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.
MODERATOR'S ADDRESS ON SOCIO-BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES ALAN ALTSHULER MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY So that I do not forget them, let me explicitly address three issues that Ann Friedlaender raised in connection with our report. With respect to two of them at least, our position was, in fact, very similar to that which she expressed. There were one or two members of our panel who thought, at least initially, that perhaps the universities had a significant role to play in collecting large amounts of new data. The predominant view, however, was that the universities are much better at synthesis, at codification, at development of theory, at analysis of data require- ments, and at the design of data collection efforts, than they are at the generation of large amounts of data. The exceptions that we envisioned with respect to data collection were certain kinds of activity, such as case study development and bibliographic work, in which graduate student effort might very fruitfully be used. Second, Ann found it surprising that the economists were not terribly enthusiastic about the development of additional models whereas the socio-âbehavioral group appeared to be. Actually, we instructed our reporter, and I thought he did very well, to emphasize that we were against the development of new models. We were intensely aware of the fact, however, that the modeling orientation has so permeated this field that our call for the development of fundamental knowledge about the transportation requirements of specific population subgroups would be interpreted in many quarters as a call for modeling. In fact, our concern was that models are necessarily based on the existing knowledge base at a given moment. That knowledge base at the present time com- prises predominantly census and origin-destination data. These are inadequate for many purposes. Most of the models have been developed on the basis of origin-destination data collected in a single metro- politan area at a single point in time. Very little is known about the relationships that Sam Klausner addressed in his paper yesterday -- between travel demand patterns and the requirements and lifestyles of subgroups within the population. Similarly, little is known about the potential for change as and if major features of the postwar market and policy structure bearing upon travel choice should change 74
dramatically. So, here again our position was in fact very similar to that of the economists. I am glad that the issue was raised, because I think it is very difficult to hear the message that we were trying to send -- namely, that while there is a need to analyze the models that we have, particularly the evidential bases on which they rest, large expenditures on the development of new models should not at present be a priority of the University Research Program. Third, Ann maintained that the major problems of urban America are not transportation problems. This is, of course, true. It is equally true, however, that the major problems of the nation are not transportation problems. The key issues with which we should be con- cerned, however, are those which bear significantly upon the ways in which transportation patterns and policy choices affect those problems which are the main problems of the nation. In the urban areas, these particularly include issues of equity, the fiscal crisis, and so on. It is as transportation is related to these major problems of the urban areas that urban transportation research is likely to be highly important research. | If one looks at the major recent shifts in transportation policy, from major capital investment, for example, to Transportation System Management (TSM) as an emphasis in the urban areas, these are direct products of the emerging fiscal crisis and the associated sense of austerity that has come to government at all levels in the United States. These are, indeed, very fundamental to our understanding of the capacity of government at the present time. In short, I think the economists have a larger role to play in the urban area than they were perhaps giving themselves credit for. The tools of economic analysis can be of extraordinary importance in helping us better to understand the relationships between transportation and the remainder of the urban system. It is easier for economists to perceive their potential contributions with respect to intercity transportation because they have historically focused on intercity topics. Our panel hoped that the economists would increasingly join the social and behavioral scientists in analyzing some of the urban issues as well. Let me briefly review what I saw to be some clustering of views among the panels rather than emphasizing the differences among them. In our discussions of distinctive university competence, we did not focus exclusively on those areas in which we thought the universities were uniquely competent relative to other research institutions. Rather, we concentrated on identifying those areas in which the universities themselves could make their most useful contributions. If one has a commitment to supporting research in the university environment, and one wants to get the best possible product from that investment, it is important to think not only of where the universities are best relative to anyone else, but also of where the universities can themselves perform most usefully. 75
In general, I perceive a clustering of views around the theme that the universities are best at developing fundamental concepts, per- spectives, critical analyses, and syntheses of large masses of data. They have much less to contribute in the area of collecting large masses of data. The exceptions to this latter generalization involve types of data collection that are inextricably combined with critical analysis and hypothesis generation -- most notably, the development of case studies. There was also agreement that the universities should not, in general, be called upon for tasks that require rapid turnaround and the establishment of quick policy fixes. There are many consulting firms that can perform these functions better. With respect to substantive priorities, I heard three of the panels clustering around a set of recommendations. The exception was the science and technology panel. Jim Romualdi's paper that was pre- pared for this panel, however, did express similar priorities to those that I think I heard emerging from the other three panels. The first main priority I heard was that attention should focus on issues associated with the management of a limited infrastructure. The historic pattern, by contrast, was to focus on "needs" for capital- intensive infrastructure expansion. This priority found its expression in the language of Transportation System Management (TSM) in the planning and behavioral science groups, and in the language of efficient pricing and regulatory strategy in the economics group. Within the broad management framework as well, there was a great interest in equity issues: not primarily in devising new programs to aid transportation- disadvantaged subgroups, but rather in developing more fundamental understandings of just what their problems are, of how their trans- portation problems relate to their other problems and to their overall life styles, and of how specific policy options impinge upon their interests. The second main focus was on institutional issues. These embrace a wide variety of concerns. Why are many technologies of great apparent promise not implemented? What is the impact of public policy on a variety of transportation industries -- not just those that govern- ment regulates, subsidizes, or operates directly, but also those that have to compete with such publicly-affected industries? How, for example, are the intercity bus carriers affected by government support for Amtrak? How is the taxi industry affected by government support for transit -- which increasingly includes support for demand respon- sive, door-to-door transit services? How do various key institutions within the transportation arena relate to one another? How do they conceive their interests, their constituencies, their allies, their problems, and their roles in the influence structure. The third main focus of interest that I heard was on the need for improved understanding of the transportation system as a complex 76
system, with numerous aspects impinging constantly upon one another in a dynamic fashion. What are the relationships, e.g., between service costs, performance characteristics, social and environmental impacts, distri- butional impacts, changing economic patterns, patterns of influence and authority within the governmental system, and so on? A specific topic that was suggested for systems treatment was the choice process between public regulation, subsidization, and direct operation in creating and addressing key problems in transportation. Choices are regularly made, but relatively little is known about the consequences likely to flow from the selection of one option versus another. One final point: There appeared to be a widespread feeling (which I very much share) that priority should be given to research bearing upon the possibility of large changes in the transportation system as we know it today. Historic and international comparative research particularly merit priority in this context, even though it is difficult to conceive in advance precisely what relevance they may have to the immediate issues with which policymakers at a given moment are preoccupied. We should not neglect the need for fresh thought about the perspectives and understandings that provide the intellectual frame- work within which short-term policy analysis occurs. We should not act like moles, totally preoccupied with performing the immediate tasks before us as they have emerged and been conceptualized within the past decade or so in this one country. It is very hard, of course, for the University Research Program to escape the short-term mission orientation of the larger agency of which it is a part. Most of us feel strongly, however, that those responsible for the program should strive as vigorously as possible to broaden its horizons. DOT will presumably be around for a very long time to come. As an agency disbursing over $10 billion a year, and as the only important patron of policy research within a sector of the economy that accounts for upwards of $250 billion a year, it would do well to spend a few million dollars a year thinking about the large changes to which the transportation system may have to adapt 10, 20, or 30 years hence. 77
