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 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HERBERT H. RICHARDSON MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY There are obvious interactions between technology and the issues addressed by other panels in this workshop. With respect to economics and regulation, there are three points to be made that relate to technology. First is the question of knowing the hard, technical facts. Economic analyses require a fundamental understanding of the numbers that are used. This holds both for studies of economic feasibility and also with respect to regulations. For example, what is the practical capacity of a new transpor- tation system? A trap exists in the expectation that automated, individual vehicle systems may have three to four times the capacity of a highway. Constraints placed on such systems by technology were not looked into sufficiently. For example, the question of the potential effects of com- ponent failures on the capacity of automated systems was not studied adequately. Other examples include consideration of the consequences of a regulation, such as the cost of meeting the technical requirements and the extent of the side effects. Suppose a regulation is passed to limit the smoke emitted by an aircraft. As a result, the chemical emissions may increase. What are the tradeoffs in that kind of process? Regula- tions having to do with crash survivability in automobile accidents may not have included adequate consideration of the associated cost in terms of the additional weight of the vehicle, including both the direct dollar cost of that weight and the reduction in fuel economy due to that additional weight. Emissions regulations have had deleterious effects on fuel economy. Technological facts are needed. A data and knowledge base which provides a sound basis for economic analyses and for regulatory studies is required. I would agree with the comment that Paul Roberts made, that this kind of information must be generated over a period of time, looking ahead to what the needs may be. It cannot be done on a very short-term basis. 78
The second point is the objective of finding better technical solutions rather than just working to improve existing devices and systems of management. An important aspect here is to find, through technology, better ways of using our resources. An example is the marriage of the computer to the bus routing problem. This idea hasn't been as successful yet as many people have hoped, but it has a great deal of potential, especially on a small-scale basis. The third point is that technology can and has led economic development. If you look back in history you will find that almost any system that was really new, that really represented an advance in tech- nology and a major improvement in performance and capacity, was considered not to be economically feasible when viewed at the beginning of the development. Such systems must be developed to the point where their performance and advantages can be determined in light of their potential patronage and cost. It is difficult to predict what the induced demands will be and what role new systems will play in the future development of transportation. But the efforts must be made if we are ever to make major new advances in the transportation field. With respect to the social and behavioral sciences, there is a common interest with technology in such areas as human factors and the prediction of behavior. For instance, when the highway speed limit was reduced recently to 55 miles per hour, there was a dramatic reduction in the fatality rate. But that reduction occurred primarily in the areas where the speed limit was already below the 65 to 70 mph maximum. The question is, why did fatalities drop? Why did pedestrian accidents in the city drop where the speed limits are only perhaps 20 miles per hour? Nobody really understands. There are questions about factors such as stress, and about how people perceive and accept new technologies and new systems that are out- side their present experience. It is very difficult to predict, by surveys or by looking at past experience, what the individual human reactions to a new device or new system will be. I would like to disagree somewhat with one statement made by the planning, implementation, and operations group. The statement was that the major responsibility for dissemination of research results should rest with DOT. In my view, one of the major functions of a university is to disseminate results. The university really must address the responsibility and not rely on the University Research Office or DOT. One final point: There was great emphasis in the panel reports on picking good projects as opposed to selecting areas in which to work. That is very laudable; but I would submit that picking good people and picking good ideas ought to be at least as important, and perhaps more important, than just the selection of "good projects.'' You may have projects, but if you don't have outstanding people with excellent ideas, you may not be able to solve the problems that are stated. 79
