of climate change and transportation.
At the outset, I would suggest that one area where everyone can
and should agree is that greater use of rail transportation, both for
freight and for passengers, offers a simple, cost-effective, and immediate way to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions
without harming the economy.
One way railroads positively impact the environment is by reducing fuel and energy consumption. Railroads, last year, were able to
move a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on one gallon of fuel.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
64
Its like moving a ton of freight from Boston to Baltimore on one
gallon of fuel.
Railroads have an impressive record of improving their fuel efficiency. Since 1980, our fuel efficiency has improved by 85 percent.
Last year alone, freight railroads used 3.5 billion fewer gallons of
fuel than we would have without that improvement. And important
for this hearing is that that improved fuel efficiency translates into
substantial reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. In fact,
that 3.5-billion-gallon savings in fuel Ive just referenced means
that railroads last year emitted 39 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they would have, otherwise. And since railroads are
three or more times as fuel efficient as trucks, every ton-mile of
freight that moves by rail instead of highways reduced greenhouse
gas emissions by two-thirds or more. Shifting just 10 percent of the
long-haul freight that moves by truck would produce an annual
fuel savings of more than 1 billion gallons of fuel, resulting in a
reduction of annual greenhouse gas emissions of more than 12 million tons.
The railroad fuel efficiency advantage helps explain why freight
railroads account for just 2.6 percent of transportation-related
greenhouse gas emissions, and just .7 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Freight train emissions are also less for other types of pollutants.
The EPA estimates that for every ton-mile, a typical truck emits
three times more NOX and particulates than a locomotive. And just
3 months ago, the EPA issued stringent new locomotive emission
standard guidelines that will cut particulate matter by up to 90
percent and nitrogen oxide by up to 80 percent.
Freight rail can also help reduce gridlock on Americas highways,
saving commuters time, money, and fuel. A single freight train can
take hundreds of trucks off the highways. If 25 percent of freight
volume was shifted from trucks to rail by 2026, commuters could
save an average of 41 hours a year in commuting time, 79 gallons
of fuel, and $1,000 in total congestion costs.
Now, just as expanded freight rail would be good for the environment, so would expanded passenger rail. The average intercity passenger train produces 60 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions
per passenger mile than the average automobile, and half as much
as an airplane. The public benefits of a truly attractive and competitive national passenger rail capability will, indeed, exceed public costs.
The AAR was pleased to support passage of the Amtrak reauthorization bills in both the House and the Senate, and I hope a
Conference Report can be passed yet this summer.
At your hearing, 2 weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, you heard that the
demand for freight in the U.S. will almost double over the next 25
years. And, given the green advantage of rail, policymakers would
do well to encourage more of that freight to move over the Nations
rail network.
I would like to offer three policy initiatives that would aid railroads in expanding capacity to meet that demand.
First, enactment of the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act, S. 1125, which provides a tax credit for investments
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
65
in new rail capacity. That credit would be available not just to railroads, but to any entity that invests in rail capacity expansion.
Second, passage of the Short Line Rail Investment Act, which extends a targeted tax credit for smaller railroads that expired at the
end of last year.
Third, encouragement of public/private partnerships in which the
public pays for the benefits it receives, and the railroads pay for
the benefits they receive. The Chicago Create Project, the Heartland Corridor, and the Alameda Corridor are all examples of such
projects in which public and private dollars are leveraged together
to produce public benefits both for capacity for passenger rail, as
well as freight rail, that otherwise would not be realized.
We look forward to working with the Members of this Committee
in developing programs that will help our Nation address climate
change issues and continue to move passengers and freight by rail.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamberger follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) appreciates the opportunity to address the issue of climate change and transportation. AAR members account for the
vast majority of freight railroad mileage, employees, and traffic in Canada, Mexico,
and the United States.
Few topics today generate as much debate as climate change. I respectfully suggest, however, that one area where everyone can and should agree is that greater
use of rail transportation offers a simple, cost-effective, and immediate way to
meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions without potentially harming the
economy.
Given this fact, I also respectfully suggest that policymakers should take steps to
attract more freight and passengers to railroads and expand the substantial greenhouse gas and other public benefits of rail transportationfor example, by implementing an investment tax credit for rail infrastructure capacity expansion projects;
by encouraging greater use of rail-related public-private partnerships; and by adequately funding Amtrak to allow it to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of
good repair, procure new rolling stock, and make additional capital improvements
and maintenance over its network.
Freight and passenger railroads have a strong record of success in meeting our
Nations transportation needs in an environmentally-friendly fashion. They are committed to pursuing further technological and operational advancements that will
lead to continued tangible improvements in fuel efficiency, mobility, greenhouse gas
emissions, and air quality.
Railroads Are the Most Fuel-Efficient Form of Surface Freight Transport
According to EPA data, in 2006 total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 7,054
teragrams 1 of carbon dioxide equivalents, with transportation accounting for 28 percent of the total. The vast majority of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions are directly correlated with fossil fuel consumption: the higher the fuel consumption, the greater the greenhouse gas emissions.
1A
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
teragram is a million metric tons or 1.1 million short tons.
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
66
Freight railroads, though, are the most fuel efficient mode of surface transportation. In 2007, railroads moved one ton of freight an average of 436 miles per gallon of fuelroughly the distance from one end of Nebraska to the other, or from
Boston to Baltimore.
Indeed, on a ton-miles 2 per gallon of fuel basis, freight railroads are three or more
times more fuel efficient than trucks. That means that every ton-mile of freight that
moves by rail instead of truck reduces greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds or
more.
The railroad fuel efficiency advantage helps explain why freight railroads account
for just 2.6 percent of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and just 0.7
percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624HAMB1.eps
624HAMB2.eps
2 A ton-mile is the movement of one ton of freight one-mile. It is a standard way to measure
freight volume across transportation modes.
67
Moving More Freight By Rail is in the Public Interest

Trucks are, and will continue to be, critical to freight transportation and to our
economy. But based on data from a study by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), for each 1 percent of long-haul
freight moved by rail instead of by truck, fuel savings would be around 110 million
gallons per year and annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by around 1.2 million tons. If 10 percent of long-haul freight now moving by truck moved by rail instead, annual fuel savings would exceed one billion gallons and annual greenhouse
gas emissions would fall by more than 12 million tons.
Moreover, because freight transportation demand is expected to rise sharply in
the years ahead, future fuel savingsand greenhouse gas reductionswould be
much higher if more freight moved by rail. AASHTO projects that ton-miles for
truck movements more than 500 miles long will increase from 1.40 trillion in 2000
to 2.13 trillion in 2020. If 10 percent of these long-haul truck movements went by
rail (perhaps via efficient intermodal movements involving both railroads and
trucks), cumulative greenhouse gas reductions from 2007 to 2020 would be around
200 million tons.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624HAMB3.eps
624HAMB4.eps
The public benefits of freight rail do not stop there, however. Moving more freight
by rail would also help reduce highway congestion, which costs $78 billion just in
wasted travel time (4.2 billion hours) and wasted fuel (2.9 billion gallons) each year,
according to the Texas Transportation Institutes 2007 Urban Mobility Report. (The
total costs of congestion are far higher if lost productivity, costs associated with
cargo delays, and other items are included.) A typical train, though, takes the
68
freight equivalent of several hundred trucks off our congested highways, thus enhancing mobility and reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by motor
vehicles stuck or slowed in traffic. Railroads also reduce the costs of maintaining
existing roads and reduce the pressure to build costly new roads, freeing up limited
funds for other purposes.
Finally, railroads also release far less of other types of emissions than other
modes of transport. The EPA estimates that for every ton-mile, a typical truck emits
roughly three times more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a locomotive. Other
studies suggest an even greater advantage for railroads. In March 2008, the EPA
issued stringent new locomotive emissions guidelines that, when fully implemented,
will cut particulate matter emissions by locomotives by as much as 90 percent and
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions by as much as 80 percent compared to locomotives
meeting the most stringent standards set in 1998. The new standards will also yield
sizable reductions in emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and other air
toxics.
Railroads Are Constantly Working to Improve Fuel Efficiency and Reduce

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Even More
In 1980, one gallon of diesel fuel moved one ton of freight by rail an average of
235 miles. As noted earlier, by 2007 railroads moved one ton of freight an average
of 436 miles per gallon of fuel. Thanks to this improvement in fuel efficiency, in
2007 alone Class I freight railroads used 3.5 billion fewer gallons of fueland emitted nearly 39 million fewer tons of carbon dioxidethan they would have if their
fuel efficiency had remained constant since 1980. From 1980 through 2007, U.S.
freight railroads consumed 48 billion fewer gallons of fuel and emitted 538 million
fewer tons of carbon dioxide than they would have if their fuel efficiency had not
improved.3
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624HAMB5.eps
624HAMB6.eps
3 Today, U.S. freight railroads today consume approximately 4.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel
per year.
69
Railroads are investing heavily in cleaner and greener technologies and other
efforts to further improve their fuel efficiency. Just a few examples include:
New locomotives. Railroads have spent billions of dollars in recent years on
thousands of new, more environmentally-friendly locomotives. They have also
overhauled thousands of older locomotives to improve their environmental performance.
Some of the new locomotives are fuel-saving generator set (genset) units for
use in rail yards. Gensets have two or three independent engines that cycle on
and off depending on need, sharply reducing fuel consumption, pollution, and
noise compared to the locomotives they replace. Other switching locomotives are
hybrids with a small fossil-fueled engine in addition to a bank of rechargeable
batteries. Research is ongoing on hybrid long-haul locomotives that would store
in batteries the energy generated by braking, and in hydrogen fuel cell switching locomotives.
Train handling. In part, railroad fuel efficiency depends on how well an engineer handles a train. Thats why railroads use the skills of their engineers to
save fuel. For example, many railroads offer training programs through which
engineers and simulators provide fuel-saving tips. On some major railroads, the
fuel consumption performance of participating engineers is compared, with
awards given to the top fuel masters.
In addition, railroads are using sophisticated on-board monitoring systems to
gather and evaluate information on location, topography, track curvature, train
length and weight, and more to provide engineers with real-time coaching on
the best speed for that train from a fuel-savings standpoint.
Information technology. Many railroads use advanced computer software to improve their fuel efficiency. For example, sophisticated modeling tools identify
the best way to sequence cars in a large classification yard. Railroads also use
innovative trip planning systems that automatically analyze crew and locomotive availability, track congestion, the priority of different freight cars, track
conditions, and other variables to optimize how and when freight cars are assembled to form trains and when those trains depart. The result is smoother
traffic flow, better asset utilization, and reduced fuel use.
Idle reduction technology. Locomotives often have to idle when not in use to prevent freezing, provide for crew comfort, or for other reasons. However, many
railroads have installed idle-reduction technology that allows main engines to
shut down under certain conditions. One advantage of genset locomotives is
that their smaller engines use antifreeze, allowing them to shut down in cold
weather. Railroads also use auxiliary power units to warm engines so that locomotives can be shut down in cold weather.
Components, maintenance, and design. Railroads use innovative freight car and
locomotive components, maintenance programs, and designs to save fuel. For
example, advanced lubrication techniques save fuel by reducing friction; the use
of low torque bearings on freight cars and improving the aerodynamic profile
of trains save fuel by reducing drag; and the use of distributed power (locomotives placed in the middle of trains) can, in certain applications, save fuel
by improving operational efficiency.
The seven largest U.S. freight railroads have all joined EPAs SmartWay Transport, a voluntary partnership between freight transporters and the EPA that establishes incentives for fuel efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas reductions.
The initiative is designed to reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by 36 to 73 million tons and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions by up to 220,000 tons. As part of the
partnership, each railroad has committed to evaluating the environmental impacts
of its operations and agreed to work with the EPA to develop and implement plans
to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions in coming years.
What Can Policymakers Do Regarding Freight Rail?
Using freight railroads more means consuming fuel less, and thats important
today more than ever.
Serious capacity issues, however, threaten the ability of railroads to handle socially-optimal amounts of traffic. Freight railroads are reinvesting record amounts
of their own funds into their systems, but that will not be enough to take full advantage of railroads potential to meet our transportation needs. Thats why we respectfully urge you to support a tax credit for projects that expand freight rail capacity.
This would help bridge the funding gap, producing public benefits (like reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, reduced highway gridlock, and cleaner air) that would far
exceed the cost of the credit.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
70
S. 1125 (the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2007) calls
for a 25 percent tax credit for investments in freight rail infrastructure expansion
projects. The AAR gratefully acknowledges the support members of this committee
have shown toward S. 1125, and congratulates them on recognizing that a rail investment tax credit addresses the central challenge of how to move more freight
without causing more highway gridlock or environmental degradation.
I also respectfully urge you to support S. 881, the Short Line Railroad Investment Act of 2007, which would extend the Section 45G tax credit for investments
in short line track rehabilitation that expired in 2007. The Section 45G tax credit
has helped hundreds of short line railroads increase the volume and rate of track
rehabilitation and improvement programs, which in turn allows them to offer more
efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally-friendly rail service to communities
throughout the country.
Finally, the immense public benefits of freight railroadingincluding lower greenhouse gas emissions and less congested roads and highwayswould accrue more
quickly if more public-private partnerships for freight railroad infrastructure
projects were implemented. Partnerships are not subsidies to railroads. Rather,
they are an acknowledgement that private entities should pay for private benefits
and public entities should pay for public benefits. Partnerships reflect the fact that
cooperation between interested entities is far more likely to result in timely, meaningful solutions to transportation problems than a go-it-alone approach.
Climate Change and Passenger Rail
As discussed above, if our goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and highway
congestion, transportation policy should emphasize modes of transportation that reduce fuel consumption and take motor vehicles off our congested highways. Railroads offer a fuel efficient, carbon-friendly transportation option for people as well
as freight.
In its January 2008 final report to Congress, the National Surface Transportation
Policy and Revenue Study Commission stated that intercity passenger rail is . . .
more energy efficient than many other modes of passenger transportation. The report states that the average intercity passenger rail train produces 60 percent lower
carbon dioxide emissions per passenger-mile than the average automobile, and half
the carbon dioxide emissions per passenger-mile of an airplane.
BNSF CEO Matt Rose was a member of that Commission. In the final report, Mr.
Rose stated that he shared the conclusion of the Commissions report that passenger railintercity and commuterwill need to grow in order to supplant [vehicle
miles traveled] and give Americans more affordable, sustainable choices in light of
higher fuel prices, growing transportation congestion and related environmental
concerns.
Mr. Rose, like so many others, realizes that there are substantial public benefits
from comprehensive intercity passenger rail. Indeed, the public benefits of a truly
attractive and competitive national passenger rail capability will exceed public costs.
But in order to be a true transportation alternative for Americans, passenger rail,
like freight rail, cannot be achieved on the cheap.
Thats why expanding the capacity of our Nations rail infrastructure is a critical
challenge that policymakers should address, especially as rising fuel prices are
bringing ever-more passengers to railroads. Amtrak ridership may reach 28 million
this yearthe highest it has ever been and up from 25.8 million passengers last
year. In fact, Amtrak ridership and revenues are up in all categories: short distance,
long distance, and Northeast Corridor services are all experiencing significant
growth. Last month, Amtrak had the highest revenue and ridership of any month
in history. Fiscal year 2008 year-to-date ridership is up 11 percent and revenues are
up 14 percent over the comparable period in Fiscal Year 2007.
Indeed, as the cost of auto and air travel continue to increase and the prospect
of a carbon-constrained future increases, we have an opportunityand the need
to make far more concerted efforts than we have in the past to more fully capture
the economic, environmental, and social benefits of reliable, convenient, and comprehensive passenger rail service.
Unfortunately, without significant investment in capacity expansionboth infrastructure and equipmentAmtrak will not be able to handle all the people that
want to use it and we will fail to capture all of those benefits.
For example, Amtraks locomotive fleet is antiquated: its diesel switcher locomotive fleet is 40 years old; the average age of the AEM7 electric fleet is 25 years,
and its overhead electric catenary system in the Northeast Corridor is 1930s technology that does not allow Amtrak to take advantage of the improved efficiency of
modern converter, transformer, and transmission designs. Passenger cars could be
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
71
made lighter and more aerodynamic. These are all areas worthy of government investment that will pay huge dividends over the long term.
Moreover, the implementation of high-speed rail corridors, if done in ways that
minimize the substantial operational, engineering, legal, and other impediments
that often hinder the ability of freight railroads to accommodate passenger trains,
would go a long way in providing a realistic alternative to short-distance air travel
and driving for millions of trips per year while significantly reducing the carbon
footprint associated with that travel.
In the meantime, Amtrak is committed to working to improve efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, Amtrak is partnering with the state
of Oklahoma on a pilot project to test the use of biofuels in Amtrak locomotives. Amtrak has been approached by another state about a pilot project testing new battery
technology in locomotives. Amtrak has long been an industry leader in environmental initiatives as a charter member of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and
the first railroad in CCX, North Americas first greenhouse gas emissions trading
market. Amtrak has already committed to the largest voluntary emissions reduction
plan for diesel fuel use in the United States. In addition, Amtrak passengers can
now purchase carbon offsets for their rail trip with Internet ticket purchases.
Conclusion
The key to reducing transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions is reducing
fuel consumption in transportation. Americas freight and passenger railroads offer
a simple, cost- effective and meaningful way to help do this, thereby helping to ensure a sustainable future for our planet.

Mr. MEENAN. Youre the next witness, please. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Mr. MEENAN. Thank you. Today I wanted to focus my remarks

on the commercial airlines outstanding record of greenhouse gas
efficiency, our proactive commitment to further limiting our emissions footprint, and the complementary role that Congress can
play.
However, I would also note the crippling fuel price crisis the airlines are enduring, which inextricably linked to the broader energy
transportation and climate change policies underpinning todays
hearing.
We seek your help in ensuring policies that will alleviate this crisis and allow us to get on with our business. A vibrant, competitive, and growing aviation sector is a key part of climatethe climate change solution.
Commercial aviation in the United States has a decidedly strong
track record, which is often overlooked or misstated. We contribute
just 2 percent of domestic greenhouse gases, compared to 25 percent for the balance of the transportation industry. This is no small
achievement, given that commercial aviation is essential to our
economy and supports nearly 9 percent of U.S. employment.
Todays airplanes are not just smarter, theyre quieter, cleaner,
and use less fuel than ever before, because we fly them smarter.
U.S. airlines have been able to deliver more value by constantly
improving fuel efficiency through reinvestment in technology and
more efficient operations. And, in fact, we improved our fuel efficiency by 110 percent between 1978 and 2007, resulting in 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide savings, roughly the equivalent
of taking 18.7 million cars off the road in those years. U.S. carriers
burned almost 3 percent less fuel in 2007 than in 2000, but carried
20 percent more passengers and cargo on a revenue/ton-mile basis.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
72
Today, our planes are as fuel efficient as compact cars, but carry
more goods and people over six times faster, and our jets are five
to six times more fuel efficient than corporate jets.
The Air Transport Association carriers are highly motivated to
continue this trend, and have made a commitment to improve fuel
efficiency by an additional 30 percent by 2025. Moreover, recognizing that todays carbon-based fuel supply can only take us so
far, ATA and its airlines are making extensive resource commitments to stimulate the development of commercially viable, environmentally friendly alternative fuels through the Commercial
Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative. Congress can take action to
complement our efforts by ensuring that our Nations outdated air
traffic control system is modernized to permit more direct routes,
serving ansaving an additional 10 to 15 percent in fuel and emissions.
Further, we urge Congress to reinvigorate NASAs and the FAAs
Environmental Aeronautics Research and Development Programs
with specific respect to mitigating the impacts of climate change on
aviation. Congress can support data-driven transportation planning
that includes airlines, FAA, the airports, and State and local governments.
Finally, and most time critical, we urge Congress to act now to
address the fuel price crisis. Even before the recent sustained fuel
price spikes, fuel was the airlines largest cost center. Fuel prices
now average 30 to 50 percent of an airlines operating expenses,
costing between $41 billion in 2007, projected to grow to $61 billion
this year. I think its fair to say that the market has long sent a
the commercial airlines the price signal, which some now want to
pile onto with cap-and-trade and further limits to the industrys
ability to reinvest.
Unfortunately, the last several months, that price signal has
turned into a fuel price crisis of epic proportions. This countrys airlines expect to lose in the range of $10 billion this year, a loss on
par with that of the worst year in the industrys history. High fuel
prices are the sole reason for this situation.
Unlike the temporary revenue hits of 9/11 and other time-demand shocks, the airlines are now facing a massive structural cost
increase.
Let me try to add some context. More than 14,000 airline jobs
have been cut so far this year, and thats just the tip of the iceberg.
Scores of communities stand to lose all scheduled air service by
early next year. More airlines, in addition to the nine that have already filed for bankruptcy or stopped operating, will simply shut
down.
So, why should this Committee care that the airlines are on the
brink of financial disastersome would say, about to implode? The
answer is simple. The Nations economy is intrinsically linked to
the viability of the air transportation system. If the airlines continue to spiral downward, so will the economy. Aviation contributes
$690 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product. Thats 10 million
new jobs.
So, I take this opportunity at this hearing to ask you again to
work with us to address this crisis. And Id be happy to respond
to your questions.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
73
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meenan follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MEENAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Air Transport Association (ATA) airline members
transport more than 90 percent of all U.S. airline passenger and cargo traffic.1 Our
airlines take their role in controlling emissions very seriously. Recently, there has
been a great deal of focus in Congress on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in particular, and how this Nation might achieve reductions in these emissions while
maintaining economic stability and enhancing energy independence. Commercial
aviation has a vital role to play in this regard. Also, as strong supporters of sound
transportation planning, the airlines appreciate the Committees interest in the potential impacts on transportation that might result from changes in climate. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss these issues.
Introduction and Overview
For generations, flying has contributed to a better quality of life in America. Commercial aviation has been essential to the growth of our economy, yielded breakthrough technologies, brought people together and transported critical cargoall
while achieving an exceptional environmental track record. Todays airplanes are
not just smarterthey are quieter, cleaner and use less fuel than ever beforebut
we also fly them smarter. Thats why our industry represents just 2 percent of all
GHG emissions in the United States while driving three times more economic activity. But we are not stopping there. The initiatives that we are undertaking to further address GHG emissions are designed to responsibly and effectively limit our
fuel consumption, GHG contribution and potential climate change impacts while allowing commercial aviation to continue to serve as a key contributor to the U.S.
economy. I want to emphasize three points that are essential to moving our emissions-reducing efforts forward within a framework of sound transportation planning,
energy and climate change policy:
First, commercial airlines are and have long been extremely GHG efficient. For the
past several decades, commercial airlines have dramatically improved GHG efficiency by investing billions in fuel-saving aircraft and engines and innovative technologies like winglets and cutting-edge route optimization software. Fuel is our largest cost center, which, long before the current fuel price crisis created the economic
imperative that we continuously improve fuel and GHG efficiency. And while commercial aviation accounts for only 2 percent of domestic man-made GHG emissions,
we shepherd this to good use, driving a far larger percentage of economic activity,
not only directly, but also indirectly, as a necessary element in the airport and tourism sectors and in all business sectors that rely on the rapid delivery of goods and
human resources.
Second, ATA airlines are proactively committed to further limiting their GHG footprint through a set of measures that will simultaneously address climate change
and energy independence while preserving economic stability and the opportunity
to grow. At the core of these measures is the ATA carriers commitment to an additional 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement by 2025improvement that only
comes from the airlines investment in new aircraft, new aircraft engines, navigation
aids and enhanced operational procedures. In addition, we are dedicating ourselves
to developing commercially viable, environmentally friendly alternative jet fuel,
which could be a game-changer in terms of aviations output of GHGs. Moreover,
we are central stakeholders in partnering efforts to modernize the outdated air traffic management (ATM) system and to reinvigorate research and development in
aviation environmental technology, both of which can bring extensive additional
emissions reductions.
Third, there is a critical role for the Federal Government to play in energy, transportation planning and climate change policy to complement the airlines efforts.
While the ATA airlines 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement target will be met
through the airlines own investments and operating initiatives, the other measures
in the package require a significant measure of congressional support. Also, sound
transportation planning at all levels of government can help minimize the impacts
on transportation from potential climate change effects.
1 ATA airline members include ABX Air, AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines,
ASTAR Air Cargo, Atlas Air, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Evergreen International Airlines, Federal Express Corporation, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Midwest Airlines,
Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, UPS Airlines and U.S. Airways. Associate members are: Air Canada, Air Jamaica Ltd. and Mexicana.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
74
Just as we ask Congress to continue to work with us, we also urge Congress to
calibrate Federal energy and transportation policy and any climate change-related
legislation so they do not work against our efforts. Last week, ATA announced a
revised 2008 forecast: the U.S. airlines expect to lose in the range of $10 billion this
yeara loss on par with the worst year in this industrys history. Soaring fuel
prices are the sole reason. Congress must help get these prices under control. Moreover, while the Senate recently declined to go forward with the GHG cap-and-trade
program proposed in the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would
have applied an additional fuel surcharge on airlines jet fuel, we understand that
many in Congress still are interested in applying such proposals to aviation. Not
only is an additional price signal unnecessary for our industry, but recent events
have shown the crippling effects that exorbitant fuel prices can have. We urge Congress to adopt sound energy, transportation planning and climate change policies
that avoid counterproductive, punitive approaches that further siphon away funds
that the airlines otherwise could use to invest in newer aircraft and other fuel- and
GHG-saving measures.
Commercial Aviation Is Extremely GHG Efficient
Commercial aviation in the United States has a decidedly strong track record that
is often overlooked or misstated. U.S. commercial aviation contributes just 2 percent
of domestic U.S. GHG emissions.2 To put that into context, with passenger vehicles
(cars and light duty trucks) alone accounting for over 17.5 percent,3 as illustrated
in Figure 1, road transport accounts for more than a quarter of U.S. GHG emissions
and power plants account for over a third.4 The picture is similar when viewed on
a global basis. Worldwide commercial aviation contributes just 3 percent of manmade GHGs.5 To put this into perspective, cattle and other livestock account for approximately 18 percent.6
Figure 1U.S. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2 Percent of the Inventory
Source: U.S. EPA Data 2005
At the same time, commercial aviation is critically important to local, national

and global economies, enabling a large percentage of U.S. economic output. A July
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624MEENA1.eps
2 The United States Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) most recent general inventory
reports commercial aviations contribution to the total GHG emissions in 2006 was 2.04 percent.
EPA, Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19902006 (April 15, 2008) (hereinafter
EPA GHG Inventory 19902006) at pages ES4 and 21 (in 2006, total U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions were 7,054.2 teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent (Tg CO2 Eq)) and Table 215
at pp. 222 & 223 (Commercial AircraftDomestic account for 143.6 Tg. CO2 Eq.).
3 EPA GHG Inventory 19902006, Table 215 at pp. 222 and 223.
4 EPA GHG Inventory 19902006.
5 It is estimated that on a worldwide basis, commercial aviation accounts for approximately
3 percent of total GHGs, while at the same time contributing over 8 percent of the worlds economic activity. See International Air Transport Association, Debunking Some Persistent Myths
about Air Transport and the Environment.
6 United Nations, Livestock Environment and Development Initiative, Livestocks Long ShadowEnvironmental Issues and Options (2006) at p. 271.
75
2007 study by the FAA found that the national economy is highly dependent on
commercial aviation, which is directly or indirectly responsible for 5.2 percent of
U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), $1.1 trillion in U.S. economic activity (gross output), an estimated 9.5 million jobs, and $322 billion in earnings.7 Placing our economic output side-by-side with our GHG output, it is clear that commercial aviation
is an extremely GHG-efficient economic engine, bringing good bang for our GHG
buck.
We have been able to deliver such strong economic output while reducing our
emissions by continually improving our fuel efficiency through reinvestment in technology and more fuel-efficient operations. In fact, U.S. commercial airlines (passenger and cargo combined) improved their fuel efficiency by 110 percent between
1978 and 2007, which (given the one-to-one relationship between fuel consumption
and carbon dioxide (CO2)) has resulted in 2.5 billion metric tons of CO2 savings
roughly equivalent to taking 18.7 million cars off the road each of those years. Further, Bureau of Transportation Statistics data confirm that U.S. carriers burned almost 3 percent less fuel in 2007 than they did in 2000, resulting in absolute reductions in GHG emissions, even though they carried 20 percent more passengers and
cargo on a revenue ton miles basis.
Commercial aviations GHG efficiency compares very favorably to other modes and
other sectors. While commercial aviation improved its per-passenger fuel efficiency
from 1990, freight trucks showed the reverse trend, with GHG emissions growing
faster than vehicle miles traveled.8 EPA also has confirmed that passenger vehicles
have lagged far behind aircraft in fuel and GHG efficiency.9 (See Figure 2). Within
the aviation sector, it is important to remember that different types of commercial
aircraft have vastly different impacts on the environment. Commercial jets are five
to six times more fuel efficient than corporate jets. The math is simple: carrying 200
people and cargo across the country in a single plane burns a lot less fuel than 33
separate corporate jets, each flying six people.
Figure 2In Contrast to Personal Vehicles, Airline Fuel Efficiency Has
Improved Substantially Since 1990
U.S. airlines are highly motivated to continue this trend. Fuel, long one of the two
highest costs for airlines, is now our largest cost center, averaging between 30 and
50 percent of total operating expenses. In fact, jet fuel costs to the U.S. airlines in
2008 are projected to be $62 billion or more, breaking the 2007 record of $41.2 billion, resulting in what some analysts are likening to the economic effects of the
9/11 terrorist attacks.10 As shown in Figure 3, the price change alone between 2004
and year-end 2008 is the equivalent of 267,000 airline jobs or the purchase price
of 286 new narrow-body jets.
7 See
FAA, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy (July 2007).
GHG Inventory 19902006 at 38.
8 EPA
9 Id.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
J.P. Morgan Securities North America Corporate Research (April 15, 2008).
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624MEENA2.eps
10 See
76
Figure 32008 Jet Fuel Expense Will Break 2007 Record
Total Expense (Excluding Taxes and Into-Plane Fees) Will Exceed $60 Billion
Note: Value in parentheses below year is average price paid excluding taxes, into-plane fees,
pipeline tariffs and hedging costs
Sources: ATA, Energy Information Administration, Department of Transportation
And contrary to popular belief, the airlines cannot pass on significant portions of
these costs. Indeed, as illustrated in Figure 4, todays U.S. domestic air fares remain
below 2000 levels, although fuel prices have tripled. While a slightly more robust
international aviation market has allowed todays systemwide fares to increase approximately 3 percent above 2000 levels, this hardly makes up for the three-fold increase in fuel prices over the same period. Thus, we have an unrelenting economic
imperative to reduce fuel consumption.
Figure 4As of Early 2008, Domestic Airfares Remain Below 2000 Levels
While Jet Fuel Prices Have Tripled
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Source: ATA passenger revenue report (mainline + regionals).
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624MEENA3.eps
624MEENA4.eps
ATA Airlines Are Proactively Committed to Further Limiting Their GHG Footprint
In light of the current and sustained fuel price crisis, the U.S. airlines are being
forced to put down capacity for air services. Should we be able to get fuel prices
77
down to more reasonable levels and turn the economy around, we would hope to see
a return to growth in U.S. air passenger and cargo services. Under such a scenario,
some growth in aviation emissions is predicted. However, this growth must be kept
in context. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is considered the authority on this issue, has determined that under the most likely scenario, CO2 from global aviation in 2050 will account for only about 3 percent of total
man-made CO2 emissions and that aviations overall GHG impact will be around 5
percent.11 Yet even though those remain relatively small numbers, ATA carriers are
relentlessly pursuing measures to further limit their emissions footprint.
Figure 5ATAs 30 Percent Fuel Efficiency Goal Will Translate into CO2
Savings
At the core of our efforts, ATA carriers have made a commitment to achieve an
additional 30 percent systemwide fuel efficiency improvement through 2025, on top
of prior improvements. That equates to an additional 1.2 billion metric tons of CO2
savedroughly equivalent to taking over 13 million cars off the road each year. (See
Figure 5). To accomplish this, our airlines plan to continue the tremendous investments in new equipment and in operational innovations that have allowed us to attain such great fuel efficiency improvements in the past. We are leaving no stone
unturned. Some examples of our efforts include:
Upgrading Fleets. Even in the highly constrained financial environment we
have been in for some time, ATA airlines have been expending billions to upgrade their fleets through investments in new airframes and engines, removing
less fuel-efficient aircraft from their fleets, installing winglets to reduce drag,
altering fan blades and other measures aimed at improved aerodynamics. As a
critical element of our commitment to achieve an additional 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement by 2025, Boeing estimates that the North American carriers will spend approximately $730 billion on new aircraft through 2026.12
Introduction of Innovative, Cutting-Edge Technologies. Our airlines also are investing millions of dollars in technologies to make existing airframes more efficient. For example, the airlines have undertaken equipage for Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approach procedures, which provide navigation capability to fly a more precise path into an airport. ATA airlines also have developed software to analyze flight paths and weather conditions, allowing aircraft
to fly more direct, efficient routes (subject to air traffic approval).
Improved In-Flight Operations. ATA airlines are doing all they can within the
existing ATM system to utilize programs to optimize speed, flight path and altitude, which not only reduces fuel consumption and emissions in the air, but
avoids wasting fuel waiting for a gate on the ground. In addition to pursuing
the use of RNP approach procedures at additional locations, ATA carriers have
11 IPCC,
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Aviation and the Global Atmosphere (1999) at 8.

Boeing Company (2008).
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624MEENA5.eps
12 The
78
worked with FAA to pioneer protocols for continuous descent approaches
(CDAs), which reduce both emissions and noise, and we are doggedly pursuing
implementation of CDAs where the existing ATM system allows.13 Further, our
carriers are implementing Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADSB) satellite tracking technology, which avoids the circuitous routings that occur
with todays radar-based systems. Demonstrating that the efforts extend to the
smallest details of airline operation, our members also have worked on redistribution of weight in the belly of aircraft to improve aerodynamics and have
introduced life vests on certain domestic routes, allowing them to overfly water
on a more direct route.
Improved Ground Operations. ATA airlines also are introducing single-engine
taxiing when conditions permit, redesigning hubs and schedules to alleviate
congestion and converting to electric ground support equipment when feasible.
Further, they are improving ground operations by plugging into electric gate
power where available to avoid running auxiliary power units and using tugs
to position aircraft where possible.
Reducing Onboard Weight. ATA airlines continue to exhaustively review ways,
large and small, to reduce aircraft weightremoving seat-back phones, excess
galley equipment and magazines, introducing lighter seats and beverage carts,
stripping primer and paint and a myriad of other detailed measures to improve
fuel efficiency.
Second, recognizing that improving fuel efficiency with todays carbon-based fuel
supply can only take us so far, ATA and its airlines are making extensive resource
commitments to stimulate the development of commercially viable, environmentally
friendly alternative fuels. As a framework for doing this, we are a founding and
principal member of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI),
a consortium of airlines, government, manufacturers, fuel suppliers, universities,
airports and other stakeholders who hold the various keys to research, development
and responsible implementation of alternative jet fuels. Developing alternative jet
fuels is a higher hurdle than developing alternative fuels for ground-based units,
as jet fuel must meet rigorous FAA specifications, which include reliability and stability at altitude and in greatly varying temperature and pressure conditions to ensure safety. Thus, absent a cooperative initiative like CAAFI, fuel providers almost
certainly would not undertake the investments needed to clear this higher hurdle,
opting instead for the surer payoff at ground level.
While each entity involved in CAAFI has a role to play, our airlines understand
thatas end users of the ultimate productthey must not only make clear their
specifications for alternative jet fuels, but also signal the market that we will financially back fuels meeting those specifications. On Earth Day this year, the ATA
Board of Directors took another significant step in this regard, issuing the ATA Alternative Fuels Principles Document. Among other things, that document stipulates that ATA carriers require that any future alternative jet fuel be more environmentally friendly, on a life-cycle basis, than the jet fuel available today. Through
CAAFI and other partnerships, we are undertaking the work to be sure that tomorrows alternative jet fuel meets that criterion. And accomplishing that will ensure
the full decoupling of growth in aviation demand from growth in GHG emissions.
Third, while ATA airlines are doing all that they can to promote efficiencies within the current ATM system, the limitations of that system account for 1015 percent
of unnecessary fuel burn and resulting emissions. To address this, and to achieve
much-needed modernization of our outdated ATM system, ATA and its carriers are
working with FAA and other agencies on a fundamental redesign of the system
through the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) project and on
various regional airspace design initiatives. ATA is supporting this modernization
initiative through our Smart Skies program.14 However, congressional approval,
including fair and equitable distribution of costs among all system users, is needed
before significant progress can be made in implementing this system. Congressional
authorization and implementation of this initiative will bring 1015 percent additional savings on top of the ATA 30 percent commitment. (See Figure 6).
13 For example, one ATA carrier is achieving an average savings of 1,300 pounds of CO sav2
ings per flight for approaches into the Atlanta airport.
14 Smart Skies is a national campaign led by ATA airlines, which advocates modernization
of the U.S. ATM system and its funding mechanisms. For more on this initiative, see the Smart
Skies website, at http://www.smartskies.org.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
79
Figure 6CO2 Saved Under ATA and NextGen Initiatives
(As if NextGen Implemented in a Given Year)
Fourth, at the same time ATA and its members are pushing the envelope with
existing technology, we continue to contribute to work that will advance new technology. For example, ATA participates in key, joint government/stakeholder initiatives, including the Steering Committee of the Partnership for AiR Transportation
Noise & Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) and the Environment and Energy Subcommittee of the FAA Research Engineering and Development Advisory Committee.
While additional evolutionary environmental improvements are in the pipeline as a
result of such initiatives, revolutionary environmental breakthroughs can only come
about through the reinstatement of significant Federal investments in basic aeronautics research and development programs at NASA and FAA. Indeed, Pratt &
Whitneys new geared turbofan engine, which offers both noise and emissions benefits, as well as many features of Boeings more environmentally efficient 787 were
spawned through such programs. As we have noted in other contexts, however, congressional funding to NASA and FAA for aeronautics research and development
specifically including for environmental projectshas been cut significantly (by
about 50 percent) in the past 810 years, compromising the public-private partnership for exploring and bringing to market products with significantly improved environmental performance.15 Thus, we continue to urge Congress to provide this needed funding, which also is critical to preserving Americas competitiveness in aeronautics.
Congress Should Complement the Airlines Initiatives, Through Sound Energy,
Transportation Planning and Climate Change Policies
We are confident that the measures ATA is undertaking and supporting will continue to limit and reduce aviations emissions footprint, such that commercial aviation will remain a very small source of GHG and other emissions. However, Congress has a key role to play. First, as noted, congressional approval for implementation of a modernized ATM system is critical, as is reinstatement of funding for re-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624MEENA6.eps
15 While later funding cuts were even more drastic, a 2002 study by the National Academy
of Sciences observed:
In constant year dollars, NASA funding for aeronautics research was cut by about one-third
between 1998 and 2000, reducing the breadth of ongoing research and prompting NASA to establish research programs with reduced goals, particularly with regard to TRL (technology readiness level). This significantly reduces the likelihood that the results of NASA research will find
their way into the marketplace in a timely manner, if at all. The ultimate consequence is that
the Federal expenditures are inconsistent with the long-term goal of support for an aviation enterprise compatible with national goals for environmental stewardship.
See National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Aeronautics Research and Technology for
Environmental Compatibility, For Greener Skies: Reducing Environmental Impacts of Aviation
at 44 (2002).
80
search and development programs to foster aviation environmental technology
breakthroughs. Further, while Congress generally is supporting several alternative
fuel research programs, specific support and funding should be provided for the development of environmentally friendly alternative jet fuels. Thus, while a central
focus of todays hearing is on how climate change may impact transportation and
transportation infrastructure, we must also remain focused on how improving air
transportation infrastructure can help minimize the very GHGs of concern.
As this Committee is aware, in March 2008 the Transportation Research Board
issued a special report on the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. That report identified threats that aviation (as well as other modes of
transport) may face under certain climate change scenarios. Many of the recommendations called for further coordination among Federal, state and local agencies in conducting research and transportation planning to mitigate climate change
impacts. ATA strongly supports data-driven, coordinated transportation planning,
which can help ensure cost-effective deployment of resources. To this end, we work
closely with FAA, state governments, the airports and local communities in aviationrelated transportation research and planning. Congress should continue to support
FAAs role in such planning initiatives.
Just as we ask Congress to work to complement airline GHG initiatives, we also
urge Congress to calibrate Federal energy policy and any climate change-related legislation so they do not work against our efforts. As noted, ATAs recently revised
2008 forecast shows that the countrys airlines are likely to lose in the range of $10
billion this yeara loss on par with the worst year in this industrys history, with
soaring fuel prices as the sole reason. Congress must help get these prices under
control. The $62 billion (plus) that the airlines will spend on fuel this year is at
least $20 billion more than last year and slightly more than our combined fuel bill
for the first 4 years of this decade. Sadly, 2008 could turn out to be the worst year
in the industrys history. Unlike the temporary revenue hits from SARS, 9/11 and
other one-time demand shocks, the airlines now are facing a massive structural increasewith no end in sightin a virtually uncontrollable cost. Moreover, there is
little low-hanging fruit left to harvest. Unfortunately, not even Chapter 11 can
lower the price of fuel.
To many Members of Congress, $10 billion is not a lot of money. Let me add some
context. More than 14,000 airline jobs have been cut so far this year, and that is
just the tip of the iceberg. By cutting capacity, scores of communities stand to lose
all commercial air service by early next year. Orders for new planes have been
slashed and hundreds of older, less efficient planes have been taken out of service.
We are burning through cash at unprecedented rates, barely surviving from month
to month. The nations airlines will never fully recover from this economic blow, and
more airlinesin addition to the nine that already have filed for bankruptcy or
stopped operatingmay simply shut down. That means even more job losses and
untold harm to families and the economy.
Committee members and Congress, for that matter, may ask why the country
should care that its airlines are on the brink of financial disaster andsome would
sayabout to implode. The answer is simple: this Nations economy is inextricably
linked to the viability of its air transportation system. If the airlines continue to
spiral downward, so will the economy. Aviation contributes $690 billion to the U.S.
GDPthats equal to heating oil costs for 376 million households for one winter, 24
million new cars and 10 million new jobs.
If Congress does not turn things around very soon, the impact on the countrys
economy will be even worse. Analysts are predicting that a 20 percent reduction in
capacity may not be enough to save the industry. Based on the communities that
stand to lose service, airline hubs will be decimated, tens of thousands more jobs
will be eliminated and tourist destinations will be devastated by huge cuts in the
number of flights. Realistically, rural areas will be hit the hardest by the cuts, leaving thousands of square miles without air service.
Not only must Congress act with sound energy policy, but it also must forbear
from adopting climate change policies that would further exacerbate the fuel price
crisis. While the Senate recently declined to go forward with the GHG cap-and-trade
program proposed in the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would
have applied an additional fuel surcharge on airlines jet fuel, we understand that
many in Congress still are interested in applying such proposals to aviation. Not
only is an additional price signal unnecessary for our industry, but recent events
have shown the crippling effects that exorbitant fuel prices can have. We urge Congress to avoid counterproductive, punitive approaches that further siphon away
funds that the airlines otherwise could use to invest in newer aircraft and other
fuel- and GHG-savings measures.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
81
Conclusion
I close by asking you to note the achievements that commercial airlines have
made in reducing fuel burn and GHGs, particularly when compared to other industries, and the actions that we are taking to continue our progress in this regard.
While we are fully committed to working with Congress and are asking for congressional leadership and support in each of the areas I have described, we are not asking you to work for us, were asking you to work with us in addressing these environmental, energy and transportation concerns. We also are urging you to refrain
from adopting policies that would work against our efforts. A vibrant, competitive
and growing aviation sector is a key part of the solution, not an impediment to ensuring a future where a strong economy, freedom from foreign oil and cleaner air
are the order of the day.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Meenan. We do care, obviously. And we thank you for your testimony.
And now, Mr. Treadwell?
STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR,
U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION
Mr. TREADWELL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman. Thank you for having me here today.
On behalf of my fellow U.S. Arctic Research Commission commissioners, this is a very important thing to consider in a hearing on
climate and transportation, is the Arctic.
During this International Polar Year, the United States and
other nations are laying down an Arctic Observing Network to better understand, model, and predict the vast changes coming to the
northern part of the globe. This hearing has been focusing both on
climate and its effects on transport, and then transport and its effects on climate.
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, acting on our
Commissions recommendation, has commissioned an Interagency
Research Plan on Arctic Infrastructure, in light of climate change.
And this will cover many climate impacts on transportation in the
Arctic, including roads, maritime transport, and the need for improved oil-spill research in ice-covered waters.
Im going to focus, today, however, on shipping. The Arctic Councils eight nations with indigenous participants in the global shipping industry are conducting an Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, due to be published in 2009. Ive given you a brochure about
that assessment. While science is finding the Arctic to be suddenly
and surprisingly accessible, our assessment is finding that regular
Arctic ocean shipping tied to specific resource development projects,
tourism, or serving the needs of Arctic communities is large now,
and is growing. For the United States, its necessary to recognize
the Alaska purchase in 1867 made us an Arctic nation. Great circle
air routes through the Arctic currently carry the bulk of travelers
and air cargo between these continents. Todays Arctic infrastructure is global infrastructure.
In the 21st century, Arctic seaways have the potential to serve
as a major venue for shipping between these continents, as explorers envisioned as early as 500 years ago. Much of our work as a
Commission is to ensure that the U.S. Government does its homeworkhomework we believe is necessary in response to an accessible Arctic Ocean.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
82
Let me focus on five points and direct the Committee to sources
of additional information.
First, climate is changing to create an accessible Arctic. Sea-ice
coverage is reducing in both area and thickness faster than our climate models predicted. This, combined with the advent of more efficient ice-breaking technology and global demand for Arctic resources, works to make Arctic shipping more economically feasible
and attractive to investors. In a set of slides Ive given you, we can
show the ice minimums in 2002 and what theyve receded to 2007,
and a second set of slides explains some changes in shipping technology, ice-breaking technology thattheyre making icebreakers
are more efficient.
Second, Arctic residents, governments, and industry are assessing both the opportunities and the challenges of an accessible Arctic. Within these assessments is a fundamental question. Will
trans-Arctic seaways be as important to global shipping as the Panama and Suez Canals, or will the Arctic Ocean continue more as
a venue for shipping in and out of the Arctic itself, for tourism,
local needs, and bringing natural resources to market?
Third, policies are being conceived, developed, and implemented
toward a goal of ensuring that shipping in the Arctic is, to quote
my colleague at the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Dan
Sullivan, safe, secure, and reliable. To me, those three words
have large meanings. Safe refers to protecting human life and
mitigating any ill effects shipping will have on the environment,
biodiversity, cultures, and traditions of the Arctic. Likewise, navies
and coast guards must expand their capacity to ensure security for
those ships, particularly those carrying strategic commodities. And
finally, the word reliable refers to issues raised by the shipping
industry itself. The Arctic Ocean is a patchwork quilt of tolls and
regulations by several coastal nations. The U.S. Arctic Research
Commission continues to urge the Senate to accede to the United
Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, which will help set some
of the rules in the Arctic related to shipping.
Fourth, strong research programs are needed in the Arctic
Ocean, and some of that research is on deadline. Decisions to be
made by governments on climate issues require an understanding
of what is happening in the Arctic Ocean, the Greenland Ice Cap,
and the changing heat, freshwater, and greenhouse gas budgets of
the Earth. There are several wildcard issues related to Arctic shipping identified through the AMSA process, and these include understanding the effects of air pollution and noise from ships on the
ecosystem.
Finally, and fifth, an accessible Arctic means a need for investment. Your Committee, Mr. Chairman, has recognized that and reported legislation calling for construction of two new polar-class icebreakers for the Coast Guard and the Nation while maintaining
the existing fleet in working condition. We believe these ships will
be used, as they are now, as research platforms and as the visible
U.S. maritime presence in these regions. But, the advent of Arctic
transportation means the other, more traditional missions of the
Coast Guard will take center stage. And these ships are needed to
provide the same protections U.S. Coast Guard affords the rest of
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
83
the Nationsearch and rescue, law enforcement, border protection,
environmental protection, and spill response.
An accessible Arctic also means new, expanded routes for U.S.
military sealift to move assets from one part of the world to the
other. In Coast Guard, our polar icebreakers are an essential component to guarantee this polar maritime mobility exists.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, we understand its our Nations goal,
expressed with other nations, to reverse the trend of climate
change caused by humans. In the Arctic, research to support adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change is high on our agenda.
But, as more forces than climate are working to produce an accessible Arctic, its essential our Nation act now. Under the principle
of freedom of navigation, global shipping could come to our doorstep, whether we invite it or not. And whether you envision the
Arctic Ocean as anas a new seaway for trans-Arctic shipping,
competitive with Panama and Suez Canals, or only foresee an expansion of the current shipping in and out of the Arctic, the time
to prepare is now.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Treadwell follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MEAD TREADWELL, CHAIR,
U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, and Members of the Committee.
My name is Mead Treadwell. Since 2006, I have chaired the U.S. Arctic Research
Commission (USARC).1 As a senior fellow at the Institute of the North, based in
Anchorage, Alaska, and in the private sector, I have worked for much of my career
on the economics, feasibility, and sustainability of Arctic transportation in shipping,
pipelines, railroads, tourism and aviation.2
On behalf of my fellow Commissioners, thank you for your invitation to be here
today. The Arctic component to this hearing is essential. During this International
Polar Year, the United States and other nations are laying down an Arctic Observing Network 3 to better understand, model and predict the vast changes coming to
the northern part of the globe. The Arctic Councils eight nations, with indigenous
participants and the global shipping industry, are conducting the Arctic Marine
Shipping Assessment, due to be published in 2009.4 While science is finding the Arctic to be suddenly, and surprisingly accessible, our assessment is finding that regular Arctic Ocean shipping, tied to specific resource development projects, tourism,
or serving the needs of Arctic communities is large now, and is growing.5 New Arctic-capable ships are under construction in Southeast Asia and Europe. That trend
1 Under the Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984, the seven Commissioners of the USARC
are appointed by the President and report to the President and the Congress on goals and priorities for the U.S. Arctic Research Program. That program is coordinated by the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, (IARPC) chaired by National Science Foundation Director Dr.
Arden Bement, who is also an ex-officio member of the Commission. See www.arctic.gov for
Commission publications, including the Commissions 2007 Goals Report.
2 The Institute of the North, www.institutenorth.org, founded by former Alaska Governor and
U.S. Interior Secretary Walter J. Hickel, has programs that focus on economics and policy related to management of common resources, onshore and offshore. Our work in Arctic infrastructure (including energy, transportation and telecommunication) supports the work of the eightnation Arctic Council and the circumpolar, regional governments of the Northern Forum. Our
defense, security and geography studies stem from Alaskas unique, strategic location.
3 AON report is here: http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/arctic/iarpc/start.jsp. Pending legislation
to support the Integrated Ocean Observing System is needed to assure that studies of Arctic
climate changes will be initialized and maintained. These are important to understand the processes that affect the ice cover and circulation of the Arctic Ocean and thus shipping.
4 AMSA is led by the U.S., Canada, and Finland, and is Chaired by Dr. Lawson Brigham, Deputy Director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, a former U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker captain. For details on AMSA. See: http://arcticportal.org/pame/amsa.
5 See slides, attached, and the website for June 5, 2008 Arctic Transportation Conference
sponsored by DOT/MARAD. See: http://www.marad.dot.gov/Arctic%20Conference/Arctic%
20index.html
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
84
brings with it the need for new policiesrulemaking, research, and investment
by governments of the Arctic region.
In the United States, it is necessary to recognize that the Alaska Purchase in
1867 made us an Arctic nation. Our ocean boundaries are more than the Atlantic
and Pacific. In the 20th century, the advent of aircraft, missiles, and missile defense
made the Arctic region a major venue for projection of power and a frontier for protecting the security of North America, Asia and Europe. Great circle air routes
through the Arctic currently carry the bulk of travelers and air cargo between these
continents. Todays Arctic infrastructure is global infrastructure. In the 21st century, Arctic seaways have the potential to serve as a major venue for shipping between these continents, as explorers envisioned as early as 500 years ago.
Much of the U.S. Arctic Research Commissions work is to encourage the U.S.
Government to do its homeworkhomework that is necessary in response to an accessible Arctic Ocean.6 In todays testimony, I will focus on five points, and direct
the Committee to sources of additional information.
First, climate is changing to create an accessible Arctic. Sea ice coverage is reducing in area and thickness faster than our climate models predicted.7 This, combined
with the advent of more efficient icebreaking technology, and global demand for Arctic resources, works to make Arctic shipping more economically feasible and attractive to investors.8
Second, Arctic residents, governments and industry are assessing both the opportunities and the challenges of an accessible Arctic.9 Within these assessments is a
fundamental question: Will trans-Arctic seaways be as important to global shipping
as the Panama and Suez Canals? Or, will the Arctic Ocean continue more as venue
for shipping in and out of the Arctic itself, for tourism, local needs, and for bringing
natural resources to market?
Third, policies are being conceived, developed and implemented toward a goal of
ensuring that shipping in the Arctic is, to quote my colleague at the Department
of State, Assistant Secretary Dan Sullivan, safe, secure and reliable. 10 To me,
those three words have large meaning. Safe refers to protecting human life, and
mitigating any ill effects shipping will have on the environment, biodiversity, cultures and traditions of the Arctic. Likewise, navies and coast guards must expand
their capacity to ensure security for those ships, particularly those carrying strategic
commodities. Finally, the word reliable refers to issues raised by the shipping industry. The Arctic Ocean is a patchwork quilt of tolls and regulations by several
coastal nations. Arctic shipping will grow when rules are certain and when products
can be delivered competitively with other routes. This means on a time and cost
basis, not just on shorter distances.
Mr. Chairman, a regime for safe, secure, and reliable shipping is something our
Nation can lead in developing, through existing mechanisms like the International
Maritime Organization, the Arctic Council, andwhen acceded to by the U.S.via
the Law of the Sea convention. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission continues to
urge the Senate to accede to this convention.
The United States last revised its Arctic policy in 1994. While environmental protection was then made a principal objective, climate change and growth in Arctic
shipping were not contemplated.11 As the Executive Branch currently conducts a review of U.S. Arctic policy, the Commission has urged consideration of policies to ensure safe, secure, and reliable shipping.
Fourth, strong research programs are needed in the Arctic Ocean, and some of
that research is on deadline. The U.S. Arctic Research Commission has developed
a set of research goals related to shipping, and those goals will be included in the
report due to Congress in 2009. Decisions to be made by governments on climate
issues require understanding of what is happening in the Arctic Ocean, the Greenland icecap, in the changing heat, freshwater and greenhouse gas budgets of the
earth.
6 See USARCs summary report on goals and objectives for Arctic research 2007 for the U.S.
Arctic Research Plan, www.arctic.gov.
7 See National Snow and Ice Data Centers website at: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.
8 See slides, attached.
9 See AMSA: http://arcticportal.org/pame/amsa and Arctic Shuttle Container Link Study
conducted for the State of Alaska and the Port of Adak by the Institute of the North and Aker
Arctic. See: http://www.institutenorth.org/servlet/content/studies.html. Also see the Sept. 2004
Arctic Marine Transport Workshop report here: http://www.institutenorth.org/servlet/content/
reports.html.
10 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/19arctic.html?lr=1&scp=1&sq=shipping%
20Arctic%20sullivan&st=cse&oref=slogin.
11 The current State Department summary on Arctic Policy lists the six principal objectives
of Arctic Policy. See: http://www.state.gov/g/oes/ocns/arc/.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
85
Several wild card issues related to Arctic shipping have been identified through
the AMSA process and will be included in the Commissions goals for shipping research as part of the 2009 report. These include understanding the effects of air pollution and noise from ships on the Arctic ecosystem. As well, the tradeoff between
warming effects of ship emissions in the Arctic and potential reduced emissions
from shipping worldwide, due to shorter routes, is a goal of study. Also, the U.S.
and Iceland are cooperating on development of hydrogen technologies. The prospect
of hydrogen-powered ships, under development by Iceland, is of interest to the entire Arctic community.
The Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, acting on the USARCs recommendation, has commissioned an interagency research plan on Arctic infrastructure, in light of climate change. This will cover many climate impacts on transportation in the Arctic, including roads, maritime transport, and the need for improved
oil spill research in ice-covered waters.12
Nations are mustering bathymetric and seismic expeditions to delineate the extended continental shelf of the Arctic region, for new territorial claims allowed
under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). And as
those claims by some nations could make parts of the Arctic Ocean legally less accessible to research, the science community is pressing to ensure greater access with
the diplomatic community.13
Fifth and finally, an accessible Arctic means a need for investment. Your Committee, Mr. Chairman, has recognized that, and reported legislation calling for construction of two new Polar class icebreakers for the Coast Guard and the nation,
12 Under the leadership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory, in Hanover, N.H., the plan will cover research and development goals for
civil works and housing (including permafrost and shoreline erosion), oil spills, energy use, and
marine transportation.
13 The USARC has been informed by the Department of State that applications from the U.S.
to Russia for approval to conduct marine scientific research in Russias Exclusive Economic Zone
was denied 11 of the 13 times requested between 1996 and 2006, and 6 of the 14 times between
1992 and 1995 (Personal communication to the Chair and Executive Director of the USARC,
April 7, 2008).
See also this appeal was submitted by the USARC, and others, to the U.S. Department of
State.
Appeal to the U.S. Department of State
In anticipation of the meeting of ministers from the five Arctic coastal nations
In Ilulisat, Greenland, on May 28, 2008
As you, representing the United States, meet with representatives from other Arctic coastal
states, to discuss the future of the Arctic Ocean, we, representing the U.S. science community
working in this region, make this appeal: please take all necessary effort to enable research to
thrive by ensuring free and open scientific access to the Arctic. The open nature of the Antarctic
Treaty, and the free support of and exchanges in science, have been the hallmark of international cooperation on that continent for 50 years. The Arctic also would benefit from such
openness.
We especially urge the coastal Arctic states to remove obstacles to ship access for research
in the Arctic Ocean. In recent years, important scientific expeditions have been canceled through
parts of the Arctic due to the expense and complications of national rules for foreign ships wishing to enter the Exclusive Economic Zone of certain Arctic nations. Further, some shipswhose
voyages were solely dedicated to researchhave been categorically denied access. We are concerned that Arctic nations expanded jurisdiction of the ocean floor, that will come about through
Law of the Sea claims, threatens to further limit the full range of customary research activities
that need to be conducted by scientists in the Arctic. Although it may be useful to ensure rights
of inspection for such vessels, there are many benefits to be derived from open access for scientific purposes.
Second, please address the well-documented need for sharing of data that has been, or will
be, collected in the Arctic Ocean region. We appeal to nations to continue to make available previously collected data, and to commit to further sharing of new data collected within jurisdictional borders.
Knowledge gained from Arctic research is important to the entire world. Policy decisions on
climate change, energy, environment, human health, security, commerce, and other subjects will
be made by many nations based on this knowledge. Scientific research should be based on sound
conclusions drawn from valid data, unfettered by national borders.
Thank you for your attention to these issues. We wish you a productive meeting.
Signed by the following four organizations:
Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. (www.arcus.org), representing over 5,000 scientists
worldwide from 51 member institutions
Consortium for Ocean Leadership (www.oceanleadership.org) representing over 10,000 scientists from 95 member institutions in the U.S. and Canada
Marine Mammal Commission (www.mmc.gov)
U.S. Arctic Research Commission (www.arctic.gov)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
86
while maintaining the existing fleet in working condition.14 The U.S. Arctic Research Commission has urged the President and Congress to move expeditiously in
building and maintaining those ships. Certainly, they will be used as they are
nowas research platforms and as the visible U.S. maritime presence in both polar
regions. But the advent of Arctic transportation means the other, more traditional
missions of the Coast Guard will take center stage. These ships are needed to provide the same protections the U.S. Coast Guard affords the rest of the nation:
search and rescue, law enforcement, border protection, environmental protection
and oil spill response.15
Aid to commerce is an important mission of our Great Lakes icebreakers. Under
a regime worked out with Canada, the St. Lawrence Seaway/Great Lakes system
has become an important part of the global transportation network. The Executive
Order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, committing icebreakers to support
U.S. maritime commerce could apply to the U.S. Arctic as well.16
Polar class icebreakers also support the essential mission of national presence in
the Arctic and the Antarctic, both in maintaining our position and in supporting
freedom of navigation. Indeed, an accessible Arctic Ocean also means new or expanded routes for the U.S. military sealift to move assets from one part of the world
to another. Coast Guard polar icebreakers are an essential component to guarantee
that this U.S. polar maritime mobility exists.
Shipping and research activities in the Arctic depend today on a strong system
to predict ice conditions, provided by satellites above, and analysis by our Navy/
NOAA/Coast Guard National Ice Center, near here in Suitland, Maryland. Current
activity in the Arctic depends on good meteorology, developed in cooperation with
our neighbors. Appropriate spill response and search and rescue require additional
investment. My predecessor, George Newton, as Chair of the USARC has spoken of
the necessity for an Arctic 911 capability, and led the effort to encourage the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) to add the Arctic region to the oceans
of the world supported by notices to mariners. The question of where we need new
port facilities, as safe harbors and transshipping points, is yet to be fully addressed.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, we understand it is this Nations goalexpressed with
other nationsto reverse the trend of climate change caused by humans. In the Arctic, research to support adaptation to and mitigation of climate change is high on
our agenda. But as more forces than climate are working to produce an accessible
Arctic, it is essential that our Nation act now. Research, policies and coordinated
investment in infrastructure will ensure safe, secure, and reliable Arctic shipping.
Under the principle of freedom of navigation, global shipping can come to our doorstep whether we invite it or not. Whether you envision the Arctic Ocean as a new
seaway, for trans-Arctic shipping, competitive with the Panama and Suez Canals,
or only foresee an expansion of the current shipping in and out of the Arctic, the
time to prepare is now.
Thank you very much.

The testimony is impressive, and I thank each one of you for
your contribution.
14 See USCG authorization bill reported in the Senate: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/
D?c110:2:./temp/c110UjJvKU.
15 See attached letter March 18, 2008 from Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to President Bush.
See also the attached memorandum for the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was received by the
USARC on June 8, 2008. Both documents refer to national needs for new icebreaker capacity.
The 2006 National Research Councils study Polar Icebreakers in a Changing World: An Assessment of U.S. Needs can be accessed here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordlid=11753.
16 See: http://www.conservativeusa.org/eo/1936/eo7521.htm Ex. Ord. No. 7521. Use of Vessels for Ice-breaking Operations in Channels and Harbors. Ex. Ord. No. 7521, Dec. 21, 1936,
1 F.R. 2527, provided: 1. The Coast Guard, operating under the direction of the Secretary of
the Treasury, is hereby directed to assist in keeping open to navigation by means of ice-breaking
operations, in so far as practicable and as the exigencies may require, channels and harbors in
accordance with the reasonable demands of commerce; and to use for that purpose such vessels
subject to its control and jurisdiction or which may be made available to it under paragraph
2 hereof as are necessary and are reasonably suitable for such operations. 2. The Secretary of
War (Army), the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Commerce are hereby directed to
cooperate with the Coast Guard in such ice-breaking operations, and to furnish the Coast
Guard, upon the request of the Commandant thereof, for this service such vessels under their
jurisdiction and control as in the opinion of the Commandant, with the concurrence of the head
of the Department concerned, are available and are, or may readily be made, suitable for this
service.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
87
I want to ask Mr. Friedman a question. Concerns about whether
ethanol is actually better than gasoline, in terms of its emissions
of greenhouse gases. Do you think we should put stronger requirements on greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol producers?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, basically, we need strong greenhouse gas requirements on
every fuel that is used in transportation. The science on the global
warming reductions associated with ethanol is continuing to evolve.
What were learning is that corn ethanol may not be as good for
the climate as we once thought. Both for those reasons and for concerns about food prices, we need to basically evolve from corn as
an ethanol source, to waste products, to wood products in order to
produce ethanol. These so-called cellulosic ethanol resources, if
done sustainably, can dramatically cut global warming pollution
and can be part of a broader solution that includes renewable electricity and clean hydrogen, but were not going to get these solutions unless we have a low carbon fuel standard, a policy that is
going to require all fuels to get better over time. And we probably
also wont have this unless we make sure we have the vehicles out
therethe plug-in hybrids, the fuel-cell vehicles, the electric vehiclesthat can use these cleaner energy resources.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Let me ask youyou identify corn for the
problems that it creates andby way of shortages and other
thingsforgive me, theyve managed to break the code here
[Laughter.]
Senator LAUTENBERG.and is there any improvement, vis-a`-vis
emissions, if sugar ethanol is introduced? Is that substantially
more efficient? I heard what you said. You said all fuels should be
examined for
Mr. FRIEDMAN. It does look like sugar-based ethanolfor example, the sugar cane used in Brazilcan be reduce global warming
pollution. But, even there, anytime we talk about using a crop to
make fuel, we need to make sure that, by using that crop for fuel
instead of food, were not encouraging someone somewhere else to
cut down a forest to replace that fuel. Thats the real dynamic that
we have to avoid here.
So, some sugar-based ethanol could make a lot of sense; but, too
much, and it may actually contribute to either deforestation or
clearing of land that could actually generate more global warming
pollution than you could save.
Using food for fuel is a tricky proposition, and its definitely
something that, I think, with good investment in cellulosic ethanol,
especially from waste products, that we can move away from over
time. It can potentially form the base for what were doing right
now.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Is the technology available to make the
conversion to using waste products to fuel the development of ethanolto the point now that it can be done in the volumes that matter?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, thankfully, were about to find out. There
has been significant investment in cellulosic ethanol plantsin
part, funded by the Department of Energy and work by Congress
but right now we dont have large-scale production of those fuels;
its probably going to take several years before we will see if we
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
88
can, for example, get cellulosic ethanol for only, say, $2.00 a gallon.
If we get the breakthroughs we need, it will become one of the
added biofuel resources.
Senator LAUTENBERG. But, the union is concerned about the time
that we have to make changes in global warmingsignificant
changesand asked for far larger reductions than almost any other
really responsible organization. If we dont have the ability to
produce products in sufficient volume for several years, it doesnt
sound like were on a good track to get going on what we need to
do currently.
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, thats a great point, and that is part of the
reason why its not only about pushing better fuels, its also about
getting vehicles and more alternatives to vehicles out there. Were
not going to solve global warming with a single silver bullet, with
the wave of a magic wand. We need a portfolio of options and a
portfolio of policies. Biofuels, I think, will be able to be a part of
that, but we cant expect them to carry the whole load.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, were all hoping for a silver bullet.
[Laughter.]
Senator LAUTENBERG. I ask, with the indulgence of Senator Stevens, for one more question that
Even with fuel efficiency improvements, airplanes, Mr. Meenan,
will not be as efficient as trains, particularly for journeys of 400
miles or less, and particularly in highly populated areas. Doesnt
it make sense, environmentally as well as economically, to invest
more in rail? Shouldnt we be encouragingand I ask this for any
one of you who would like to respondshouldnt we be encouraging
the most efficient travel possible? And as it appears now, its rail.
Any comments on that?
Mr. MEENAN. Senator, I think
Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Meenan?
Mr. MEENAN.I think the second part of your question was the
answer that I would give you, which is, we should be encouraging
the most efficientenergy efficient transportation possible. In some
markets, that may be rail. It may be, in a very high-density market, that may make perfect sense. But, in other markets, similar
distances, you may not have that density, and air is a better energy-efficient alternative than 200 cars making that trip, for example.
So, were open to all kinds ofwe also believe, though, that public investment ought to also be directed at finding more efficient
waysenergy-efficient ways of advancing air transportation, as
well. And thats one of the reasons were encouraging more investment in alternative fuel research for aviation.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, but, also, a question thats often
raised, as you well know, sir, is whether or not distances to travel
have to figure into the best manner to transport people. And when
you seein Europe, for instance, if you want to go from Brussels,
where we have our NATO headquarters, to other cities, like Paris,
when you have an hour-and-20-minute ride for 200 miles, its hard
to find an airplane trip that you can take there. So, that has to be
a consideration, as well as population density.
Mr. MEENAN. But, there are also differences in existing infrastructure in Europe that are not necessarily replicated in the
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
89
United States, so that we couldnt, for example, have all destinations within 400 miles of Washington, D.C., linked by rail, I dont
believe, and do it efficiently, but we could do it in certain high-density corridors.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Ill take no longer. We will keep the record
open for questions.
Senator Stevens?
Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Been an
interesting hearing.
You knowand, Mr. Friedman, I respect your comments, but I
dont see anything that is dealing with the basic balance of cost
against change, particularly in terms of some of these ethanols.
Ethanol costs a great deal more, really, than oil or gas right now,
and its subsidized. We took away all the subsidies for oil and gas
in the past, but were applying them now to ethanols. The more
ethanol, more subsidy. How do you get down to balancing the overall cost to the Nation of this change?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
First, I would say there are definitely still substantial incentives
for petroleum fuels, whether they be tax credits or access to public
landsand, in fact
Senator STEVENS. I hate to interrupt you, but there is no such
thing as access to public lands right now for oil and gas exploration; it has just actually been static now for at least 10 years.
Mr. FRIEDMAN. But, I think, when we look at the cost of ethanol,
this is one of the reasons why we do need the incentives, in order
to get the prices down.
Senator STEVENS. Well, the incentives are adding to the cost to
the public. Its just a question of whether you put it on the taxpayer or on the purchaser of the ethanol. Ethanol is so subsidized
today, its limited in expansion. Why rest on the ethanol alternative?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, one of the great things that I think you
point to is, actually, what we need to do is move away from simple
tax credits for any one specific fuel, and, instead, move tax credits
to performance basis. You should get a higher tax credit if youre
a lower-carbon fuel. If we encourage performance, then the best solutions will emerge. Maybe it will, maybe it wont, be ethanol.
Maybe it will be low-carbon electricity, maybe it will be hydrogen.
But, if we encourage increased performance, maybe we can even
get refineries to improve their efficiency so theres a little bit less
global warming pollution associated with gasoline. Performancebased standards are the key.
So, I do agree that we need to move away from, maybe, specific
products, and move toward performance, and especially global
warming performance, when we look at our incentives.
Senator STEVENS. Mr. Hamberger, all you need to do is find me
the money to build about 150 miles of railroad, and we could be
connected to the Canadian rail system and have a lot cheaper
transportation in the long run. You think you could find that kind
of money, 150 miles, these days?
Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, I know that your former colleague, Senator Murkowski, believed very strongly in that, as well, andI
dont know where that planning process is. I believe the Canadian
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
90
and the U.S. governments were supposed to put together a commission to take a look at that.
Senator STEVENS. And we should, we really should. I think that
the difficulty is the people dont realize the great efficiency of the
rail system, particularly in places like we live, in Alaska. As Mr.
Treadwell could tell you, that the advent, now, of thinking were
going to have trans-Arctic steamor ship transportation is sort of
hard to realize, it might come true. Barring that, Mr. Treadwell,
how does it look, as far as getting the kind of agreements that
would be necessary to use the Arctic for surface transportation?
Mr. TREADWELL. Well, as you know, the Senate is considering
excuse me. Thank you, Senator, for the question. As you know, the
Senate is considering approval of, or accession to, the Law of the
Sea Treaty. And the Law of the Sea Treaty, basically, deals with
the territorial issues. Under the United Nations, we already have
participation in the International Maritime Organization. The
Coast Guard is doing bilateral discussions right now with the Russians about the Bering Strait, sometimes now referred as the Bering Gate. But, something to consider is the fact that we can probably agree fairly quickly on new rules for the Arctic, but the issue
is new investment needed for the Arctic, as well, that we have coordinated investment in the St. Lawrence Seaway, for example,
and that may be something the Nation wants to look at in the Arctic with other nations.
Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much for the hearing, Mr.
Chairman. I really think that until Americans wake up to the fact
that were sending out our capital overseas to buy oil we could
produce here at home, were not going to see the capital formation
thats necessary to make the changes that all of you agree seems
to be necessary in our transportation system. I just dont see the
ability to add the cost of this change on the taxpayers. It should
come from increased revenue from activity in the United States of
producing our own oil and gas.
Everyone talks about how much well save at the pump. They
dont understand, the real savings comes from the job creation and
the increased activity in this country that would come from producing our own supply of oil and gas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you.
Senator STEVENS. I do have some questions Id like to submit for
the record, but I have to go to another
Senator LAUTENBERG. I agree. I would just take a moment to respond to my eloquent friend from Alaska and say that the full
measure of the cost of getting more material from those sources is
not simply the cost for the materialoil, in particularbut our
costs for then protecting these states and their governments, and
the cost is substantially higher. And I think that if we continue to
want to compete there, then the costs for fuel is going to go substantially higher than it is now, and presents the question for us.
Senator Thune?
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
91
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding thisthank the Chair and the Vice Chair for holding the
hearing on the impact of the transportation sector on climate
change, and vice versa.
I think its important that, whenever you talk about the topic of
transportations impact on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions, to start with the energy bill of 2007. In addition to the
historic increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards and other energy efficiency programs, the bill also included an expanded Renewable Fuel Standard.
The 2007 energy bill requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 2022, and it also includes significant requirements for life-cycle greenhouse gas emission reductions. In
fact, under the bill, new corn ethanol plants must product ethanol
with a 20 percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions.
And when you start talking about advanced biofuel and cellulosic
ethanol, which constitutes the majority of the new Renewable Fuel
Standard, those have to have a 50 percent reduction and 60 percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to
regular gasoline.
So, this was a landmark piece of legislation that I dont think can
be overlooked. We need to start discussing the transportation sectors impact on greenhouse gas emissions. And moving forward,
weve got to continue to meet the challenges of high fuel costs and
greenhouse gas emissions with commonsense policies that reduce
those emissions while, at the same time, helping U.S. businesses
stay competitive, keep our economy growing and family budgets intact.
So, I wanted to make that general observation with regard to the
RFS, but I guess Id like to, more specifically, ask a couple of questions of the panel, and maybe get a reaction in terms ofand Id
direct this, I guess, to Mr. Meenan, to start withbut, if there was
a policy that we could put in place, whats the single most important policy this Committee could pursue that would help with airline industrythe increase in fuel costs that youre dealing with,
with fuel efficiency, trying to lower your fuel bills and decrease
greenhouse gas emissions? Thats somethingwe all see the spike
in everything in the economy right now, but airline ticket fares are
no exceptionI know, driven by the high cost of fuel. Any thoughts
about that?
Mr. MEENAN. Senator, without any question. The subject was addressed yesterday by Northwests Chairman and CEO in his testimony up here. We believe that getting after some of the speculative
pressure in the oil market would be the most direct and immediate
means of driving some of that cost out of the price of a barrel, at
this point. Experts in the field say that it could drive the price
down as much as $40$50 at a single sweep. Even assuming that
that may be an exaggerationeven $20, even $5 would be a
marked improvement from where we are today. We see no risk in
getting after a little bit more regulation, a little bit more focus on
whats going on in that market today. As you know, were trading
as many as 20 paper barrels of oil for every single barrel of actual
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
92
product thats used. That suggests to us that theres a lot of froth
in the market that might be reduced by getting after the speculative pressures.
Senator THUNE. Does your organizationhave they taken any
kind of position onspecific piece of legislation or way of going
about doingI know a number of proposals that are swirling
around out there.
Mr. MEENAN. Senator, were working with a number of different
members who are proposing a variety of different measures. And
right now were trying to, sort of, hone in on whatever the most effective vehicle will be, and go with that. But, itsthe debate is
still swirling, at this point, but Iwere hopeful its going to get resolved in the next few days, if at all possible.
Senator THUNE. Anybody else care to comment on that? I know
I directed it to the aviation industry, but any, just, general
thoughts about specific remedies that Congress could pursue that
policies that would help address
Mr. HAMBERGER. To the availability and price of fuel?
Senator THUNE. Yes.
Mr. HAMBERGER. I dont know how my friend to the right will
react to this, but are part of a coalition pushing coal-to-liquids, and
believe that that would certainly provide both a domestic and a reliable source at a reasonable rate.
Senator THUNE. Yes, ifmaybe, direct this to your friend to the
right.
[Laughter.]
Senator THUNE. My left, your right.
But, with respect to the whole issue of the RFS and biofuels and
everything else, how do you see thesort of, the movement of the
next-generation biofuel, cellulosic ethanol, aswith respect to how
it will contribute to reducing CO2 emissions and the broader issue,
I suppose, of climate change, but the impact that that might have
on our transportation infrastructure if we move more to biofuels?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Thank you, Senator.
I expect that the potential is out there for the sustainable production of maybe 4050 billion gallons of biofuels over the next 30,
40, 50 years, significantly less than some people are pointing to.
But, one of the most important things we have to realize is that,
as we tackle global warming pollution, as we tackle oil dependence,
we need to make sure were not creating any tradeoffs between the
two. We need to focus our research, our incentives on the best of
the biofuels, the cleanest of the biofuels. We also need to do the
same when it comes to any fuel.
When it comes to coal-to-liquids, look, if coal-to-liquids can get a
dramatic reduction in global warming pollution, the same as renewable electricity, then it belongs in the mix. Right now, all the
data shows that making liquid coal can potentially double global
warming pollution.
Sobut, as long as we have a fuel policy based on performance
standards and incentives based on greenhouse gas performance
standards, I dont think we have to have these big debates over
which fuel is the best, which fuel is the worst. As long as we guide
the performance, the market is going to figure out which are the
most cost-effective options out there.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
93
We also have to remember that the Renewable Fuel Standard
isnt enough. It really only covers about 10 percent of the market.
Thats why we need to move to something like a low-carbon fuel
standard to broaden out what were doing.
Senator THUNE. But, the RFS does have
Senator LAUTENBERG. Senator, may I ask, how much more do
you have? We are going to keep the record open for questions, if
we could wrap it up.
[Laughter.]
Senator THUNE. Thank you for that not-so-subtle hint.
[Laughter.]
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thats how I got to be Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator THUNE. Well, itll get us both to lunch, I guess, but
[Laughter.]
Senator THUNE. I will, Ill submit any other questions I have for
the record.
Senator LAUTENBERG. If you have one more
Senator THUNE. No, thats all right. I just wanted to askI
guess, injust as a quick follow-up on
Would you all not concede, however, that the RFS, inasmuch as
it is onlywe say we use 140 billion gallons of fuel every year in
this countryeven if we get to 36 billion gallons, 21 billion of
which will be cellulosicthat that is going to have a significant impact because of the requirements we imposed in the Renewable
Fuel Standard on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissionsthat thats going to have a positive impact?
Mr. FRIEDMAN. Great question. And the portion of the Renewable
Fuel Standard that does have greenhouse gas standards, I think,
will have a clear and positive effect. One of the challenges, though,
is that on the order of 13 to 14 billion gallons of corn ethanol remains completely unregulated when it comes to global warming
pollution. It was grandfathered in as part of the Renewable Fuel
Standard.
Honestly, if you look at the potential land-use impacts and increased global warming pollution from some of those fuels, we
could end up with only a very small benefit from the Renewable
Fuel Standard, as written. This is why, again, we need to eventually move beyond turning food into fuels, even just simply for climate reasons. And this Committee, I think, has a role to play in
all of these things.
One of the other things I definitely want to urge this Committee
to do is to exercise its oversight powers, as well, on the Department
of Transportation to make sure that our upcoming fuel economy
standards are as strong as they can be.
Senator THUNE. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the panel for your testimony.
Appreciate it.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you.
With that, we thank you again, to the witnesses, and well keep
the record open.
Were adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6601
JACKIE
A P P E N D I X
PREPARED STATEMENT
OF
HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM
CALIFORNIA
The transportation sector is a significant contributor to global warming.

Approximately 33 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United
States come from transportation. And 72 percent of the transportation sectors emissions are generated by road use.
The movement of goods has a real impact on air quality and global warming emissions. Freight transportation still largely relies on fossil fuels and consequently produces significant greenhouse gas emissions.
As a percentage of all mobile source emissions, heavy-duty truck, rail, and water
transport together account for more than 25 percent of CO2 emissions, approximately 50 percent of NOX emissions, and nearly 40 percent of particulate (PM)
emissions in the United States.
My home state of California has long suffered from air quality problems from
transportation emissions. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
approximately 75 percent of diesel particulate emissions in California are related to
goods movement.
In addition, CARB has attributed 2,400 premature deaths to diesel emissions and
estimates that the health costs of diesel emissions could be as high as $200 billion
in 2020.
The movement of people and goods is vital to our economy, but it clogs our roads,
fouls our air, pollutes our water, and creates safety issues.
For example, idling in traffic congestion is a tremendous source of carbon dioxide
emissions and fuel. Billions of gallons of fuel are burned by vehicles stuck in traffic.
This type of congestion stifles our economy and uses our energy resources and produces greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming.
Through the use of traffic signal timing and other technologies we can reduce
idling, which can make a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions.
In addition, we can help reduce congestion and the growth of highway demand
by shifting trips to other modes of travel. Making more trips by biking, walking, carpooling, and reducing the number of trips necessary, by telecommuting, for example,
could help reduce GHG emissions as well.
A combination of strategies including land use and increased public transit ridership could significantly reduce transportation-related CO2 emissions.
By reducing congestion we can also improve the quality or the air we breathe and
improve public health.
However, in addition to working to reduce GHG emissions to limit future warming, we also need to prepare our transportation system to withstand the unavoidable
impacts of global warming.
Recent studies by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of
Sciences and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) underscore the need for
adaptation planning at the state and local levels.
Six of the Nations top ten freight gateways, which are centers for economic activity, will be at risk if sea levels rise.
60,000 miles of coastal highways already experience coastal storm flooding and
wave action. This number is certain to increase with rising the sea levels, leaving
communities vulnerable to ocean waves and cutting off evacuation routes.
Climate change will have significant impacts on transportation, affecting the way
U.S. transportation interests plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain infrastructure.
Thats why I am pleased the Committee is holding this hearing to examine the
impacts of climate change on the transportation sector.
I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing. We are looking at these
issues in the Environment and Public Works Committee as well. A cap and trade
system to control carbon pollution could provide substantial revenue to address carbon emissions in the transportation sector.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses before us today.
(95)
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
96
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MARY ANN SCHAFFER, CHAIRPERSON, AVIATION
SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT TASK FORCE, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
INTERNATIONAL
On behalf of the 54,000 airline pilots represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I am pleased to offer this testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee. We appreciate the Committees interest in climate change and
the impacts on the transportation sector and are pleased to share our perspective.
It may not be apparent why ALPA would have an interest in this subject, so I
will explain. ALPAs motto, since its beginning almost 77 years ago, has been
Schedule with Safety. A former FAA Administrator and others have dubbed ALPA
the conscience of the airline industry and in that role, we take very seriously the
need to ensure that any new operational measures are fully understood and thoroughly considered before implementation. Pilots literally sit at the intersection of
new technology, operational measures, air traffic control procedures, and varying
aircraft capabilities. This gives us a unique vantage point to see and experience first
hand what well-intended, but unrealistic operational procedures can do to safety
margins.1
Another principal reason for our interest in this subject is the need to ensure the
ongoing viability, what we call the sustainability, of our airline industry. We recognize all too well that our employers are under tremendous financial stress due to
the record high cost of fuel and pressures from environmental concerns to reduce
fuel consumption and corresponding emissions. Pilots have a genuine ability to help
their airlines burn less fuel, and thereby put less noise and tailpipe emissions into
the environment. Pilots look for opportunities to reduce fuel burn and do so every
day.
Pilots and the airline industry as a whole have already made great strides toward
reducing total fuel burn, noise, and tailpipe emissions. We believe Congress should
take this into account when it considers any legislation regarding greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. I will discuss later the extraordinary investments that our employers have made to reduce consumption and pollution.
With oil peaking near $140 per barrel, airlines are parking airplanes because they
can no longer afford to fly them, name-brand legacy carriers are looking for mergers
in order to survive, airlines are spending about 40 percent of their revenues on fuel,
and airline pilots are facing an uncertain future in an industry unstable because
of this energy crisis. Already this year, four carriers have shut down entirely and
more than 14,000 airline jobs have been eliminated.
Airlines and aviation face unique challenges. First are the long and expensive
lead times for the research, development, design, and certification implementation
for new technologies. Second is the lack of any economically viable alternative to fossil-based fuel. Compounding these issues is the lack of a comprehensive national energy policy that addresses the short and long term needs of our transportation systems.
ALPAs Work to Improve the Environment
As evidenced by the creation of our Presidents Task Force on Aviation Sustainability and Environment, ALPA takes environmental concerns very seriously. We
are, and will continue to be, part of the solution as evidenced by the following activities:
ALPA is participating in the work of Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI), which involves the airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and the scientific community collaborating to find new and better sources of fuel for aviation.
We are also a member of the Advisory Board for the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) effort and the FAAs
Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) Environmental Working Group.
Our most recent success story: ALPA was a principal co-sponsor of a two-day
conference for more than 200 government and industry participants in March,
called Aviation and the Environment: A Primer for North American Stakeholders. The purpose of the forum was threefold:
1 For example, a recently designed descent path into a major east coast airport required pilots
to cross closely spaced points at successively lower altitudes. The points were too close together
to allow pilots to meet the restrictions using advanced aircraft navigation computers resulting
in increased pilot workload in a critical phase of flight. The procedure was revised based on pilot
and controller feedback.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
97
1. Put the environment debate into context and educate the members of the cohosting associations on the basic facts.
2. Examine some of the policy options, measures and decisions proposed to curtail and reduce overall noise and emissions.
3. Provide a platform to communicate aviations already impressive gains in the
reduction of noise and emissions and highlight ongoing industry environmental
initiatives.
Safety and Operations
Airline pilots can, and do, save fuel and emissions through operating techniques.
Safety is our utmost concern, of course, but where safety is not impacted, airline
pilots will reduce fuel usage through such measures as:
Single-engine outbound taxiUnder certain conditions, it is not necessary that
all aircraft engines be operated to taxi on the ramp or on taxiways. When conditions permit, only one engine may be started out of two or more available engines until reaching the end of the runway for takeoff.
Engine shut-down during inbound taxiOnce the aircraft has exited the landing runway and is headed to the gate or parking stand, one or more operating
engines may be shut down either in the taxiway environment or on the ramp.
Technology enhanced departure proceduresNew procedures are being developed with the aid of Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) technology which permit shortening the distance and time traveled during approach and departure.
Optimal altitudeEach jet aircraft, based on weight and ambient conditions,
has an optimum altitude where fuel burn is minimized. To the extent that conditions and circumstances permit, pilots may request that optimal altitude in
order to conserve fuel, which reduces emissions.
Optimal-speed flight plansPlanning and operating a flight at an efficient
speed can save fuel. Pilots can optimize fuel burn based on aircraft weight,
winds, and atmospheric conditions.
Continuous Descent Arrival (CDA)/Optimized Descent Procedure (OPD)Normal approach and landing procedures require an aircraft to reduce power, descend to a new altitude, and then add considerable power to level off and fly
straight and levelthat process may be repeated several times during any approach and landing. A new approach procedure, the CDA, or what we refer to
as an OPD, is being developed that permits pilots to reduce power on all engines and not use significant thrust until safety concerns dictate establishing
a stabilized approach configuration just before landing. This procedure cannot
work at all airports at all times due to operational constraints, but at those locations where it can be used, it can save substantial fuel on a single approach.
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)Taking advantage of improved
technology, appropriately equipped aircraft can now fly with 1,000 feetcompared with 2,000 feet previouslyvertical separation at higher altitudes. This
operational change added six additional useable altitudes increasing the opportunity for pilots to fly their aircraft at the optimal, most fuel efficient altitude,
in addition to permitting much greater airspace utilization.
Aviations Enviable Environmental Record
Aviation arguably has the most successful record of limiting its impact on the environment while increasing its productivity of any industrial sector. Airlines have
greatly reduced carbon-based emissions through engine technology which reduces
fuel burn and emission of undesirable gases and particulates. Compared to aircraft
in use in 1972, the U.S. airline industry now carries six (6) times more payload using
60 percent less fuel and has reduced by 95 percent the number of people significantly
impacted by aircraft noise.2 This outstanding record of environmental achievement
has resulted almost entirely from the airlines continually demanding new aircraft
from the manufacturers that burn less fuel, carry greater payloads, and create less
noise. Boeing is preparing for the first flight of the B787; due to its cutting edge
technology, that aircraft is designed to use 20 percent less fueland thereby create
20 percent less GHG emissionsthan current aircraft of the same size. This aircraft
is just one example of the kinds of investments that the airlines make in a very
2 Aviation and the Environment: A National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions, Report to the U.S. Congress, December 2004; see also, Aviation and the
Environment: A Pilots Perspective, British Air Line Pilots Association, March 2007.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
98
heavily capitalized industry; those investments should be taken into account by any
legislation that deals with fuel conservation and GHG emissions.
Recommendations
As described, the airline industry has already made great progress toward reducing GHG emissions without the creation of a new commodity market that would
funnel its assets to other industries and entities.3 That said, the industry does need
your help to boost our great progress:
Provide sufficient and timely funding to the FAA for necessary improvements
in the U.S. National Aviation System (NAS). Funding the national airspace system modernization components needed to enhance aircraft efficiency, safety,
and capacity will help in reducing delays, fuel consumption, and emissions. Implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NEXTGEN)
could eliminate as much as 15 percent of todays delays, increase safety and capacity, and concurrently reduce emissions. Funding important studies like wake
vortex investigations will also help. More information and understanding of
wake vortex patterns around runways will allow spacing of traffic on the runway based on real hazardsa more accurate standard than the currently used
mileage separation.
Continue funding for important infrastructure improvements including runway
and taxiway additions and improvements. Poor airport design, including those
with intersecting runways, increases taxi time and increases fuel use. Adding
high-speed taxiway exits from runways can reduce runway occupancy time thus
increasing airport capacity. Additional runways, like those in progress at Seattle-Tacoma and Washington Dulles airports, reduce fuel wasted in holding
patterns and long lines of aircraft waiting for take-off.
Give greater support to research for alternative fuels which are renewable, pollute less or not at all, and are less expensive than todays fuels. Because of aircraft engine design and extreme atmospheric conditions at altitude, the airline
industry relies entirely on petroleum-based fuels; it cannot currently substitute
ethanol or other fuels as some industries are able to do.
Avoid adding economic burdens, in the form of market-based measures, to an
already crippled industry. Such measures as planned to take effect in Europe
and proposed in the Lieberman-Warner bill are biased against the airline industry and do not provide sufficient re-investment of revenue for new aviation technologies and fuel. These carbon cap-and-trade schemes are designed to provide
an economic incentive to reduce emissionsour industry already has that incentive and is continually searching for more ways to reduce fuel use and emissions. Diverting funds needed for new, more fuel efficient aircraft and alternative fuels research will only slow these efforts.
Work with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to establish
emissions standards and operating measures for uniform application across this
global industry.
Conclusion
Aviation is a good news story; we safely move hundreds of millions of passengers
around the world in comfort, at great speed, and with less impact on the environment than any other mode of transportation in history. However, aviation is a visible target and has drawn the attention of numerous groups around the world who
condemn the industry for being a driver of projected climate change.
As pilots, we deal with facts, and the facts clearly show that while aviation is a
contributor of greenhouse gas and other emissions, it plays only a small role in the
overall issue. Indeed, we could ground the entire worlds fleet, and not have a significant effect on the climate change issue. The industry is poised to make great
strides in reducing emissions through technology and operating procedures. We believe that the best way to achieve those results is the same way that we have made
such great advances thus far, namely, through industrys investments in increasingly advanced technology.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. We urge Congress support
of our ongoing and future efforts to reduce aviations environmental impacts.
3 The International Civil Aviation Organization held a 2-day conference June 1819 in Montreal to discuss carbon markets and their application to aviation. These voluntary and mandatory markets are maturing around the world and stand ready to envelop the aviation industry
in a commodities market for carbon that will divert needed financing from true fuel savings initiatives.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
99
RAILWAY SUPPLY INSTITUTE, INC.
Washington, DC, June 30, 2008
Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
RE: JUNE 24, 2008, FULL COMMITTEE HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON
THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
Dear Mr. Chairman,
The Railway Supply Institute appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to
the Committee for the record on the contributions of the transportation sector to address climate change, and the potential impacts of climate change on the Nations
transportation infrastructure.
Established in 1908, RSI is the international trade association of the rail and rail
rapid transit supply industry. We have over 200 members who provide goods and
services to our Nations freight and passenger railroads as well as our rail transit
systems. RSI estimates that the domestic railway supply industry approaches $25
billion in annual revenues and employs 150,000 people.
Many Americans are still trying to understand what climate change is and what
needs to be done to address it. What Americans do understand is the cost of oil and
the penalties we all must pay for being overly dependent on foreign oil. The fact
remains that the more we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels the more likely
we are to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that impact climate change.
Transportation consumes 7 out of every 10 barrels of oil consumed in the United
States. Highway transportation dominates both energy use and GHG emissions, accounting for 72 percent of transportation energy use and carbon emissions in the
Nation. The United States transportation system is the largest in the world, is a
major source of global GHG emissions, and is almost entirely responsible for our Nations dependence on oil as the major source of energy. While the United States has
only 4.5 percent of the worlds population, it uses 25 percent of the worlds oil. About
60 percent of U.S. oil is imported. Clearly this suggests that until we have alternative fuels that can be economically employed on a wider scale, we must depend
more on encouraging the development of the most efficient modes of transportation.
In turn, that will help us achieve a reduction in GHG emissions.
Rail transportation is efficient and we need to focus more attention on investing
in rail as a way to fight GHG emissions, reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and
improve fuel efficiency. The transportation investments made now will impact future transportation, environmental and social investments so we need to start getting these decisions right. Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution has suggested that Americas transportation policy is adrift with no clear goals, purpose,
or ability to meet todays challenges. He suggests that policymakers are too focused
on highways and transit and have ignored passenger and freight rail which may be
part of the solution to addressing other key policy issues (such as dependence on
foreign oil, congestion and climate change).
Increased passenger rail should be part of the transportation modal shift required
to address the proliferation of greenhouse gas production, while maintaining mobility. Furthermore, a strong, national railroad infrastructure helps to achieve some
of our Nations critical policy objectives:
reducing carbon emissions;
reducing congestion on our highways;
improving transportation safety;
reducing airport congestion;
efficiently utilize land for transportation purposes
reducing dependence on foreign oil; and,
enhancing our ability to move vast numbers of people in emergency evacuation
situations (e.g., 9/11 or Katrina).
The 1973 events in the Middle East, which the French refer to as the oil shock
changed the way of life for many in that country. The price of oil quadrupled and
French policymakers saw only one way out for Franceenergy independence. The
thought of being dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the
Middle East disturbed many French people. In the 1970s, the French decided that
they could no longer afford to have an economy so dependent on imported oil.
Now the U.S. is facing a 2008 oil shock and the answer is not to manipulate
the cost of oil downward or drill for more oil offshore as some have suggested. No,
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
100
the answer is energy independence first through utilizing the most efficient modes
of transportation and then through alternative energy sources.
While we may argue over the method employed by the Frenchhigher oil taxes
and a move to nuclear energythere is no arguing over their strategy to stop depending on imported oil to fuel their economy.
Today, the French are energy independent and are among the world leaders in
lowering GHG emissions. One of the ways they have achieved this is by investing
in electric high speed rail corridors throughout the country. Meanwhile the U.S.
struggles with its addiction to oil and stands by idly as others develop energy efficient and carbon friendly high speed rail systems.
We know that the high cost of fuel in Europe and Asia has promoted development
of high speed rail and the results have demonstrated that once reliable and convenient rail passenger service is available it begins to impact mode-shifting away from
the higher carbon producing modes, particularly as the cost of auto and air travel
increase.
Cost alone is not the true measure of our transportation policy. There is a cost
of carbon, a cost of congestion and a very high cost of having a transportation system that is overly dependent on foreign oil. Transportation policy must focus on a
reduction in vehicle miles travelled (VMT), less dependence on foreign oil, lower
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, alternative to short distance air travel, reduction
in congestion and realistic alternatives to driving.
Finally, it is important to note that 2 years ago the Center for Clean Air Policy
and the Center for Neighborhood Technology released a report on High Speed Rail
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. This report used the 11 federally designated high speed rail corridors in the U.S. to estimate the annual GHG benefits
if these high speed rail systems were developed as planned. The report concluded
that high speed rail development in these corridors will generate substantial GHG
savings in all regions. All the evidence on fuel efficiency and carbon emissions
points to the need to begin implementing these corridors now. We know what needs
to be done and we need to find the will to do it.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.
Sincerely,
THOMAS D. SIMPSON,
Executive DirectorWashington.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN, PRESIDENT,
CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION
My name is Steve Alterman and I am President of the Cargo Airline Association
(the Association or CAA), the organization representing the interests of the leading U.S. all-cargo air carriers before Congress, Federal administrative agencies and
the various states and localities throughout the United States.1 I also have the
honor of being the current Chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee of the
FAAs Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC). On
behalf of our air carrier association members, I appreciate the opportunity to comment briefly on aviations place in the debate over global climate change.
Initially, it is important to note that the all-cargo airline industry, and indeed the
aviation community generally, has a record of achievement that clearly demonstrates a commitment to environmental sensitivity. For example, comparing the
year 2007 with the year 2000, U.S. commercial airlines consumed 3 percent less fuel
in 2007, while at the same time transporting over 20 percent more passengers and
cargo. Moreover, between the years 1978 and 2007, fuel efficiency has improved by
110 percent.2 Therefore, the aviation sector of the economy has been able to stabilize
its contribution to total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at approximately 2 percent
of the total GHG emissions in the United States.3 While this record is enviable, it
cannot and should not end the discussion of the future course of the climate change
debate in the United States.
For their part, U.S. airlines are not simply resting on their past accomplishments.
As noted in the statement submitted to the Committee by John Meenan, Executive
1 U.S. air carrier members of the Cargo Airline Association are ABX Air, Air Transport International, Atlas Air, Capital Cargo, FedEx Express, Kalitta Air and UPS Airlines.
2 Although not directly related to the global climate change debate, it is also significant that
the industrys commitment to noise abatement has resulted in over a 90 percent reduction in
the population exposed to significant aircraft noise since 1978.
3 In contrast, electric utilities contribute over a third of the total GHGs and the emissions
of cattle and other livestock contributes approximately 18 percent.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
101
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Air Transport Association (ATA)
on June 24, 2008, ATA member airlines have already committed to an additional
30 percent system-wide fuel efficiency by the year 2025. The major cargo carriers
are included in this commitment and Cargo Airline Association members have been
in the forefront of developing and implementing new operational procedures and
technologies that will increase efficiency and decrease fuel burn. These efforts will
continue as the industry continually upgrades its aircraft fleet and works with the
manufacturing sector on airframe and engine technology and with the Federal Government on a new generation of more environmentally sensitive aviation fuels.
At the same time, the industry alone cannot achieve the enhancements that will
be necessary in the coming yearsespecially in the current chaotic airline environment.4 Rather, both the legislative and administrative branches of government must
recognize both the past achievements and future challenges in fashioning a program
to ensure that the airline community meets its environmental goalsgoals based on
sound environmental science balanced with the operational realities of the air transportation system. If there were any doubt that Congress is fully engaged in the
issue of global climate change, that doubt should be erased in reviewing the recently-introduced Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 3036).5 However, this
proposed legislation would only exacerbate an already untenable position in the airline community. While not directly addressing the airline industry, the provisions
of this bill would impose a substantial indirect fuel tax that would be paid to the
oil companies and would not in any way address aviation environmental issues.6
What, then, should Congress do to address environmental issues in the aviation
community? First, it should be recognized that FAA Reauthorization is, among other
things, an environmental imperative. Quite apart from the ongoing debate over FAA
funding, both the House (H.R. 2881) and the Senate (S. 1300) reauthorization bills
contain a number of environmental initiatives that are necessary if the industry and
government are to move forward to meet the environmental challenges of the coming years.7 The most far-reaching program is the proposal to establish a government/industry consortium to develop, mature and certify continuous lower energy,
emissions, and noise engine and airframe technology (CLEEN), with the following
specific goals to be accomplished by September 30, 2015:
Development of certifiable aircraft technology that reduces greenhouse gas
emissions by increasing fuel efficiency by 25 percent relative to 1997 subsonic
jet aircraft technology.
Development of certifiable engine technology that reduces landing and takeoff
cycle nitrogen oxide emissions by 50 percent, without increasing other gaseous
or particle emissions, over the International Civil Aviation Organization standard adopted in 2004.
Development of certifiable aircraft technology that reduces noise levels by 10
decibels at each of the certification points relative to 1997 subsonic jet aircraft
technology.
Determination of the feasibility of the use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems, including successful demonstration and quantification of the benefits of
such fuels.
Determination of the extent to which new engine and aircraft technologies may
be used to retrofit or re-engine aircraft to increase the integration of retrofitted
and re-engined aircraft into the commercial fleet. See, Section 602 of S. 1300.
In addition, the proposed legislation establishes various environmentally-based
pilot programs and permits airports to undertake studies and to apply for grants
targeted to reducing adverse affects of aviation activity on the environment at their
airports. Taken together, these initiatives would build on the progress already made
in reducing the impact of aviation on the environment.
The reason for detailing these prospective provisions is to emphasize that there
are ways that the government and industry can together address aviation environmental issues by recognizing past successes and building on themwithout impos4 With fuel prices hovering around the $135 per barrel level, airlines have been forced to take
drastic action to simply stay in business.
5 It appears that this legislation will not move forward in this session of Congress, but it is
likely that the same or similar legislation will be introduced early in 2009.
6 The funds collected in this manner would simply reimburse the oil companies for the tax
imposed on them and would not be funneled into aviation projects.
7 These challenges include, not only managing aviations impact on global climate change, but
also dealing with the continuing issues of aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions that affect
local air quality.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
102
ing punitive taxes that would further cripple an already reeling industry. If it is impossible to enact a reauthorization package before the end of the current Congress,
the Association urges the Senate to attempt to find another vehicle that would permit these important environmental provisions to move forward.
Similarly, the FAA must be encouraged to expedite its program to modernize the
airspace system. While this modernization has its roots in safety, efficiency and capacity gains, it also has a major environmental component. When more direct
routings and approaches are possible, the immediate result will be less fuel use and
a concurrent reduction in all emissions. The Association is encouraged by the appointment of a new FAA Senior Vice President for NextGen and Operations Planning and anticipates that this move will lead to short-term gains that might otherwise be delayed. However, the modernization program in general is a difficult major
paradigm shift in the way traffic is managed and the FAA, industry and Congress
must work together to ensure its success.
Finally, a unique opportunity may present itself when looking at the interrelationship between FAA Reauthorization and the environmental challenge. In view of the
current impasse over FAA financing, all parties to the debate should be looking for
a compromise funding solution. One such possible compromise might have positive
environmental consequences. If the current excise tax system for commercial aviation were eliminated and replaced by an expanded fuel tax, carriers would have the
incentive to save fuel by accelerating fleet modernization and the environment
would benefit in the form of significantly decreased emissions.8 In addition, as noted
by the Department of Transportation Inspector General in a report dated March 3,
2008,9 . . . we found that jet fuel consumption is a better proxy for system use of
the NAS than the current aviation excise taxes . . . 10
In conclusion, we urge Congress to recognize the environmental record of the aviation industry when taking action in the sphere of global climate change. In addition,
consideration should be given to finding a way to enact legislation that implements
those portions of S. 1300 that have environmental consequences. In the interim, the
members of the all-cargo air carrier industry will continue to explore ways to improve its environmental performance while ensuring that it can continue to service
its shipper clients around the world.
Thank you for the opportunity to file these comments. If the Committee has any
questions with respect to the positions advanced, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS
Chairman,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The National Association of Railroad passengers appreciates your providing a
forum to consider how the transportation sector can innovate and adapt to address
increased demand in a manner which mitigates the negative impacts of global climate change. I ask that this letter be made part of the record in todays hearing.
Based on 2005 data reported last year by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Amtrak energy consumption per passenger-mile was 17 percent lower than by airlines and 21 percent lower than by automobiles. However, these numbers may understate the rail advantage because:
1. Amtrak ridership has increased since 2005 while its energy consumption has
been reduced.
2. While airlines and auto owners are constantly investing in newer, more fuelefficient units, Amtraks youngest locomotives are 7 years old; the main fleet of
road diesels was acquired between 1996 and 2001. The well-known Acela train
8 The Association does not specifically endorse such a system of FAA funding but feels that
it should be explored as a potential compromise as the reauthorization debate moves forward.
No final position on this type of funding can be taken until more details are developed.
9 Department of Transportation Inspector General Report CR2008028, Use of the National
Airspace System, March 3, 2008.
10 The Report goes on to conclude that fuel consumption is not a perfect measure of system
use, but it clearly indicates that such a measure is clearly better than the existing system. Department of Transportation Inspector General Report CR2008028, p. 3.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
103
sets, due to safety-related design changes, will remain over-powered until additional passenger cars can be added.
3. Oak Ridge numbers do not reflect the added environmental damage that results from high-altitude emissions; there apparently is not yet scholarly agreement on how to quantify this added impact.
4. Externalities:
(a) The ability of trains to stimulate pedestrian- and transit-friendly development in town centers such as at Washington Union Station and in many
other Amtrak-served communities of all sizes.
(b) Good intermodal connections among trains and other forms of transportation make public transportation more attractive by more closely emulating the autos flexibility. Of particular note this summer is the planned
August opening of the St. Louis Gateway Station which will give St. Louis
Amtrak and Greyhound passengers their first attractive, visible terminal,
and connection to local buses and the highly successful light rail line (that
serves both the airport and Illinois suburbs).
Amtrak is now in its sixth year of increasing ridership, one of many indications
that Americans remain way ahead of policymakers in willingness to embrace energy-efficient travel. President Bush and many other leaders tend to focus on technology as the solution to our climate change and energy problems but to overlook
the fact that the most feasible technology we have at our disposal is adequate development of train service, which our Association has been promoting since our
founding in 1967.
As Americans across the Nation struggle with record fuel prices and rapidly congesting roadways, the choice to ride trains, to some extent, has become a forced
oneat least where seats are still available for sale. Amtraks nationwide ridership
jumped 11 percent in the last 7 monthsclear evidence that Americans are turning
to intercity passenger trains in reaction to skyrocketing gas prices and turmoil in
the airline industry.
Now, the Nation needs to address the consequences of funding priorities that continue to neglect rail-transportrelative both to rail-development needs, and to Federal spending on other modes of transport. When people read reports of your good
work on S. 294 and the Houses recent passage of H.R. 6003, they are tempted to
think that spending priorities have changed and real passenger train development
is just around the corner. Last weeks action on Fiscal 2009 funding by the House
appropriations subcommittee brought us back to reality. Tough budget limits and
heavy demands by other programs limited the increase in passenger train spending
to $144 millionenough to cover the back pay recommended by Presidential Emergency Board 242 and increase the tiny U.S. DOT fund for matching state investments to $60 million from the current $30 million.
Options to augment appropriated funds for passenger trains include an allocation
of revenues from any cap and trade bill that may eventually become law, as well
as tax credit and tax exempt bonds which Congress has considered as a high speed
rail funding source.
We, as a nation, have too long been building cities predicated largely upon the
assumption that every citizen has an auto. Instead of planning communities which
take into account the changes that come with economic and population growth, we
have continually utilized instruments and methods to delay facing the consequences
of this growth. This is reflected in the growing cost of transport. A new Brookings
Institute report says transportation is now the second largest expense for most
American householdsconsuming on average 20 cents out of every dollar. The Surface Transportation Policy Project previously documented that transport takes a bigger share of household income where public transport is less developed. Auto-oriented housing configurations, in large part, limit the short-term relief the transportation sector can provide.
Long-term costs benefit analysis of our options underscores the importance of todays decisions and how they will shape the landscape and potential of our future
cities and networks. By expanding passenger train capacity, we can quickly allow
more Americans to use trains to cut transportation costs, avoid traffic stress and
air travel headaches, and minimize our oil dependence and negative impacts on climate change. Beyond that, we will lay the foundation for enabling a growing share
of our population to enjoy the economic and quality-of-life benefits that come with
pedestrian-friendly development.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
104
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
ROSS B. CAPON,
NARP Executive Director.
cc: The Honorable Ted Stevens
Other Committee Members
NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION, INC.

Chairman,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inouye:
As the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation considers climate change issues, I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm general aviations commitment to reducing aircraft emissions and protecting our environment.
On behalf of our 8,000 members across the country, National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) acknowledges that when it comes to general aviation operations,
environmental stewardship is an imperative. We continually work to develop reasonable and balanced policies that support the industrys twin objectives of promoting mobility while minimizing its environmental footprint.
Although the industry represents a tiny fraction of transportation emissions, general aviation has long led the way in promoting advances aimed at minimizing its
environmental footprint. For example, 20 years ago, the industry developed winglets
for general aviation aircraft, which optimize aircraft performance and flight range,
and contribute to a more efficient fuel burn, thereby reducing emissions. This equipment is now in place on a large number of general aviation aircraft.
The industry continues to reduce engine emissions through new technologies,
which means that todays aircraft engines are cleaner, quieter, and more fuel-efficient than ever. In fact, general aviation turbine engines today are an average of
30 percent more fuel efficient than those certified in 1976and 50 percent more fuel
efficient than those introduced in the 1960s.
Operational improvements supported by general aviation have also resulted in
system efficiencies that help the environment Over 3 years ago, NBAA members
began equipping aircraftat their own costwith cockpit technology allowing for
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums, or RVSM, which effectively doubled the
systems airspace capacity.
General aviation was also at the forefront of the development of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADSB), the cornerstone for aviation system modernization and capacity expansion, because it allows for optimal efficiencies in routing, approaches and other uses of the aviation system.
In addition, NBAA members supported the development of precision approach
procedures, which likewise produce efficiencies by enabling operators to custom-tailor flight paths, minimizing fuel burn and noise, while preserving operational safety.
Going forward, NBAA will continue to look for ways to further reduce our environmental footprint.
We also believe that an effective way to reduce emissions is to continue the work
already done to implement a more efficient Next Generation, or NextGen aviation
system based on satellite technology. The Government Accountability Office has
cited FAA data showing that the full implementation of NextGen could reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft by up to 12 percent by 2025.
NBAA commends the Commerce Committee for its work to modernize our system
and expedite the transition to NextGen. We support the recent Senate agreement
on FAA funding and look forward to working with the Committee to complete work
on FAA reauthorization and aviation system modernization this year, so that the
potential for significantly reducing aircraft emissions can be fully realized.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like additional information.
Regards,
EDWARD M. BOLEN,
President and CEO.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
105
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE

HON. JOHN PORCARI
TO
Question 1. What do you believe is the appropriate role for state transportation
decisionmakers and planners in combating climate change?
Answer. The next authorization of the highway/transit program provides an opportunity to begin incorporating climate change considerations into Federal transportation policy. The challenge in this authorization will be to institute effective
policies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to the impacts
of climate change, while minimizing Federal regulatory burdens and ensuring that
the transportation system continues to deliver a high level of accessibility and safety
for passengers and freight traffic.
There are many ways to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector.
Some solutions, including development of cleaner vehicle propulsion technology and
fuels and improving fuel economy will largely be in the hands of manufacturers.
GHG emissions can also be lowered by reducing transportation demand, including
that in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); improving system operations and driver behavior; and providing modal alternatives. State transportation decisionmakers and
planners may opt to pursue these options, but may be limited in part by funding
and authority for implementing these various strategies.
Major manufacturers are already working on the development of much more fuelefficient vehicles, including conventional gas/electric hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and electric-powered vehicles. These innovations have the potential to provide a giant leap in energy efficiency and to reduce GHG emissions,
without sacrificing safety or mobility. These types of breakthroughs are vital not
only for reducing GHG emissions in the U.S. but also for reducing GHG emissions
around the world, including developing countries. States can incentivize the adoption of these new technologies in many ways, including for example through the provision of tax credits or matching funds, leading-by-example in state fleets, and
through support for pilot projects such as new fueling infrastructure.
Beyond technological improvements, effecting a policy shift toward smart, green
and sustainable growth requires transportation planners and land use planners to
align interests to create new and redeveloped places that reduce dependence on
driving. Mixed-use, interconnected and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods providing
access to homes, jobs, schools, and other destinations will help reduce trip-induced
emissions.
Recent evidence shows that VMT growth trends may be tapering off: rather than
growing at 2 percent or more annually, VMT has been increasing at a modest onehalf of a percent since 2004. And as we have all witnessed, VMT in recent months
has declined further in response to sharply higher gasoline prices and economic
forces. The recent VMT trends suggest that VMT growth is abating on its own,
thereby lessening the need for Federal VMT reduction mandates. However, as long
as VMT from carbon-based fuels is contributing to GHG emissions, we must link
transportation and land use decisionmaking to reduce our dependence on oil and encourage the kind of land development and transportation choices that result in more
climate-friendly, energy efficient, lower cost options for Americans.
While better land-use planning can be an effective tool in reducing GHGs and the
growth in VMT, most land use decisions tend to be under local government control
and not the purview of the states. It is imperative however, that states not be left
out of the critical pathways for decisionmaking, as regional, multi-jurisdictional and
multi-state issues are important aspects of planning effective strategies to reduce
GHGs. Recent focus on Metropolitan Planning Organizations to combat climate
change would be improved by consideration of the appropriate state role during the
process from planning to implementation. The challenge of addressing climate
change should be done as part of the existing statewide and metropolitan transportation planning process. The planning process provides the appropriate venue for
States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to develop strategies for
reducing GHG emissions from the transportation system, adapting the transportation system to the impacts of climate change, developing our land sustainably, and
increasing the absorption of GHGs. And while funding is necessary for those responsible for the planning stagewhich may be at any level of government, and if at
the local level, can be enhanced by input from the statethe significant resources
that are provided for the implementation of projects to combat climate change
should be accorded primarily to states for prioritized investment reflecting the scope
of needs across the state.
GHG emissions should be addressed through a new framework that takes into account the global nature of the challenge. This framework will likely require new
Federal direction, rather than relying on existing conformity requirements under
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
106
the Clean Air Act, which are designed for pollutants that can be controlled on a
local and regional basis. The air quality benefits of this process are difficult to discern, and compliance with the transportation conformity requirements has become
increasingly complex and costly. The air has become cleaner in recent years, but
much of the improvement has resulted from technology and increasingly effective
EPA regulations requiring a transition to clean vehicle engines and fuels. Should
a GHG conformity process be considered, it is important that states play a significant role in the development of this strategy, to ensure that GHG impacts are considered at a regional level and not at the level of individual projects.
Question 2. As users of climate information and services, what type of data is
most important to you and how do you think the Federal Government can improve
the climate information and services it provides?
Answer. Much more data and information is needed regarding climate change adaptation and the potential impacts from rising temperatures on the transportation
system. The following information would be helpful to state Departments of Transportation:
Notification of high temperature days and the likelihood of forest fires, to allow
states to prepare for and conduct evacuations.
Notification of changes in precipitation patterns and specific severe weather
events. Flooding stresses the capacity of drainage systems, disrupts traffic management, and increases highway incidents and damages pavement structure.
Information regarding sea level rise and impacts to coastal areas. This information will allow the states to minimize disruptions in connectivity and access to
the transportation network and provide reliable transportation services.
Information regarding storm activity, which can lead to service disruption and
infrastructure damage. Advanced notification will assist the states to better prepare for and conduct evacuations.
Information regarding average temperature increases, which may require
changes in materials, maintenance and operations.
Additionally, prior to requiring states to measure GHG emissions, EPA and
FHWA must work with the states and MPOs to develop functional GHG emissions
models. Models are necessary to determine the overall statewide emissions and the
emissions benefits of selected emission reduction strategies.
Much more data will be needed to better understand and address transportation
related emissions and mitigation strategies, particularly freight-related GHG emissions. Federal funding assistance will be needed to test, implement and evaluate a
variety of solutions to address climate change.
States are at various stages of tackling climate change and new data needs are
emerging daily. States will need assistance in identifying effective strategies for
their particular region and circumstances. AASHTO is establishing a Climate
Change Program that will assist in identifying additional data needs and will work
with the Committees of jurisdiction in Congress as well as with EPA and U.S. DOT
to tackle these important issues.
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. THOMAS R. CARPER

HON. JOHN PORCARI
TO
Question 1. We have had hearings in both this committee and in Environment

and Public Works on freight movement. And most witnesses have called for a freight
fund and single freight policy. This is because freight is moved by multiple modes
of transportation on each triptruck, train and ship. The system works better when
we plan for the movement of the cargo as opposed to the machines moving them.
It occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office. What can we do during the
transportation reauthorization to shift our policy toward moving people and goods
instead of moving cars, trucks, ships, etc.?
Answer. AASHTOs authorization recommendations include an approach to reforming the planning and project selection process which addresses precisely this
question. AASHTOs proposal closely parallels ideas recommended by the National
Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. We recommend a
five-step process: First, Refocus highway and transit programs, for the most part,
on objectives of genuine national interest. Second, Set national goals through which
the objectives can be achieved. Third, Direct states and MPOs through their longrange plans to set targets through which they will seek to meet the national goals.
Fourth, Select investments which will help to achieve those targets. Fifth, Measure
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
107
improvements in performance which show the progress being made toward achieving those targets and report on the results. It is during the project selection phase
when state DOTs and MPOs would determine which projects or mix of projects
would best help meet the goals and targets in question. At that point, they would
have to get specific and determine which improvement in which mode would be the
best solution to the problem.
One key way to ensure effective decisionmaking and investment at the state level
is to provide sufficient flexibility to states to shift resources between programs and
modes. Flexibility across the programs and modes combined with performance measures will greatly improve the mode-neutrality of planning and implementation and
improve the outcome of Federal investment for a better transportation system.
Question 2. Transit agencies across the country are struggling to meet increasing
demand resulting from high gas prices. At the same time, more people are turning
to transit as a clean, affordable way to travel. In fact, the typical public transportation user on average needs to buy half as much gasoline as a person without access to transit. Is the Federal investment in public transportation adequate to serve
the public in an era of high gas prices?
Answer. From our perspective in Maryland, the answer is noFederal investment
is not adequate to serve our bus and rail transit needs. Our local communities and
large municipalities are struggling to meet the needs of rapidly growing bus demands, and the Federal New Starts program is underfunded and ill-constructed to
help communities tackle other transit needs.
AASHTOs transit authorization proposal calls for progressively increasing funding for transit over the six-year authorization period, totaling $93 billion over the
six-year period. In addition, the proposal calls for establishing transit-supportive
policies to enable a doubling of ridership to more than 20 billion by 2030 and 50
billion by 2050.
In Maryland, our climate change commission report calls for doubling transit ridership by 2020 but we will need significant support from the Federal Government
to do this and urge Congress to consider supporting at least the level of funding proposed by AASHTO. The economic downturn and higher gas prices are impacting the
ability of many states to increase transit options. Obviously Maryland, compared to
less-urbanized states, can and will rely more heavily on transit to solve our transportation issues, however, AASHTOs call for increased transit investment is a clear
sign that transit is seen as part of the solution for states across the Nation.
Question 3. Several studies have shown that transportation plans are far more efficient and more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions when they are integrated with local land use and development plans. What role should the Federal
Government play in helping ensure that its transportation investments are paired
with good local land-use decisions to ensure that maximum the taxpayers investment and to reduce emissions? What are state governments doing to address this?
Answer. The statewide and metropolitan planning process requires consideration
of ways to promote consistency between transportation improvements and State
and local planned growth and economic development patterns. By maintaining this
provision, Congress should continue to encourage strong linkages between transportation and land use plans.
States are increasing their efforts to link transportation and land use planning,
while respecting local governments traditional role in making land use decisions.
In States that are seeing increased growth, the current relationship has caused tensions. This said, many local governments are beginning to adapt their land use
plans to encourage more energy-efficient land use patterns. AASHTOs authorization
policies ask Congress to support these State and local efforts by increasing funding
for joint initiatives to coordinate transportation and land use planning, including
creation of a new Transportation and Land Use Program to replace the existing
Transportation Community and System Preservation (TSCP) Program. Under this
proposal, the former TCSP program would be transformed into a merit-based, competitively awarded discretionary program funded at $100 million per year, with increased funding and emphasis on sustainability and quality of life. Funds would be
allocated through a competitive application process by USDOT to States, MPOs, or
local governments for:
Programs and projects that support focused growth, infill housing, and transitoriented development.
The integration of context sensitive solutions.
Programs that support local planning and policy programs and local technical
assistance to better link transportation and land use strategies to preserve fragile natural and human environments.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
108
Programs and projects that improve connectivity within and between modes for
passenger and freight traffic and use operations and management strategies to
improve efficiency of the transportation system, avoiding the need for capacity
increases.
Programs and projects to ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers
of trade.
Transportation programs to reduce GHG emissions and increase GHG absorption.
AASHTOs authorization proposals also call for Congress to increase the Federal
share for transportation projects explicitly designed to support sustainable land use
and focused growth strategies and to reduce the rate of growth of VMT. Finally,
AASHTO is calling on Congress to provide funding for transportation from climate
change legislation to help address GHG reduction. A strong state role will help improve the viability of the investment decisions.
Question 4. Right now, the Department of Transportation is divided into agencies
responsible for a single mode of travel. Further, when I was Governor of Delaware,
I found that if we decided to build a road, we could get 80 percent of the funding
from the Federal Government. If we chose to invest in transit, we might only receive
50 percent. However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in passenger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the development of an integrated, efficient transportation system?
Answer. As the Secretary of a multimodal agency, I agree that the current system
is flawed and needs to be revised. Inadequate investments have resulted in gaps in
our transportation system, lowering transit or rail ridership, increasing aviation and
highway congestion, raising VMT and GHGs, and lowering system effectiveness for
all users. Investment in multi-modal projects and intermodal connectors should be
enabled through changes in flexibility, funding levels, the provision of contract authority, and through a more equitable and simplified Federal approval process.
AASHTOs authorization policies call for the Federal share of transit projects (including New Starts) to be a minimum of 80 percent and for the establishment of
a dedicated account for intercity passenger rail funded at an 80 percent Federal
share for capital improvement projects. This Federal allocation requirement would
aid in the selection of intermodal infrastructure investments and help move us closer to a seamless transportation system.
RESPONSE
TO

HON. THOMAS J. BARRETT
TO
Question 1. The Federal Government has ceded most of the decisionmaking about
what types of transportation assets are built and used by most Americans to the
states, localities, and private sector. While this decentralized control of planning has
certain benefits, it also presents challenges to ensuring that nationwide goals are
achieved in a uniform fashion, particularly in the face of a rapidly developing crisis
like climate change. Do you believe that we must reassert a strong Federal role in
planning and shaping transportation infrastructure and usage to ensure that nationwide goals are achieved, such as reducing fuel consumption and emissions?
Answer. We need to proceed carefully in addressing the challenges of greenhouse
gas emission reductions and fuel economy in the transportation sector while maintaining the mobility and connectivity that is critical to national economic growth.
Finding a balance between these goals, through fuel economy standards and in
other ways, is best achieved through uniform national standards rather than a
patchwork of different requirements across the states. We continue to believe, however, that regional transportation investment decisions themselves are best made by
State and local governments because they know the transportation problems in their
areas and can work with us to tailor the best options to address those problems.
Question 2. Did the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
base the new fuel economy standards in its notice of proposed rulemaking on the
average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years
20112015 on the assumption that gas prices would be only $2.31 per gallon in
2015? If so, can you explain to the Committee the foundation of this extrapolation?
What is the relationship between this number and the fuel economy standards that
the NHTSA will ultimately issue?
Answer. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency used the reference case
in the most up-to-date Department of Energy/Energy Information Administrations
(EIA) gasoline price projections then available. The retail fuel price forecasts pre-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
109
sented in EIAs Annual Energy Outlook 2008 span the period from 2008 through
2030. Measured in constant 2006 dollars, the reference case forecast of retail gasoline prices during calendar year 2015 is $2.32 per gallon, $2.42 per gallon during
2020, rising gradually to $2.51 by the year 2030 (these values include Federal,
State, and local taxes).
Gasoline prices, along with other economic and engineering assumptions, can affect the stringency of the standards. NHTSA sought comments on its assumptions
for gasoline prices. The comment period closed on July 1, 2008. NHTSA is currently
evaluating the comments it received. These comments will be considered in determining the final assumptions and the final standards.
Question 3. What is the methodology that the NHTSA uses to classify cross-over
vehicles as either passenger cars or light trucks in the NHTSAs Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking?
Answer. The NPRM followed NHTSAs regulatory definitions for classifying vehicles as passenger cars or light trucks. The definitions are contained in 49 CFR Part
523. Essentially, a vehicle may be classified as a light truck for one of two reasons:
either because (1) it has off- highway capability, or (2) it has some functional characteristic that makes them truck-like. If a vehicle does not meet the definition of
light truck, it is classified as a passenger car.
A vehicle is off-highway capable, and therefore a light truck, per 523.5(b), if it
is either 4WD or over 6,000 lbs GVWR and meets 4 out of 5 ground clearance characteristics, like approach angle, departure angle, running clearance, etc.
Alternatively, a vehicle may be classified as a light truck if it is designed to perform at least one of the following functions, as laid out in 523.5(a):
It transports more than 10 persons;
It provides temporary living quarters;
It transports property on an open bed;
It provides greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume; or
It permits expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other
nonpassenger-carrying purposes by removing or stowing the back seats to create
a flat surface. (Starting in MY 2008, vehicles may qualify as light trucks under
this criterion if they have 3 rows that fold or stow to create a flat surface.)
NHTSA sought comment on its classification system in the NPRM and is currently deliberating on this issue in developing the final rule.
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL

TO
Question 1. There has been significant Federal research undertaken on technologies to reduce the emissions of trucks that move freight. Can you tell me what
parallel efforts have been made by your agency regarding freight rail?
Answer. The Federal Railroad Administration and the rail industry are pursuing
several research programs focused on locomotive emissions reduction. For example,
FRA has provided grants to Norfolk Southern Railroad and its partners, General
Electric and New York Air Brake for the LEADER (Locomotive Engineer Assist/Display Event Recorder) project. The LEADER project is a tool for assisting locomotive
engineers to operate trains more efficiently by maximizing the use of braking and
power. The project has been successful in providing fuel savings (and therefore reducing emissions) of 15 percent.
In addition to the LEADER project, FRA has developed an in-situ emissions measurement system. This device is a portable emissions measurement system that will
allow easy and frequent emissions measurement. Currently it measures some criteria pollutants (such as NOX), but it does not measure particulate matter (PM). Future research will focus on PM measurement. Emissions measurement at regular intervals can promote engine efficiency, thereby reducing NOX and other pollutants.
New research promises exciting future opportunities in emission reductions. The
U.S. Army has sponsored a locomotive development program for a fuel cell locomotive, which has the potential for greatly reduced emissions. Locomotive manufacturers are also working to develop a road hybrid locomotive which captures the energy dissipated in dynamic braking.
The rail industry is pursuing a number of initiatives. One of the more successful
areas are so-called Genset locomotives that use three smaller (700 HP) size trucktype diesel engines, which can be automatically turned off when the tractive effort
demand is less than the peak demand. These switcher locomotives save 50 to 60
percent in fuel consumption, thus substantially reducing overall emissions. Bur-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
110
lington Northern (BN) and Union Pacific (UP) already use switchers in California
and Texas. The Genset concept is being extended to road locomotives with four 700
HP diesel engines for the equivalent of a 3000 HP locomotive. The industry has also
adopted Auto Stop/Start systems (which allow locomotives to be shut down to reduce
idling and the related emissions) and Auxiliary Power Units (APU) are also being
used by the industry to provide air and heat instead of idling locomotives for these
needs.
RESPONSE
TO

TO
Question 1. The transportation sector is responsible for about 13 of our greenhouse

gas emissions, making it among the largest emissions sources in our economy. How
should U.S. surface transportation policy be updated to support the goals of climate
change legislations? Should the transportation sector be responsible for 13 of the
emissions reductions necessary to meet targets science says is necessary?
Answer. In 2007, the transportation sector accounted for 28 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions and 34 percent of carbon dioxide emissions (2007). The CO2
emissions of the combined commercial and residential electric power sectors, however, accounted for 39 percent of CO2 emissions, making electric power generation
the largest source of CO2 in our economy. Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies vary
in their cost-effectiveness, and generally stationary source measures have been
found to be more cost-effective than transportation mitigation strategies.
As we develop strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we must be
mindful of the indispensable role that transportation plays in sustaining and improving our economy, facilitating our trade, and ensuring the Nations mobility and
connectivity. Our approach for reducing emissions focuses on: improving vehicle efficiency; increasing the use of alternative fuels; advancing the efficiency of the transportation system (often by promoting market-based measures, such as congestion
pricing); and improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on
transportation infrastructure. Additionally, while mandates and regulations have
their place, new technologies and private sector innovations should be at the center
of our national effort to curb emissions. We must address climate change in a way
that does not compromise the competitiveness of our transportation providers or the
shippers and passengers that rely upon them.
Question 2. Airport congestion is a major problem. Weve seen many airlines shift
toward flights consisting of many short hops rather than longer direct flights.
Couldnt much of this short-hop air travel be shifted onto passenger rail if we put
the resources into developing a network of convenient, high-speed service? Would
that help relieve pressure on our airports? What would be the impact on greenhouse
gas emissions?
Answer. As part of its environmental review of proposed airport enhancement
projects, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) examines whether other modes
of transportation or other congestion management actions might be appropriate alternatives or satisfy part of the demand for air travel as part of environmental review of proposed capacity enhancement projects. Passenger rail travel may be competitive for some trips greater than 150 miles in markets with frequent rail service
such as through the Northeast Corridor, or mid-range trips between 250 and 500
miles where connections are direct and efficient. Travelers consider time, cost, and
frequency of service in making choices about how they travel. In addition, the experience of the European Union, which has 13 the land area and a more highly urbanized population than the United States shows that passenger rail services require
enormous subsidies.
Current tools for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from different modes of
transportation are limited, except for aviation. The FAA has developed the System
for Assessing Aviations Global Emissions (SAGE) model. SAGE is recognized as one
of the premier models in the world for analyzing aviation greenhouse gas emissions
and has been used by the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. DOTs Center for Climate
Change and Environmental Forecasting has funded some work on tools to compare
emissions across modes, and FAA is doing extensive research on identifying emissions from aviation.
50 percent. However, if we decided the best, lowest cost investment was in pas-
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
111
senger rail, we got no Federal funds at all. How does this impact the goal of intermodalism? And how might it interfere with the development of an integrated, efficient transportation system?
Answer. Federal surface transportation programs have increasingly emphasized
flexibility for States and local areas to choose transportation solutions that best
meet their needs. This flexibility, however, has been limited by spreading Federal
transportation funds over more than 100 programs and the proliferation of projectspecific Federal earmarks. The Administrations new plan to refocus, reform and
renew the national approach to highway and transit systems in Americaannounced on July 29would consolidate Federal programs into a manageable few,
and give grantees the authority to make worthwhile infrastructure investments, regardless of whether those investments involve transit or highway projects. The proposal also increases the way communities can fund projects with innovative financing mechanisms, such as private activity bonds, State infrastructure banks, and
Federal credit flexibility.
Question 4. We have had hearings in both this Committee and in Environment
Answer. Building intermodal connections that provide real value to system users
should be a central national goal, but the constraints on cross-modal funding in current law frustrate that objective. We address this problem directly in our recently
announced reform proposal.
For instance, the proposed metro mobility program is applicable to areas with
populations greater than 500,000, areas that collectively generate 42 percent of the
Nations annual vehicle-miles traveled. This program enables performance-based
transportation funding to supplant program and modal specific funding constraints.
Funding is awarded through a competitive process, allowing multimodal flexibility
in selecting projects for the movement of people and goods. Program projects must
be Title 23 or Title 49 eligible, both of which include the flexibility to advance intermodal projects.
Further, the proposed metro mobility and Federal interest highway programs target Federal funds on elements of the system that are in the national interest. This
focus of Federal funds on areas of national interest enables State and local governments to direct their own funds to projects that meet State and local mobility priorities, regardless of mode. By allowing more local control of transportation funding,
decisionmakers most familiar with the movement of people and goods in a particular
area can develop intermodal projects that provide the greatest benefits and the
greatest return on the Federal dollar.
In regard to providing effective transportation access to Americas treasures, such
as our national parks, forests, and refuges, the Administration proposes combining
the existing Federal Lands Highway Program with Transit in the Parks and Tribal
Transit Programs to promote integrated transportation solutions where congestion
is becoming a problem.
Finally the Departments reform proposal also increases flexibility that stakeholders have to tap into existing financing mechanisms. Removing the national volume cap of private activity bonds (PABs) would allow greater private sector, taxexempt investment in highway and freight transfer facilities. Enhanced flexibility
for State infrastructure banks (SIBs) would allow States to capitalize SIB accounts
to provide loans or other forms of credit to public and private entities for eligible
highway, transit, and rail projects. And reform of the Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) would broaden the availability and enhance the
attractiveness of TIFIA credit assistance, allowing flexibility to structure credit support for vital, non-mode specific infrastructure projects, including intercity bus and
passenger rail.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
112
Answer. The Federal investment in public transportation has increased significantly over the last few years. Annual Federal funding for public transportation increased from $7.6 billion in 2005 to $9.5 billion in 2008. The Administrations FY
2009 Budget proposes a total of $10.14 billion in Federal spending on public transportation, an increase of $644 million over 2008. This is a record level of funding
and will help provide more transit service to accommodate increased demand.
High gas prices increase both ridership on public transportation and the cost of
operating public transportation. Due to high gas prices, public transportation ridership increased 2.4 percent for the 12 month period ending in May 2008, over the
previous 12 month period. The increase in ridership has helped cover the incremental costs associated with increased capacity utilization.
RESPONSE
TO

DR. JAMES M. TURNER
TO
Question 1. The recent National Research Council report on the impacts of climate
change on U.S. transportation recommended that scientists develop and implement
monitoring technologies that could provide advanced warning of pending infrastructure failures due to weather and climate extremes on transportation facilities. Can
you describe how NIST will respond to this recommendation?
Answer. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is directly
addressing the recommendation of the recent National Research Council report that
scientists develop and implement monitoring technologies that could provide advanced warning of pending infrastructure failures due to weather and climate extremes on transportation facilities. NIST is currently running a competition for proposals focused on developing solutions to the challenges of inspecting and monitoring civil infrastructures. The competition, Advanced Sensing Technologies for
the Infrastructure: Roads, Highways, Bridges and Water Systems, is aimed at enabling the development of sensing systems for the effective measurement of characteristics such as fatigue, corrosion, stress, usage, and damage in these infrastructures. The sensing systems and measurements will provide critical information for
infrastructure decision-makers as they reevaluate design standards in light of new
climate extremes.
NIST also has ongoing research programs on predicting the response of structures
simultaneously exposed to multiple climatic hazards (e.g., high winds and storm
surge), real-time infrastructural performance monitoring to provide advanced warning of pending transportation infrastructure failures due to weather and climate extremes, as well as the materials research aimed at improving the resilience and durability performance of infrastructural materials. The Presidents 2009 budget includes an initiative to look at Disaster Resilient Structures and Communities. This
initiative will enable the development of a robust capability to predict the effects
of hazards on the performance of complex infrastructural systems, such as roads,
highways, and bridges, and is ideally suited to address the types of infrastructure
failures that are predicted to accompany climate change.
Question 2. What do you see as the greatest gap or deficiency in scientific research
and information that NIST can address relating to climate change and transportation issues?
Answer. NIST has identified as a gap the need for developing sensing systems
and measurements to provide critical information for transportation infrastructure
decision-makers as they reevaluate design standards in climate extremes.
NIST also fulfills the need to develop the measurement science that rigorously
monitors the impacts of the U.S. transportation infrastructure on climate change.
A few of the activities in this area that NIST is currently addressing are:
The composition, volume, and weight standards for fuels and oil to allow confidence in trading in low to high sulfur content fuels in competitive markets.
This covers everything from measures and standards for fossil fuels and
biofuels, and from train cars of coal to gallons of gasoline at the pump.
Air Quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide that enable automotive manufacturers to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and generally allow industry to tune and trade their emissions through the
EPA sulfur dioxide cap and trade system.
Composition of refrigerants in automotive air conditioning systems to eliminate
chlorofluorocarbons and find replacements that minimize impacts on air quality
and ozone in the upper atmosphere.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
113
Production of roadway materials, and the composition, strength, and durability
of road and bridge materials and construction techniques to minimize GHG
emissions.
Lightweight metal forming and composites to enable manufacturers to have
high performance, high durability and safe materials to increase efficiency in
the automotive and aerospace industry.
Development of the measurement science and standards infrastructure to support the development and implementation of advanced alternative fuel sources
such as hydrogen or biofuels.
Developing Smart Grid standards for plug-in hybrid electrical vehicles scheduled to be in showrooms in 2010.
RESPONSE
TO

THOMAS C. PETERSON
TO
Question 1. In your opinion, what challenges do climate scientists face when attempting to produce and deliver climate information and services that are useful to
transportation planners?
Answer. There are two main challenges that we face. The first is understanding
the exact needs of transportation planners. This means knowing what weather and
climate conditions impact transportation and exactly what types of information and
data about these weather and climate conditions transportation planners require.
The second challenge flows directly from the first, namely, developing the climate
information at the temporal and spatial scale transportation planners need. For example, a person planning an upgrade to a railroad track needs to know the temperature and precipitation extremes that the track is likely to experience not for the
track as a whole but at critical locations along the track because the temperature
extremes and precipitation level may affect the performance of the facility.
Question 2. How is NOAA trying to address these challenges?
Answer. To better understand user needs, NOAA actively engages with the transportation community. For example, in 2007, NOAA hosted a specialized Data Users
workshop to identify the requirements of the energy, insurance, and transportation
sectors, with respect to data and information needs in the context of a changing climate. Also in 2007, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology convened
the Third National Surface Transportation Weather Symposium. These meetings
brought weather and climate information providers together with transportation
planners to, among other things, enhance understanding of the weather and climate
information needed for transportation decision support. Furthermore, NOAA personnel serve on the Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation initiated by the Transportation Research Board.
NOAA is working to expand weather services to encompass customer-focused climate services as well as to help fulfill NOAAs strategic goal of supporting the Nations commerce with information for safe, efficient and environmentally sound
transportation. This takes on many forms. For example, NOAA has developed the
Pacific Region Integrated Climatology Information Products and the Pacific Regional
Integrated Science and Assessment (Pacific RISA), as well as RISAs in other parts
of the country, to provide the climate information needed in the Pacific to manage
risks and support practical decision-making in the context of climate variability and
change. NOAA is working with the Federal Highway Administration to update
atlases of maximum 100-year 60-minute precipitation estimates on a fine enough
scale to improve design flow estimates for improved design of highways.. The challenges of producing accurate climate model output at spatial and temporal scales
fine enough for transportation planners are great and this is a research effort currently underway at NOAA and elsewhere. While the ultimate payoff on the promise
of this work is still unrealized, NOAA is providing up to date output of this research
which is growing increasingly useful to decision support. NOAA is providing climate
model output that has been reprocessed to scales that are fine enough to provide
the location specific information that transportation planners need. As hurricanes
anywhere in the world impact shipping, NOAA is leading the creation of an International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship tropical cyclone database so
planners can see exactly where hurricanes have been in the past. NOAA is providing the basic weather and climate data and information from the U.S. and
around the world that transportation planners need to respond real time to weather
and design transportation infrastructure to operate smoothly for climatic conditions
anticipated over its lifetime.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
114
Question 3. Recently the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released its first
assessment of weather and climate extremes in North America. Could you explain
the significance of climate extremes, how such extremes may change in the future,
and the expected impacts that these changes will have on transportation infrastructure and planning?
Answer. As described in our paper on the implications of climate change on transportation,1 transportation is sensitive to changes in extremes. The release of the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report on weather and climate extremes in North America 2 is quite relevant to transportation planning. Below is a
table combining key information from the CCSP report on extremes and the National Research Council (NRC) report on impacts of climate change on U.S. transportation. 3
Extreme and Direction of Change
Likelihood of Continued
Future Changes in this
Century
Key Impacts on Transportation
Warmer and fewer cold

days and nights
Very likely 4
Positive impact on many forms of transportation by,

for example, causing less ice buildup on marine superstructure and easier maintenance of railroad
tracks. However, in parts of Alaska where remote
mines depend on ice roads, warming will limit the
length of time that the ice roads will be open. Also,
the thawing of permafrost caused by warming in the
Arctic will result in subsidence of roads, rail beds,
bridge supports (cave-in), pipelines, and runway
foundations.
Hotter and more frequent

hot days and nights along
with more frequent heat
waves and warm spells
Very likely
Increased railroad track buckling and highway rutting, more difficult outdoor maintenance, and decreased lift-off load limits on airplanes.
More frequent and intense

heavy downpours and
higher proportion of total
rainfall in heavy precipitation events
Very likely
Increased flooding of roadways, increases in road

wash outs, overloading of drainage systems, increases in soil moisture to the point where they may
affect structural integrity of roads, bridges and tunnels.
Increases in area affected

by drought
Likely 5 in
Southwest U.S.
More intense hurricanes
Likely
Negative impacts on river transportation routes and

increased susceptibility to wildfires causing road
closures.
Greater probability of infrastructure failures, increased damages to road signs, lighting fixtures,
and damages to harbor infrastructure from waves
and storm surges.
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL

THOMAS C. PETERSON
TO
Question 1. Over the past month, weve seen yet another disturbing trend in the
Arctic. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the average ice melt
rate this May was 3,000 square miles per day faster than last May. As a result,
the Arctic ice is now at the low levels seen at this time last yearleading to a likely
repeat of last years unprecedented ice melt.
1 Peterson, Thomas C., Marjorie McGuirk, Tamara G. Houston, Andrew H. Horvitz and Michael F. Wehner, 2008: Climate Variability and Change with Implications for Transportation,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/
sr290Many.pdf, 90 pp.
2 CCSP, 2008: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. Regions of Focus: North
America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas R. Karl, Gerald
A. Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and William L. Murray
(eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAAs National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C.,
USA, 164 pp. Available from http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap33/finalreport/
default.htm
3 Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, National Research Council, Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation: Special Report 290, The National Academies Press, Washington, 296 pp.
4 Very likely means 9 out of 10 times.
5 Likely means 2 out of 3 times.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
115
Answer. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is closely monitoring
sea ice conditions. While you are correct that melt rates were especially fast in May,
the rate of ice loss subsequently slowed. As of early September 2008, the data at
NSIDC actually show slightly more Arctic sea ice than at the same time last summer. Data for August indicate the second lowest August sea ice extent.
Question 1a. At what point do we stop saying that each years record, extreme icemelt is a fluke and conclude that this is a new state of the Arctic that is here to
stay?
Answer. With the current major loss of multi-year ice it would be very difficult
for the sea ice to return to conditions of the 1980s.6 Sea ice is retreating faster than
anticipated by the models run for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fourth Assessment Report.7 Contributions to this trend include a run of warm years
due to natural variability plus an anthropogenic global warming signal produced
rapid sea ice loss involving ice/ocean feedbacks (from albedo change) leading to a
new state for Arctic sea ice. Models predicted summer sea ice loss after 2050, but
because of the combination of these three factors, the Arctic appears now to be on
a fast track for summer sea ice loss over the next decades. According to scientists
at the NSIDC, the summer Arctic Ocean might be ice-free as early as the year
2030.8 An ice-free ocean in summer would be a new state of the Arctic. Due to natural variations in weather patterns, the transition to this new state will not be a
smooth process, but will instead be manifested as a jagged series of ups and downs
in ice extent from year to year.
Question 1b. Has the decrease in ice thickness affected the melting of sea ice in
the Arctic?
Answer. The decrease in ice thickness has impacted the melting of Arctic sea ice
as the extent of ice at the end of summer depends strongly on how thick the ice
was the previous spring, at the start of the melt season. The thinner the ice in
spring, the more easily it is melted out in summer. Thin ice is also more vulnerable
to mechanical breakup by storms. As the ice breaks up it becomes easier for the
individual chunks (termed floes) to melt. The sea ice cover has thinned substantially
over the past few decades, and this has contributed to record low September ice
extents that have been observed in recent years, such as in 2007.
Question 1c. Can we expect for ice thickness to continue to decline?
Answer. We expect ice thickness to continue to decline. Already more than half
of the older, thicker sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean has been lost. This is part
of a feedback cycle. Thinner ice in spring means more open water through summer.
Dark open water areas absorb more of the suns energy than the brighter ice cover.
This helps to melt more ice, meaning even more open water. More heat in the ocean
also results in slower ice growth in autumn, so that the ice the next spring is even
thinner than before.
Question 1d. A scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center has projected that without an exceptional sequence of cold winters and cold summers historic levels Arctic sea ice will not rebuild. What is the likelihood of several unusually cold winters and summers occurring given current climate projections?
Answer. The Arctic region always has, and always will, be home to strong natural
climate variability. Model results out of the University of Washington 9 suggest that
it could take six cold years to rebuild the thicker sea ice. The likelihood of six cold
years in a row is small. A series of cold winters and summers is certainly possible,
and the sea ice might recover somewhat in response. However, such recovery would
only be temporary, and is expected to become less and less likely as the years pass.
Question 2. Our Nation has billions of dollars invested in transportation infrastructure for the movement of goods and servicesinfrastructure that will be impacted if transport patterns radically shift due to a warming, ice-free Arctic that
opens new shipping routes. When will our ports, rail lines and other transportation
6 Jinlun Zhang, Research Scientist at the Polar Science Center ran a sea ice model backward
to see what it would take to return the ice to conditions before the recent melting. His model
results indicated that it would take six to ten cold years, the likelihood of which is small. This
work has not yet been published.
7 Stroeve, J., M. M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze (2007), Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L09501, doi:10.1029/2007GL029703.
8 Renfrow, S., 2007: Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows, NSIDC Arctic Sea
Ice News, 1 October, http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007lseaiceminimum/20071001lpress
release.pdf
9 Jinlun Zhang, Research Scientist at the Polar Science Center ran a sea ice model backward
to see what it would take to return the ice to conditions before the recent melting. His model
results indicated that it would take six to ten cold years, the likelihood of which is small. This
work has not yet been published.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
116
infrastructure start to see the impact of such changing marine transport routes?
Will it be sudden and disruptive, or a gradual change that our economy can slowly
adapt to?
Answer. At this point, it is difficult to ascertain when we can reasonably expect
Arctic shipping to begin, because significant uncertainty exists about further sea ice
melting, technology, infrastructure construction, and international treaties. Large
scale shipping across a relatively ice free summer Arctic is unlikely to happen in
the near future. Nevertheless, the U.S. and other Arctic nations are closely examining potential shipping routes in the Arctic Ocean. The effect of shipping on Arctic
sea ice, and the reformation of sea ice each year, should be considered before such
shipping begins.
Further, the loss of Arctic sea ice is likely to coincide with other climate change
impacts to transportation infrastructure elsewhere, such as compromised rail track
due to extreme heat, storm surges and changes in water levels at ports, and extreme weather events, which will impact roads and bridges for trucks. A comprehensive response to climate change is necessary. Any change in international shipping
routes can be expected to result in gradual change in freight movements as the
transportation sector considers new infrastructure to take advantage of Arctic shipping and begins shifting freight movement patterns.
On June 5, 2008, the Maritime Administration hosted an Arctic Transportation
conference. The conference brought together industry, governmental and international transportation officials to focus on the careful and principled development
of the immense Arctic Region as an emerging and valuable alternative ocean highway that will provide shorter travel distances for much of the worlds international
commerce and help relieve existing vessel congestion at the two major inter-ocean
canals. Conference members also discussed infrastructure impacts of transport of
freight that may result from shifting ice conditions in the Arctic region. Conference
members also considered port infrastructure policies and development that will be
necessary for safe and environmentally sound transportation of freight in the Arctic
region. The Maritime Administration is following up to ensure that potential Arctic
transportation programs are established and has created a Marine Excellence
Transportation Center for Arctic transportation policies.
Question 3. Given that it can take 10 years to build a polar icebreaker, when
should the U.S. Government make the policy commitment to acquiring new icebreakers for the Coast Guard?
Answer. The Administration is currently conducting a policy review and an analysis of mission and infrastructure requirements in the Arctic, so it is premature to
speculate on whether or when such a commitment could be made.
Question 3a. The Senate Coast Guard authorization bill currently contains language providing for the construction of new polar icebreakers and the maintenance
of the current fleet. Some members of the U.S. Senate, though, are trying to strip
that language out of the bill. What would be the implications if our government fails
to recapitalize the Coast Guards fleet of polar icebreakers?
Answer. POLAR STAR was commissioned in 1976 with a designed service life of
30 years. POLAR STAR is currently in commission, special caretaker status in Seattle, WA with a support crew of 34. POLAR STAR is not operational. The mediumclass HEALY, a very capable science platform, was commissioned in 1999 with a
30 year designed service life, and will be operational for at least another two decades. Under current asset use assumptions, a major overhaul to reactivate and extend the service life of POLAR STAR or to further extend POLAR SEAs service life
would be needed to extend the Coast Guards heavy icebreaking capability past
2014. If the Coast Guard no longer has heavy icebreaking capability, the U.S. could
look to assets not owned by the U.S. Government to meet any heavy icebreaking
requirements.
Question 3b. What do you believe this would do to U.S. capabilities in the Arctic?
Should the government consider this a national security issue?
Answer. Loss of U.S. heavy icebreaking capacity may impact the governments
ability to access and exert jurisdiction over some waters in the ice-covered high-latitude Arctic. This could limit our ability to establish maritime domain awareness,
assert sovereignty over our waters and Exclusive Economic Zone, and preserve our
right to transit international straits. The Administration is currently conducting an
Arctic policy process that should address national and homeland security issues.
Question 3c. How would this impact our Nations research and monitoring capabilities in the Arctic?
Answer. Without heavy icebreaking capabilities, research and monitoring in the
high Arctic would be limited to the Arctic summer. Due to its robust science capability, the medium-class icebreaker HEALY is the predominate icebreaker used for
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
117
research support in the Arctic, including the mapping of the outer-continental shelf,
so there should be minimal impact on the current research program. The HEALY
would not be able to support all of the current research programs if the non-science
or non-Arctic missions traditionally performed by the heavy icebreakers POLAR
SEA and POLAR STAR were transferred to the HEALY. U.S. research in the Arctic
is frequently conducted on-board icebreakers operated by other countries, notably
Canada, Sweden, and Russia. We will continue to work with our international partners and would need to collaborate more closely with these partners and look at
heavy icebreaking vessels not owned by the U.S. Government to continue the research and monitoring capabilities where there are heavy icebreaking requirements.
RESPONSE
TO

DR. G. EDWARD DICKEY
TO
Question 1. Which of the recommendations you discussed in your testimony would

be performed best by the states and which ones would be suited best for the Federal
Government?
Answer. The study committee of which I was a member specifically mentioned a
leadership role for the Federal Government in four of the recommendations I discussed in my testimony: Recommendation #4: improving communications among
transportation professionals, climate scientists, and other related disciplines, Recommendation #8: reevaluating and developing appropriate new design standards to
accommodate climate change, Recommendation #11: new transportation planning
regulations requiring inclusion of climate change in transportation and land use
plans, and Recommendation #12: reevaluating the National Flood Insurance Program and Flood Insurance Rate Maps. (See response to question #2 for more specifics.) The Federal Government is also mentioned as a partner in research to develop more transportation-relevant decision support tools (Recommendation #5) and
to develop and implement sensors and other smart technologies for long-term monitoring of climate change effects on transportation infrastructure (Recommendation
#7).
No recommendations were targeted solely for state action. Nevertheless, state
agencies are mentioned as important partners in several recommendations: Recommendation #1: inventorying critical infrastructure facilities (along with local governments and private infrastructure owners), Recommendation #2: incorporating climate change into investment decisions (along with local governments and private
infrastructure owners), Recommendation #3: adopting strategic, risk-based approaches to decisionmaking (all levels of government), Recommendation #5: developing decision-support tools (along with Federal research agencies and universities),
Recommendation #9: rebuilding or constructing new infrastructure to higher standards in vulnerable regions (along with Federal funding agencies), and Recommendation #13: providing incentives for regional and multi-state structures to address the
regional effects of climate change (along with the Federal Government).
Please note that the recommendations referred to in response to this question and
subsequent ones are keyed to my oral testimony. The numbers will sometimes differ
from those contained in the Committee report (Special Report 290: Potential Impacts
of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation, TRB, 2008) because the report recommendations were combined or otherwise reorganized in the testimony in the interest of brevity.
Question 2. How would you suggest Congress or the Federal Government proceed
to implement the National Research Councils recommendations you outline in your
testimony?
Answer. The next steps for Congress and Federal agencies to implement the first
four recommendations best suited for Federal action listed in the response to question #1 are detailed here:
a. Recommendation #4: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), the U.S. Geological Survey,
and other relevant agencies should work together to institute a process for improved communication among transportation professionals, climate scientists,
and those in other relevant scientific disciplines, and establish a clearinghouse
for transportation-relevant climate change information.
b. Recommendation #8: U.S. DOT should take a leadership role along with professional organizations in the forefront of civil engineering practice across all
modes to initiate immediately a federally funded, multiagency research program, focused on reevaluation of existing design standards and development of
new standards as progress is made in understanding future climate conditions
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
118
and the options available for addressing them. A research plan and cost proposal should be developed for submission to Congress for authorization and
funding. In addition, it was recommended that U.S. DOT take the lead in developing an interagency working group focused on adaptation. (In the interest of
time, this recommendation was not included in the oral testimony.)
c. Recommendation #11: Congress in reauthorizing current surface transportation legislation should modify Federal planning regulations to require that climate change be included as a factor in the development of public-sector, longrange transportation plans; eliminate any perception that such plans be limited
to 20 to 30 years; and require collaboration in plan development with agencies
responsible for land use, environmental protection, and natural resource management to foster more integrated transportation-land use decisionmaking.
d. Recommendation #12: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which
acts as the insurer of last resort for homeowners in designated flood hazard
areas, should reevaluate the risk reduction effectiveness of the National Flood
Insurance Program in view of projected increases in intense precipitation and
storm activity from climate change. At a minimum, updating flood insurance
rate maps to account for sea level rise and incorporate land subsidence should
be a priority in coastal areas.
Question 3. Does the Federal Government have the organizational infrastructure
in place to be responsive to those recommendations? If so, can you please identify
that organization or office?
Answer. I believe the organizational infrastructure is in place to start the implementation process. The study committee tried to be as specific as it could regarding
which level of government and which Federal agencies should carry out the recommendations. Each recommendation identifies the organizational element the
Committee believes is best suited to lead in implementing the recommendation;
these are indicated in my response to question 2.
Question 4. In your opinion, what would be an appropriate timeline to implement
the recommendations?
Answer. Implementation of the recommendations can begin almost immediately,
without awaiting Federal action. For example, state and local governments and private owners of infrastructure can begin to inventory critical infrastructure (Recommendation #1) and incorporate climate change into investment decisions (Recommendation #2). Recommendations that build on existing experience can also be
implemented rapidly. Two examples include making transportation an integral part
of local emergency response plans, building on experience of locations where evacuation planning and emergency response are already part of transportation operations (Recommendation #6) and developing a mechanism for sharing best practices
regarding responses to climate changes, building on existing technology transfer
mechanisms (Recommendation #10). Other recommendations, however, will involve
a long-term effort [e.g., reevaluating design standards (Recommendation #8), establishing better communications among transportation professionals, climate scientists, and other relevant scientific disciplines and creating an information clearinghouse (Recommendation #4)] or require new legislation [e.g., transportation planning regulations (Recommendation #11)].
Answer. One of the first tasks of transportation professionals is to identify the
types of climate data they need to incorporate climate change into investment and
engineering decisions. For example, transportation decisionmakers need to know
which climate changes pose the greatest risks for their regions, what the impacts
are likely to be at as fine-grained geographic scales possible (e.g., extent of incursion
from sea level rise and storm surge combined with land subsidence) along coastal
areas, and their likely timing. Information on the changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme events is often more relevant than changes in the means and medians of distributions of the various measures of climate, such as temperature and
precipitation. Many of these data are beyond the current state of the science. Nevertheless, Recommendation #4 suggests a process for relevant Federal agencies to take
the lead in furthering information sharing and establishing a clearinghouse for
transportation-relevant climate change information as it becomes available.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
119
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. TED STEVENS

DR. G. EDWARD DICKEY
TO
Question. Transportation is the largest industrial contributor of emissions to our

atmosphere. Our society cannot function without transportation, however. How can
we balance the need for transportation and the need to curb emissions?
Answer. Transportation emissions are a function of the volume of traffic (i.e., ton
miles or passenger miles) handled by each of various modes of transportation and
the emissions intensity (e.g., emissions per ton mile) for each type of traffic. An increase in total transportation activity can be accompanied by a decrease in total
emissions by the transportation sector by adapting technologies that reduce emission intensities (e.g., hybrid automobiles) and by redistributing traffic from a more
emission intensive mode to a less emission intensive mode, e.g., by shifting commerce from trucks to railways or waterways. In encouraging modal shills care must
be taken to ensure that public policy does not result in perverse outcomes by causing traffic to shift from a more intensive mode to a less emissions intensive mode
with more circuitous routes.
RESPONSE
TO

DAVID FRIEDMAN
TO
Question 1. On April 22, 2008, the NHTSA released a notice of proposed rulemaking that would increase fuel economy standards for all cars and light trucks by
4.5 percent per year between 2011 and 2015. Mr. Friedman, do you agree with the
assumptions NHTSA relied upon to calculate maximum feasible fuel economy standards?
Answer. To put it simply, NO.
Through the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress led the Nation forward on fuel economy for cars and light trucks for the first time in more
than three decades. But, instead of setting maximum feasible fuel economy standards as required by law, NHTSA did the bare minimum allowed by Congress due
to a variety of faulty assumptions.
Instead of doing the bare minimum to satisfy the law, NHTSA should put cars
and trucks on a path to 42 mpg by 2020 and at least 50 mpg by 2030. This would
cut global warming pollution from new cars and trucks in half by 2030 and would
save about 50 billion barrels of oil through 2050.
A recent UCS report indicates that automakers can cost-effectively boost the
fleetwide average fuel economy of cars and trucks to 42 mpg by 2020 and to more
than 50 mpg by 2030,1 with a modest 25 percent penetration of hybrids by 2020.2
Yet the recent notice of proposed rulemaking just barely gets cars and trucks on
the road to the 35 mpg minimum by 2020, and assumes that hybrids dont enter
the market until 2014. Yes, despite the fact that there are more than one million
hybrids on the road today, in 2008, and that the Toyota Prius is the 9th best-selling
car in America, the analysis NHTSA used assumes hybrids wont reach the market
until 2014. People are not sitting around waiting for a hybrid to show up on a dealers lot in 6 years. They are on 6 month wait lists to buy one because they are already so popular.
There are a number of additional flaws in the base analysis that unnecessarily
limit the benefits from the rule by limiting the application of available technology:
While gasoline prices soared above $3 per gallon this winter and have hovered
around $4 per gallon this summer, NHTSA relied on projections of $2.25$2.50
per gallon.
While carbon dioxide futures are currently trading at more than $40 per metric
ton in Europe, NHTSA used a value of $7 per ton. NHTSA even considered $0
per ton to be in the range of possible values. In the face of numerous economic
analyses which indicate that combating global warming will greatly reduce the
cost of adapting to climate change, factoring a $0 value into the rule is unacceptable.
NHTSA left out the military and strategic costs of Americas oil addiction.
NHTSA assumed light trucks would grow in market share, but between 2005
and 2008 the market share of light trucks sold from January to May dropped
from 54 percent to 48 percent.
1 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/redesign-documents/cleanlvehicles/UCS-Setting-the-Standard.pdf
2 http://www.ucsusa.org/news/presslrelease/new-fuel-economy-proposal-star-0111.html
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
120
NHTSA based its rulemaking on costs and benefits on the margin rather than
the total costs and benefits of improved standards.
For more details on these, and other flaws in the base analysis, please see
UCSs formal comments on the NPRM.3
Changes along these lines would redirect NHTSAs rule and EIS to illustrate the
full potential of fuel economy standards. NHTSAs own analysis confirms that simply using more realistic gas prices or switching to an analysis based on total benefits
would have led them to propose a fleetwide average of at least 35 mpg by 2015
five years earlier than the required minimum.4 Given the urgency of global warming,
and the fact that removing CO2 early on is essential to reducing the risks of dangerous climate change, NHTSA is significantly underestimating the potential environmental impact of increased fuel economy simply because they are failing to exercise their legal obligation to set standards at maximum feasible levels.
Question 2. When predicting the future costs of greenhouse gas emissions, NHTSA
cites a $7 per ton value on global warming pollution. The Europeans assign a value
of $40 per ton. Which value do you believe best approximates the costs of global
warming? Why?
Answer. Both are too low, but at least the value from Europe is a start. The value
in Europe is based on avoidance costs, i.e., what it might cost to avoid the worst
impacts of climate change. Given that impacts like the death or displacement of tens
of millions in India due to sea level rise, or the cost of increase air pollution in the
U.S. from warmer temperatures, devastation of spring and summer water supplies
in places like California that rely on snow melt for drinking and irrigation, and
many other impacts, the cost of climate change is going to be much higher than the
cost of avoiding the worst impacts. Research, such as the Stern report, indicates
that costs of ignoring climate change may be as high as 5 percent of GDP while the
cost of avoiding climate change may only be 1 percent of GDP.
Further, Europes current targets are not strong enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Our world needs to dramatically cut global warming pollution if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. For the U.S., that means
cutting global warming pollution by 80 percent by 2050, plus significant progress
along the way.
Answer. The list of important data is both too long and beyond my expertise to
comprehensively discuss here.
When it comes to improving climate information and services, first and foremost,
the Federal Government needs to provide adequate funding to NASA, NOAA, EPA
and the other important agencies that are part of the front line in developing information on the science, impacts, and solutions to climate change. Climate change
represents the single biggest environmental security threat facing the Nation and
the world and these agencies should be funded at a level that recognizes this.
Further, the scientists and others working at government agencies should never
be allowed to be muzzled and in fact, should be given clear protections in law when
they speak out either about the importance of the problem or about the abuse of
science within their agencies.
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL

DAVID FRIEDMAN
TO
Question. There have been several tax incentives targeted toward alternative fuel
vehicles, including hydrogen fuel cells, mainly for passenger vehicles. Do you see
similar value in adapting those incentives to other modes of transportation, such as
rail, or more specifically fuel cell yard locomotives?
Answer. Tax incentives can be very useful tools and should be put to work in
ways that provide clear benefit to the Nation in return for the taxpayer dollars that
are provided. This means their magnitude should be directly tied to the performance
or benefits provided. The greater the benefit, the greater the incentive.
That said, there are clear limits to what tax credits can do and they should not
be seen as substitutes for a strong cap and trade system plus specific standards
3 http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/cleanlvehicles/UCS-2011-2015-CAFE-Comments
.pdf.
4 Pages III6, IX12 and IX13. in NHTSAs Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis for their
proposed fuel economy standards for Model Year 20112015 cars and light trucks.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
121
such as vehicle greenhouse gas standards, low carbon fuel standards, and policies
to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
To the specific question of rail yard locomotives, while the greenhouse gas benefits
are not very significant, there are substantial local air quality improvements to be
made in urban rail yards, ports, airports, and other commerce/shipping hubs that
can be provided through electrification (whether through batteries or hydrogen fuel
cells).
Well designed tax incentives to encourage electrification of these commerce/shipping hubs could make sense, but the performance metrics associated with those tax
credits should be based on both global warming pollution and public health performance. Many sensitive populations have their lives deeply impacted by these facilities
and their needs and health should be addressed.
RESPONSE
TO

DAVID FRIEDMAN
TO

Answer. If the goal is to shift moving people and goods in ways that will address
global warming, save money, and reduce our oil addiction a top priority in the transportation reauthorization should be to tie Federal funding to the lifetime global
warming pollution performance of any project funded. At the end of the day, the
Federal Governments strongest transportation infrastructure tool is the power of
the purse and tying that purse to performance metrics linked to global warming pollution will help deliver what we need.
Answer. No, the Federal investment in public transportation needs to be stepped
up to help make the country more energy independent, to save consumers money
and cut global warming pollution. As of 2001, less than one-third of the U.S. population lived within about a block of a bus line, while only about 40 percent lived
within a half mile.5 The situation is even worse for rail, where only about 10 percent of U.S. population lived within a mile of a rail stop, while only about one quarter lived within five miles.6 We need to prioritize greater access to transit for Americans.
The challenge, of course, in todays economy, is where to get the money? And the
answer is user fees for highway and other road travel. We need to transition to user
fees tied to congestion, pollution, and other important impacts that are not currently
included in the daily cost of driving and that are relieved by increased use of public
transportation. This is just basic economics, people should pay for the impacts of
their road travel and the payments should be given right back to consumers in ways
that mitigate the problems.
5 Public Transit in America: Analysis of Access Using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, February
2007.
6 Ibid.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
122
Answer. The same fundamental thing missing from Americas broader energy and
climate policy is also absent when it comes to transportation planningan actual
plan! Instead of looking at individual modes, we need to look at transportation, and
all energy use, as a system and we need a comprehensive, long-term plan to move
that system in a way that preserves mobility while saving money, cutting oil use
and reducing pollution.
There will always be a need for specialized groups within DOT in order for the
agency to operate, but there needs to be a systems group that helps bring together
each of the pieces to see how they work as a whole. This is similar to some of what
has happened in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy group at DOE. EERE
has individual projects focusing on many alternative fuels and technologies, whether
hybrids or fuel cells or biofuels or conventional vehicles and fuels. But recently,
after encouragement from outside studies, they have created a whole group dedicated to looking at all the options at once. This will allow them to compare and contrast the options. Their work is in its early stages and it will not give us black and
white answers, but it helps point to the more comprehensive approach that is needed.
All of that said, if such a systems group is to be created, DOT will need more
people and resources in areas that have gotten less emphasis, such as public transit
and fuel economy.
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED

DAVID FRIEDMAN
BY
HON. TED STEVENS
TO
Question. All modes of transportation currently rely on fossil fuels and there are
no readily available alternatives. Since demand for oil is steadily increasing, how
do we balance the need to increase domestic production of oil with a transition to
alternative energy without compromising our transportation needs?
Answer. Thank you for this question.
Honestly, the data does not support the existence of a conflict between domestic
production of oil and alternative energy because domestic production potential is too
small and too long-term. Current debates around drilling in off-limits areas of the
outer continental shelf highlight the issue. According to analysis from the Energy
Information Administration, new OCS resources will not deliver in any significant
amount until 2020, will have an insignificant impact on oil and gasoline prices even
then, and will deliver only about 0.2 million barrels of oil per day, or 3 billion gallons of oil per year, between 2020 and 2030.1 In comparison, EISA requires the use
of at least 20 billion gallons of advanced and cellulosic ethanol by 2022, or the
equivalent of 15 billion gallons of oil per year. The potential for low-carbon alternative fuels dwarfs what is available from drilling on off-limits areas of the OCS
and drilling.
Even ignoring the significant delays and low volume potential of resources such
as off-limits OCS, the U.S. faces a fundamental mismatch between demand and domestic supply of oil. We simply cannot drill our way to improved energy security
because our oil resources represent less than 3 percent of the worlds supply while
use about 25 percent of the worlds oil.
This fundamental mismatch points to the need for climate and energy policy that
prioritizes reductions in demand while maintaining mobility and shifts to alternatives to oil.
We have ignored rising demand for transportation fuel over the past two decades.
Fuel economy was stuck in neutral while driving continued to grow. These are mistakes we cannot afford to repeat.
Last years energy bill (EISA) represented a good start by requiring the first mandated increase in fuel economy standards since the program first began. The Commerce Committee showed wisdom by including language that ensured that 35 mpg
by 2020 was only a minimum, but NHTSA has not followed up on that wisdom and
is only just barely on track to meet that minimum despite its own analysis indicating that existing conventional technology can bring cars and trucks to 35 mpg
by 2015, 5 years earlier. Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists indicates
that the combination of existing technology and conventional hybrids would enable
cars and trucks to go even farther on a gallon of gasoline to 42 mpg by 2020 and
to 55 mpg by 2030.
Taking this path toward improved energy security (42 mpg by 2020, 55 mpg by
2030) would cut consumer costs at the pump by half and would reduce global warm1 EIA, Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal
Outer Continental Shelf, 2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
123
ing pollution from new vehicles by the same amount. By 2030 the country would
be saving about 4.5 million barrels of oil per day compared to business as usual*2
million barrels per day more than if we just did the minimum required by EISA.
At todays oil price of more than $120 per barrel, that represents a national savings
of nearly $200 billion-a-year. When compared to the potential for 0.2 million barrels
per day from off-limits OCS and effectively no consumer savings, it is clear that
drilling should not be a priority, while efficiency should receive significant added
policy attention.
In addition to increased fuel economy, consumers need alternatives to cars and
trucks. This will require increased funding for transit, car-pooling, and telecommuting. In sharp contrast to some recent proposals, highway trust funds should not
be diverted away from these alternatives. In fact these alternatives need significantly more funding, which could be raised from per-mile fees that would cover
wear-and-tear, the costs of congestion, and the environmental and energy security
costs of oil use.
Finally, since cars and trucks will remain an important part of personal mobility,
additional renewable energy resources must be developed. This means increased reliance on low-carbon biofuels made from waste or other biomass resources that do
not put pressure on the agricultural system. In the longer run it means a transition
to cars and trucks that rely on electricity and hydrogen instead of liquid fuels. Significant amounts of electricity and hydrogen can be produced from renewable, domestic resources and will ultimately allow us to end our reliance on oil.
Thank you.
RESPONSE
TO

ED HAMBERGER
TO
Question 1. One method of regulating greenhouse gas emissions is a cap and trade
system. How do you see an overall cap and trade system influencing the transportation marketplace?
Answer. It would depend on the scope of the cap and trade system. For example,
a cap and trade system that covered only the power generation sector would affect
the mix of commodities carried by freight transporters as (1) the power sector moved
away from carbon-intensive fuels such as coal; and (2) the sector passed the subsequent higher costs of electricity production on to manufacturers, farmers, retailers
and other commercial enterprises.
A broader, economy-wide cap and trade system covering all sectors, including
transportation, would likely lead to higher fuel prices and higher transportation
rates. How these higher costs would ultimately play themselves out among all economic sectors is difficult to ascertain beforehand. Depending upon the stringency of
the cap and the costs of compliance, one potential outcome is that the relative fuel
efficiency of rail over truck transport would lead to a relative shift in freight traffic
from truck to rail.
Question 2. What impact do you think such a cap and trade system would have
on overall coal loadings in the railroad industry?
Answer. It would depend upon the nature of the cap and trade system that was
enacted. A cap and trade system incorporating a safety valve, such as that found
in S. 1766, would have a less significant impact on coal loadings than the system
in S. 2191, which does not contain a safety valve. A second consideration would be
the extent to which the emissions reduction timetable in a particular cap and trade
system is in alignment with the expected commercial availability of carbon capture
and storage (CCS) technology. Phasing in carbon reduction limits over a time period
sufficient to allow CCS to mature would ensure that utilities are not forced to abandon coal generation as an option.
Answer. The rail industry depends more heavily on Federal weather data than
it does on Federal climate data. Weather data is critical to day-to-day rail operations. Climate data is only relevant in terms of very long-term trends.
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL

ED HAMBERGER
TO
Question. As efforts are made to reduce the carbon footprint of individual modes,
such as the experimental fuel cell locomotive under developmentis there anything
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
124
the Federal Government can or should do to promote or accelerate research and development of new technologies?
Answer. We regret that the House is presently considering legislation to promote
technologies to increase the fuel efficiency of medium-to-heavy duty commercial
trucksbut not similar legislation to promote locomotive technologies. We find it
similarly unfortunate that the Department of Energy for many years has funded
heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency research, but not rail fuel efficiency research. We
believe that public policymakers should treat both modes similarly.
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

ED HAMBERGER
BY
HON. THOMAS CARPER
TO

It occurs to me that people are the same way. For example, I drive to the train station, take the train to DC and then walk to the office.
Answer. The industry has recently adopted a series of 11 principles that it plans
to use to evaluate proposals to establish a Federal freight fund. These principles are
attached.
Answer. Freight railroads are the backbone of North Americas freight transportation network, accounting for more than 40 percent of all freight transportation.
Yet capacity limits threaten to reduce the freight rail market share as well as encumber any expansion of passenger rail in coming decades. To address this economic
and environmental challenge, the rail sector supports enactment of S. 1125, the
Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act. In terms of funding from the
Federal Government, see answer to #1 (above).
ASSOCIATION
OF
AMERICAN RAILROADS
Final AAR Principles on Federal Funding of Freight Rail

There is a growing consensus that the Nation faces transportation challenges that
could threaten the competitiveness of U.S. producers and products and the mobility
of our citizens. The opportunity exists for railroads to play a significantly-expanded
role in addressing growing transportation congestion and related societal problems
such as pollution, safety, and energy independence.
Railroads are private companies that invest 17 percent of their revenue on capital
spending for plant and equipment, a figure higher than virtually any other industry
and five times the average for all manufacturing. Despite this record level of investment, future expenditures necessary to expand capacity to fully meet projected demand for railroad services and to meet other national objectives will be considerable.
The rail freight community is prepared to contribute private capital to fund its
share of proposed partnerships with the public sector. Public benefitssuch as congestion mitigation and pollution reductionwhich can result from projects associated with expanded freight utilizationare valid policy objectives for which public
funding is appropriate. Public-private partnerships do not represent a subsidy of
private beneficiaries, since a rail carrier will contribute commensurate with any
benefits it may realize when it chooses to participate.
If government policymakers determine that projects provide public benefits worthy of support, then policymakers must be willing to commit public funds commensurate with that determination, rather than relying on freight railroads to crosssubsidize the projects to the detriment of their own investment needs. Private
freight railroads should be expected to participate financially in individual projects,
but only based on the direct benefits they will receive.
It is essential that private railroad investment continue to focus on network expansion and renewing and refreshing existing infrastructure. Railroads cannot also
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
125
support the publics participation in and benefits derived from infrastructure
projects.
Accordingly, AAR subscribes to the following eleven Federal funding principles,
which fall into three categories. The first nine principles assure that Federal funding will create sustainable partnerships with public entities while maximizing the
public benefits found in rail projects. The tenth promotes freight rail as a solution
to looming transportation challenges. The eleventh clarifies that grade separations
do little to benefit rail capacity or rail productivity.
1. Federal funding and policies must not reduce and should encourage private
investment in the Nations rail system.
2. In all public-private partnerships, public benefits should be funded by public
funds, and railroad benefits should be funded by railroad funds.
3. The same funding principles should apply to projects involving other modes
of freight transportation.
4. If the Federal Government establishes a freight fund to fund public benefits
of freight rail projects, funding should not be extracted from freight transportation providers or their customers or disadvantage the economics of rail transportation. Further, freight railroads should not be required to assess or collect
any fees. The rail logistics system should not be saddled with increased costs
to fund public benefits, either directly or through a freight fund.
5. Federal fees associated with a freight fund should preempt state and local
fees, unless there is mutual agreement among the parties.
6. Any involvement by a rail carrier in public-private projects must be strictly
voluntary.
7. Federal funding of public benefits must not be in lieu of the enactment of
Federal investment tax incentives for increased private investment.
8. Federal funding must not be conditioned upon a change in the present economic regulation of the rail industry or other industry concessions.
9. Federal funding must be executed in a manner that preserves the rail industrys current ownership rights.
10. Federal freight investment should focus on key transportation projects with
significant public benefits, such as eliminating rail chokepoints, improving service to shippers, facilitating international trade, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cutting vehicle miles traveled, and improving safety. Such projects should
be selected based upon standardized, agreed-upon methodology.
11. Grade separations must continue to be regarded as primarily beneficial to
the highway/road user. They do little to increase freight rail capacity or improve
rail productivity.
Additional AAR Principles on the Reauthorization of SAFETEALU
In addition to its principles on Federal funding of freight rail, AARs principles
for the reauthorization of SAFETEALU include:
Support for separate funding for the Section 130 program;
Support for separate funding for intermodal connectors;
Support for funding for Operation Lifesaver;
Opposition (on economic grounds) to a thaw of the freeze on longer and heavier
trucks operating on the interstate highway system; and
Support for public private partnerships such as CREATE and the New Orleans
gateway project.
RESPONSE
TO
WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED

ED HAMBERGER
BY
HON. TED STEVENS
TO
Question. Rail transportation is the most efficient in terms of miles per gallon of
diesel (over 400 mpg). What can be done to get more passengers and freight on railroads while keeping in mind both still require other modes of transportation?
Answer. Comprehensive, reliable, and cost-effective rail service is critical to our
nation, and that, in turn. requires having adequate rail capacity. Railroads must be
able to both maintain their extensive existing infrastructure and equipment and
build the substantial new capacity that will be needed to meet much higher future
freight and passenger transport demand.
Our privately-owned freight railroads are working hard every day to help make
sure America has the rail capacity it needs. Theyre re-investing record amounts in
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
126
their systems ($420 billion from 1980 to 2007, or more than 40 cents out of every
revenue dollar), adopting innovative new technologies and operating plans, and forging partnerships with each other, other transportation providers, and customers.
Policymakers can help ensure that more freight and passengers move by rail by
addressing a number of serious impediments to meeting the rail capacity challenge.
A few of these impediments arc discussed briefly below.
Local Opposition to Rail Projects
Under existing law, state and local regulations (other than local health and safety
regulations) that unreasonably interfere with rail operations are preempted by Federal regulations. These Federal regulations protect the public interest while recognizing that our railroads form an integrated, national network that requires a uniform basic set of rules to operate effectively.
Nevertheless, rail expansion projects often face vocal, sophisticated opposition by
members of affected local communities. In many cases, railroads thus face a classic
not-in-my-backyard problemeven for projects for which the benefits to a locality
or region far outweigh the drawbacks.
In the face of local opposition, railroads try to work with the local community to
find a mutually-satisfactory arrangement, and these efforts are usually successful.
When agreement is not reached, however, projects can face seemingly interminable
delays and sharply higher costs.
Often, local communities allege violations of environmental requirements to challenge a proposed project, even though detailed environmental reviews, when required, already identify the impacts of rail projects and determine necessary mitigation measures. Railroads understand the goals of environmental laws and appreciate the need to be responsive to community concerns, but community opposition
to rail operations can be a significant obstacle to railroad infrastructure investments, even when the opposition has no legal basis.
Policymakers can help by taking steps to shorten the time it takes for reviews
of rail expansion projects in ways that do not adversely affect the quality of those
reviews.
Financial Sustainability
Because U.S. freight railroads are overwhelmingly privately owned and must finance the vast majority of their infrastructure spending themselves, capacity investments carry substantial financial risk. Accordingly, these projects must pass appropriate internal investment hurdlesi.e., the investments will be made only if they
are expected to generate an adequate return. Thats why policymakers should say
no to the re-regulation of railroads.
Prior to 1980, decades of government over-regulation had brought U.S. freight
railroads to their knees. Bankruptcies were common, rates were rising, safety was
deteriorating, and rail infrastructure and equipment were in increasingly poor condition because meager rail profits were too low to pay for needed upkeep and replacement. Recognizing the need for change, Congress passed the Staggers Rail Act
of 1980, which partially deregulated the rail industry.
The record since Staggers shows that deregulation works. Since 1981, rail traffic
is up 95 percent, rail productivity is up 163 percent, and average inflation-adjusted
rail rates are down 54 percent. And rail safety is vastly improvedthe train accident and employee injury rates have plunged since Staggers. Our privately-owned,
largely deregulated freight railroads competing fairly in the transportation marketplace have produced the best freight rail system in the world.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
127
Despite the severe harm excessive rail regulation caused prior to Staggers and the
enormous benefits that have accrued since then, legislation has been proposed
most recently, S. 953/H.R. 2125 (the so-called Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007) in the 110th Congressthat would re-regulate freight railroads.
Re-regulation is bad public policy and should be rejected. It would prevent railroads from earning enough to make the massive investments a first-class rail system requires. As the Congressional Budget Office has noted, As demand increases,
the railroads ability to generate profits from which to finance new investments will
be critical. Profits are key to increasing capacity because they provide both the incentives and the means to make new investments.
Under re-regulation, rail earnings, and therefore rail spending on infrastructure
and equipment, would plummet; the industrys existing physical plant would deteriorate; needed new capacity would not be added; and rail service would become
slower, less responsive, and less reliable. It would mean less freight moving by rail
when we should have more.
As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently noted, Without a doubt,
rates have decreased for most shippers, and most shippers are better off in the postStaggers environment than they were previously. This outcome suggests that widespread and fundamental changes to the relationship between the railroads and their
customers are not needed.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624HAMBQ1.eps
Public Involvement in Freight Rail Infrastructure Investment

Rail transportation demand is projected to rise sharply in the years ahead as our
population and economy grow. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) recently forecast, for example, that U.S. freight railroad demand will rise 88 percent
by 2035.
Railroads will continue to spend massive amounts of their own funds to address
their capacity challenges. However, they are, and will continue to be, unable to pay
for the socially-optimal amount of rail capacity.
128
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624HAMBQ2.eps
624HAMBQ3.eps
The magnitude of the looming freight rail capacity issue was borne out by a recent
study by Cambridge Systematics, a prominent economic and transportation consulting firm. The purpose of the study, which focused on 52,000 miles of primary
freight rail corridors, was to estimate the cost of the expansion in rail capacity necessary for Americas freight railroads to handle the 88 percent increase in rail traffic
forecast by the DOT for 2035.
The study found that if rail capacity needs are not properly addressed, by 2035
some 16,000 miles of primary rail mileagenearly one-third of the 52,000 miles covered in the studywill be so congested that a widespread service breakdown environment would exist. (Today, less than 1 percent of rail miles are that congested.)
Because our rail system is interconnected, this outcome would mean that Americas
entire rail system would, in effect, be disabled.
Class I railroads are anticipated to be able to generate (through earnings growth
from the additional traffic and productivity gains) only $96 billion of the $135 billion
needed for new capacity identified by the Cambridge Systematics study. Addressing
this shortfall is critical if railroads are to fulfill their potential in meeting Americas
freight transportation challenges.
129
One way to help bridge the funding gap is through tax incentives for rail infrastructure investments. S. 1125/H.R. 2116 (the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity
Expansion Act of 2007) calls for a 25 percent tax credit for investments in new
track, intermodal facilities, yards, and other freight rail infrastructure projects that
expand rail capacity. All businesses that make capacity-enhancing rail investments,
not just railroads, would be eligible for the credit.
A rail ITC would addresses the central challenge of how to move more freight
without causing more highway gridlock or environmental degradation. For a railroad considering whether to fund an expansion project, an ITC would reduce the
cost of the project, raising the likelihood that the project will be economically viable.
It would help worthwhile projects get built sooner, but would not be enough to cause
economically-unjustified projects to go forward.
An ITC would also stimulate the economy. U.S. Department of Commerce data
indicate that every dollar of freight rail infrastructure investment that would be
stimulated by a rail infrastructure ITC would generate more than three dollars in
total economic output. Each $1 billion of new rail investment induced by the ITC
would create an estimated 20,000 jobs nationwide. The benefits to our economy
would be broad and long lasting.
Policymakers should also support a short line tax credit. Since 1980, more than
380 new short lines have been created, preserving thousands of miles of track (much
of it in rural areas) that may otherwise have been abandoned. In 2004, Congress
enacted a 50 percent tax credit (Section 45G) for investments in short line track
rehabilitation. The focus was on assisting short lines in handling the larger and
heavier freight cars that are needed to provide their customers with the best possible rates and service.
Since Section 45G was enacted, hundreds of short lines have rapidly increased the
volume and rate of their track rehabilitation and improvement programs. Unfortunately, Section 45G expired in 2007. Pending legislation in Congress (S. 881/H.R.
1584, the Short Line Railroad Investment Act of 2007) would extend this tax credit and thus preserve the huge benefits it delivers.
Finally, a more pronounced use of public-private partnerships would help get more
freight on our rails. Public-private partnerships reflect the fact that cooperation is
more likely to result in timely, meaningful solutions to transportation problems
than a go-it-alone approach. Without a partnership, projects that promise substantial public benefits (including reduced highway gridlock and highway construction
and maintenance costs, reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced mobility) in addition to private benefits are likely to be delayed or never
started at all because it would be too difficult for either side to justify the full investment needed to complete them. In contrast, if a public entity shows it is willing
to devote public dollars to a project based upon the public benefits that will accrue,
the private entity is much more likely to provide the private dollars (commensurate
with private gains) necessary for the project to proceed.
Partnerships are not subsidies to railroads. Rather, they acknowledge that private entities should pay for private benefits and public entities should pay for public
benefits. In many cases, these partnerships only involve the public contributing a
portion of the initial investment required to make an expansion project feasible,
with the railroad responsible for keeping the infrastructure productive and in good
repair.
Promoting Passenger Rail
Freight railroads are successful partners with passenger railroads all over the
country. Around 97 percent of the 22,000 miles over which Amtrak operates are
owned by freight railroads, and hundreds of millions of commuter trips each year
occur on commuter rail systems that operate at least partially over tracks or rightof-way owned by freight railroads.
The potential national benefits of a strong national passenger rail system are significant. The key question is: under what circumstances can freight and passenger
interests advance this worthy goal?
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
130
U.S. freight railroads are moving more freight than ever before, and demand for
freight rail service is projected to grow sharply in the years ahead. Passenger rail
growth would come on top of growth in freight traffic. Thats why, going forward,
capacity will likely be the single most important factor determining our ability to
provide the high quality rail service that will be essential for both freight and passengers.
While recognizing existing Amtrak statutory authority regarding use of freight
railroad- owned facilities, the AAR has developed principles which we believe should
govern new passenger rail use of freight-owned facilities:
Freight railroads should not be forced to give passenger railroads access to their
property; rather, access should be voluntarily negotiated.
Freight railroads should be fully compensated for the use of their assets by passenger trains.
Freight railroads should be adequately protected from liability.
Freight railroads should not be asked to pay for capacity increases needed to
accommodate passenger service.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6621
JACKIE
624HAMBQ4.eps
These principles are grounded in the tremendous importance of freight railroads

to America. Freight railroads lower shipping costs by billions of dollars each year
and produce an immense competitive advantage for our farmers, manufacturers,
and miners in the global marketplace. If passenger railroads impair freight railroads and force freight that otherwise would move by rail onto the highway, those
advantages would be squandered. Moreover, highway gridlock would worsen; fuel
consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions would rise; and our mobility
would deteriorateoutcomes that are contrary to the goals of expanding passenger
rail in the first place
For these reasons, passenger rail progress must be complementary tonot in conflict withfreight rail development.
That said, there clearly are substantial public benefits from expanded passenger
rail. Indeed, as at cost of auto and air travel continue to increase and the prospect
of a carbon-constrained future increases, we have an opportunityand the need
to make far more concerted efforts than we have in the past to more fully capture
the economic, environmental, and social benefits of reliable, convenient, and comprehensive passenger rail service.
But in order to be a true transportation alternative for Americans, passenger rail,
like freight rail, cannot be achieved on the cheap. Without significant additional investment in infrastructure and equipment, Amtrak will not be able to handle all the
people that want to use it and we will fail to capture all of those benefits.
We believe that future passenger rail initiatives, especially regional or national
highspeed initiatives, will require separate assets dedicated to passenger operation.
This more visionary approach would enable faster and more reliable passenger service and minimize the substantial operational, engineering, legal, and other impediments that often hinder the ability of freight railroads to accommodate passenger
trains.
This approach will be costly, but so will any approach to meaningfully enhance
passenger rail. Freight railroads believe that the public benefits of a truly attractive
and competitive national passenger rail capability will exceed public costs, and look
131
forward to continue to work with all appropriate parties to make those benefits a
reality.
One way railroads are doing this is by working closely with Amtrak to alleviate
problems that are hindering Amtraks performance and reliability. Individual freight
railroads are currently working directly with Amtrak to identify areas where targeted infrastructure improvements that eliminate chokepoints can be made, and
where dispatching and maintenance practices can be improved. Joint, cooperative efforts like these are far more likely to result in meaningful improvements than a punitive approach. Imposing monetary penalties on freight railroads based on Amtrak
on-time performance, for example, would be neither constructive nor appropriate.
Other Transportation Modes
Obviously, neither freight or passenger railroads operate in a vacuum. Trucks, for
example, are and will continue to be absolutely critical to freight transportation and
to our economy. Thats why significant attention must be paid, and appropriate resources devoted to, other transportation infrastructure. Working as a whole, our
various transportation networks will help ensure that freight and people can get to
where they need and want to be efficiently and cost effectively.
VerDate Nov 24 2008
13:04 Feb 13, 2013
Jkt 075679
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 6601
Sfmt 6611
JACKIE

Climate Change Impacts On The Transportation Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Change Impacts On The Transportation Sector

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Change Impacts On The Transportation Sector

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S. HRG.

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

JUNE 24, 2008

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

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

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

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

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order.

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

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

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

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

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008

13:04 Feb 13, 2013

VerDate Nov 24 2008