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 ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY By ROBERT W. PINNES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Our panel started out with a "spirited discussion" on the relative merits of directed research. We asked the question: Should DOT invite proposals in broad areas defined by DOT? Our conclusion was that they should -- with the understanding that DOT is still looking for innovative thinking, but is attempting to guide the efforts into areas which DOT perceives to be most significant. We then addressed the specific question: What are the most important research needs required by 1980? We concluded that since the proposal solicitations reflecting these recommendations would not go out until next year, it was actually too late for us to make a signifi- cant impact by 1980. Such research would already have to be underway. Therefore, all our recommendations apply to research needed in the next several years in order to impact the post-1980 time period. From a relatively large number of important research needs the top seven were selected and are shown in Table l. High-Priority Research Areas for DOT in the 1980-2000 Time Frame 1. Vehicle/Guideway Interactions 2. Definition of Service Characteristics 3. Cost Models 4. Flow Management 5. Intermodal Freight/Passenger Handling 6. Reliability/Maintainability 7. Unrestricted Research TABLE 1 51
The first high priority research area we noted was vehicle/ guideway interactions. This covers vehicle dynamics and stability, vehicle/guideway contact mechanics, human comfort and cargo vibration, and impact deformation, including its relationship to occupant protec- tion. | Second, the definition of service characteristics includes descriptors and quantitative measures to predict and describe service levels across the full modal spectrum. Such service level predictions are needed to weigh against the costs required. The third area is cost models. Included are methods and techni- cal knowledge bases to predict and allocate costs vs. service, safety, and emissions across all modes. Fourth is flow management. This covers improving the capacity, safety, energy efficiency, and emissions characteristics of channels and networks through better communication control and optimization. Fifth, intermodal freight/passenger handling involves improving intermodal connectivity and reducing trip time, cost, and damage. The sixth area is reliability/maintainability. Improving vehicle and system reliability, reducing costs due to maintenance and repair, enhancing safety, and reducing the damage of hazardous material spills, are included. The final item on our list is what we have called unrestricted research. As I have mentioned before, although the desirability of directed research is appreciated, the panel recognized that innovative thinking in any area needs to be encouraged. This "need" is proposed to avoid any premature dismissal of promising ideas. In addition to the priority listing, we have some conclusions about a number of issues concerning the relative emphases of the University Research Program. I would like to make clear that these conclusions are intended to relate to the whole University Research Program, and not just to the science and technology area. The issues are listed in Table 2. We considered first the relative merits of interdisciplinary vs. disciplinary research, and we believe a proper balance would be 70 percent disciplinary and 30 percent interdisciplinary. For long-range vs. short-range research -- using these words in the context I discussed previously -- we feel the emphasis should be on long-range, 60 percent to 40 percent. For broad issues vs. specific problems, we think the University Research Program should emphasize specific problems, 70 percent to 30 52
Conclusions on Relative Emphases in OST University Research Program Interdisciplinary - - vs. - - Disciplinaty 30% 70% Long Range - - vs. - - Short Range 60% | 40% Broad Issues -- vs. - - Specific Problems 30% 704 Basic - - vs. - - Applications 40% -60% Fill Existing Gaps - - vs. - - Track Existing Programs ~ 50% 504% Develop People - - vs. - - Produce Research 50% 502% Flexible Goals - - vs. - - Specified Outputs 50% 502% Soft Science - - vs. - - Hard Science 50% 50% TABLE2 percent. For basic research vs. applications -- and again, using "basic research" not in its classical sense, but in the way it is used in the Program of University Research -- we think applications should lead 60 percent to 40 percent. Interestingly enough, the last four issues all came out 50 percent to 50 percent. These include: fill existing gaps vs. track existing programs; develop people vs. produce research; flexible goals vs. specified outputs; and, to prove once and for all that technical people are reasonable, we are willing to conclude that soft sciences should have about 50 percent of the total effort and hard sciences the other 50 percent. Finally, it is perhaps worth noting that this seems to be the year of the R&D priority. The Federal Railroad Administration and the Association of American Railroads sponsored a railroad research study in July 1975 to help them establish their R&D priorities. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration and the American Public Transit Associa- 53.
tion had an R&D Priorities Conference just last month, and now we are conducting this University Research Workshop to help us to establish priorities. I think it is fair to conclude, based on my exposure to these three efforts, that setting R&D priorities is still a rather imperfect art. One of the âimportant research needs" that was proposed at our panel meeting was to develop a more objective method for establishing R&D priorities. This was not intended to substitute for good judgment, but to help guide and support these judgments. As you have seen from our first table, this need did not make our final list, but I think it might be worth some further consideration. 54
