Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
SECRETARY'S ADDRESS PANEL ON SOCIO-BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES By DOUGLAS B. GURIN URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION First, in considering university research priorities, our panel uncovered six basic substantive areas for university research in the socto-behavioral science area. We expressed our priorities both in terms of rank order numbers and as a percentage of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation university research budget that might be devoted to socio-behavioral studies. 1. Basic Travel Market Segment Behavior of Individuals or Corporate Consumers of Transportation(35 percent) This first research area has been addressed by several of the previous speakers. This area won a clear vote of high priority in our panel. Here, we wanted to emphasize that we are not particularly stres- sing modeling at all, primarily because we feel that the models should reflect knowledge which universities still need to develop -- basic fundamental knowledge about behavior. We are talking instead in terms of general subjects -- of travel patterns of different market segments, their needs, attitudes, and preferences -- and the causal relations between various aspects of life style and transportation. The stress on causality is intentional. One of the possible initial study topics would be commutation activities, especially related to peak hours. This should include more than just origins and destinations or times and costs, but also factors such as annual work trip frequencies in various occupations and sched- uling variability. The second study category includes the transportation disadvantaged -- their special problems and their most desired and effective solutions. Questions about mobility and accessibility which are now being discussed within the Urban Mass Transportation Administra- tion and in other agencies within the federal government concerning the development of elderly and handicapped transit regulations should be dealt with by behavioral scientists. Market variations must be examined in different settings - urbanized and non-urbanized settings as well as within metropolitan areas. We want to learn what differences the patterns of land develop- ment seem to make on actual travel patterns. 45
2. Institutions (20 percent) Studies of institutions ranked second in priority, but had very strong panel support. The smaller percentage of the research budget here reflects an expenditure rate of an ongoing program; the higher percentage on the previous research area reflected at least some people's concerns for some considerable initial or "front-end" research investment. The institutional studies should examine and explain both out- siders' and insiders' views of internal organization and culture of particular institutions and their relationships with other institutions. Four illustrative topics were cited by the panel: (1) the characteris- tics of publicly operated vs. subsidized private enterprise, including questions about productivity and the sensitivity to external effects; (2) the interactions of regulatory, planning, and operating agencies, especially in view of the gradual shift from focuses on big, independent highway or rail systems to other broader objectives involving low capi- tal program approaches such as transportation systems management; (3) neglected private transportation industries (such as taxis, inter- city buses, commuter airlines, independent truckers, and parcel delivery) which are facing potentially serious economic troubles; and (4) indepth studies of key institutions and their orientations towards current and potential policies. Examples of this fourth topic might be the involve- ment of labor unions with transit innovations or employers' attitudes and commitments to ride-sharing programs. 3. Social Impact Assessment (20 percent) Social impact assessment has the same 20 percent resource alloca- tion figure as the previous priority. It addresses the impacts of policies and programs primarily as well as those of specific projects. These assessments should cover transitional short-term imple- mentation impacts as well as long-term impacts. More concern is needed about the distribution of these impacts among all population subgroup- ings. There seems to be a particular need for much better benefit measurement. We have worked extensively on transportation costs, but have not really addressed many economic and noneconomic benefits. Research is recommended on psychological, sociological, and cultural benefits of existing and proposed transportation systems as perceived by the individuals in the different market groups. Better benefit assessment is of special relevance to forecasting public responses to policies that could change the nature and extent of benefits. Consideration of problematic impacts is encouraged. For example, we should determine whether the comprehensive planning requirements of 46
the federal government have actually resulted in major consequences in terms of system development. Has the federal policy shift from high- ways to transit resulted in mode use or investment changes? Does U.S. public policy, which has direct influence on a small percentage of the total transportation funding, have a significant impact on transporta- tion delivery at the local level? The panel members foresee that universities would make major contributions in advancing the state-of-the-art of social impact assess- ment and its analysis concepts and techniques. (We are not talking here about universities preparing conventional environmental impact state- ments.) 4. Elasticities (10 percent) Empirical studies of elasticities, which deal with peoples' behavioral responses to transportation system changes, received a rank order of four. Panel members expressed interest in elasticity studies by population segments -- segments that reflect changes of non-price factors of transportation systems. Comparative elasticities of travel requirements were of interest, too; for example, how do traveler sub- groupsâ trip purposes or destinations change as costs and other trans- portation system features are modified? Lastly, studies of cross- elasticities that involve paratransit, pedestrian, and other modes, are encouraged, but not just the simple automobile-transit split. In general, there was less interest expressed concerning better models of elasticity patterns, at least in the short-run, than in the development of a more fundamental knowledge base of traveler behavior. We feel that elasticity knowledge by itself is relatively insufficient to explain problems and perceptions of activities such as car pooling or to anticipate the travel responses of handicapped persons. 5. Non-Incremental Change (10 percent) The fifth-ranked area dropped down to 10 percent of socio- behavioral research expenditures. Non-incremental change research should involve the development of scenarios to reflect dramatic and sizable changes in transport resources; a case example might be cur- tailed fuel o11 supply. Analysis would cover economic and other be- havioral responses that are likely to result, depending on the nature of the project scenarios. Contingency planning would examine how we might build institutions or services that could respond to these non- incremental changes. Relevant university research has begun, for instance, on potential roles of the automobile/highway systems in the future. 47
6. Consumer-Institutional Issues (5 percent) The sixth-ranked and last research area is consumer-institutional issues, where socio-behavioral specialists would try to obtain con- sumers' perceptions of and grievances about the transportation system. Here we are talking about both public and private goods and services. Examples include the quality of the automobile and the support systems connected with it, delivery of transit services, and government trans- port regulation and policing. An objective is to learn the ways that institutions listen, hear, and respond to different consumer signals, and to find how this process works. We need to identify the relatively effective ways that the responsiveness of manufacturers and service institutions might be increased (either through public action or through various private actions). And lastly, we need to find out what public education approaches are most needed to effectively dis- seminate consumer information about products, services, and consumer rights. We next turned our attention to the identification of research methods and approaches. The objective was to get an idea of new orien- tations or changes in emphasis. There were some fairly strong suggestions towards increasing new data development and analysis, particularly with the use of case studies; some carefully designed surveys and data collection; and comparative and historical studies, both cross-culturally and among different studies of the subject. Design and evaluation of demonstration projects -- but not their man- agement -- may also be useful roles for universities. Further analysis of models and their application was supported to include a critical look at existing models and how they might be used; but a relative deemphasis was suggested on some of the development of new models, at least during the next few years. Lastly, we tried to identify some of the areas of relative university competence. The first singled out was the universitiesâ ability to synthesize extensive masses of data and to develop improved perspectives and theories. There may be some very high payoffs from small investments for both professors and graduate students to do some developmental work on socio-behavioral aspects of transportation supply and demand. Universities have a continuity that perhaps consulting companies and other information-gathering and analysis institutions may not have which is necessary for certain studies with relatively long time hori- zons. However, there is recognition of an unfortunate reality, that university turnaround time seldom permits rapid policy analyses. Potentially controversial studies might be better handled in some cases by universities than by other research institutions that might be dependent on federal aid or fearful of blackballing by a 48
disapproving transportation industry. Here we are talking particularly about economic or political case studies of key institutions. Labor-intensive research that can be done by students can be a university asset; fruitful research could include case study develop- ment, bibliographic analysis, and program inventories. In summary, the socio-behavioral research topics were identified, given a priority, and identified with an approximate per- centage share of the total research budget in this area: (1) market segmentation, 35 percent; (2) institutions, 20 percent; (3) social impact assessment , 20 percent; (4) travel elasticities, 10 percent; (5) non-incremental changes, 10 percent; and (6) consumer-institutional issues, 5 percent. 49
