- Campuses :
- Twin Cities
- Crookston
- Duluth
- Morris
- Rochester
- Other Locations
The purpose of the day's session is to identify potential research topics, knowledge areas and future skills that transportation professionals and students must acquire to help successfully meet future transportation challenges.
Today is just one part of a larger scope of activities between the Center for Transportation Studies (CTS) and the State and Local Policy Program, with the hope of further strengthening the research ties between these two groups and the Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute (ITS) at the University of Minnesota.
Lee Munnich: Director, State and Local Policy Program (Overview of the Day's Program)
Mr. Munnich opened his comments by noting that SLPP has had an ongoing partnership with CTS, focusing on public policy and planning related research. SLPP is tied closely with the Urban and Regional Planning degree program, and provides an excellent outreach opportunity to transportation related work.
Some Bullet Points Highlighted:
1. Transportation planners in the future will need a much more broad knowledge/education base and set of skills - educating planners with more technical knowledge from civil engineering
2. Understanding new institutional realities and how to manage transportation projects; governments both implementing and understanding new tools and technologies that shape the transportation system
3. Understanding new technologies and tools to help planning efforts, maintaining these technological systems and privacy/security concerns
4. Better service performance and measures thereof to understand how to serve the public through data analysis and decision making
5. Sustainability and environmental concerns in the transportation networks
Mr. Munnich then discussed what some of the STAR/TEA-21 funds and projects such as congestion pricing and technology and land use, and suggested that while not all researchers were present at the days meeting, perhaps those who where (Dr. Levinson, Dr. Krizek and Dr. Horan) might discuss some of their work with the larger group as a starting point.
First Panel: Laurie McGinnis (Moderator); Dr. Steve Simon, Dr. Kevin Krizek, Dr. David Levinson, Dr. Max Donath, Dr. Gary Barnes
Ms. McGinnis opened discussion by once again identifying the panelists and their research backgrounds at the University of Minnesota.
Dr. Kevin Krizek: Assistant Professor, Urban and Regional Planning, Humphrey School
Dr. Kevin Krizek has focused his STAR/TEA-21 research on information and communications technologies in transportation planning and travel fields, telecommuting and non-work related travel behavior. Concerning non-work travel, Dr. Krizek's research has focused on three areas: banking, shopping and entertainment as reasons for trips. These three where chosen because they replicated a 1995 Susan Handy survey to determine how travel patterns and behaviors have changed overtime.
Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Seattle where chosen as test cities for his research, and survey's were mailed out to participants, completed and returned. He mentioned the Innovation Diffusion Hypothesis, which suggests urbanites are on the forefront of technology but value interaction while suburbanites are likely to use technology to reduce travel behaviors for certain trips. The findings have suggested that some types of travel and trips have been changed, but that urbanites differ from suburbanites in terms of shopping behavior - urbanites tend to purchase more goods online due to congestion concerns while suburbanites value making a trip to a regional shopping center for goods and services.
"One person's meat is another person's poison." Lifestyles, socioeconomic characteristics, the particular day the survey was conducted all factor into how people make choices in travel behavior. The final stream is to evaluate how ICT has evolved from 1995 to 2003, and a new paper is coming out looking at both survey's and how they mirror national trends. This work is being conducted with Susan Handy.
Dr. Krizek has focused on the spatial attributes and built environment impacts on choices of individuals for the routes they take and trip-making behaviors. Dr. Krizek mentioned the experience factor as being an important factor and perhaps discovery that has been made through his research on why individuals choose the routes they do for trips and activities. How an area looks and feels to people will shape their choice as to whether or not they feel comfortable traveling through particular areas to get to their desired destination.
Finally, Dr. Krizek mentioned some additional research he has been involved with focused on open enrollment and transportation behavior. Specifically, looking at the impacts of open enrollment at schools and the associated transportation costs, looking at the emissions related to these trips and the impacts on children and children's health issues (air pollutant exposure), with extra bussing (as opposed to walking perhaps) etc. Dr. Krizek noted that the research he has conducted indicates that from an emissions perspective, open enrollment and the Safe Routes to Schools program may be operating at cross-purposes to one another.
Question from Dr. Wachs: Was there any investigation of whether people felt that their well-being had been enhanced? The number of trips is only one measure of the benefit of increased access and ICT. Response: We didn't really get into that type of research, and that type of question probably won't be raised because of the difficulty of obtaining responses.
Dr. David Levinson: Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota
Dr. David Levinson opened his remarks by saying he felt that lengthy grant opportunities were an excellent opportunity to become involved in a project and allowed both the researchers and students to explore further research work generated by the initial projects with a constant stream of funding. Dr. Levinson was quite pleased that the STAR/TEA-21 funds had allowed him to help support the work of numerous graduate students and projects he had been involved with over the years.
Dr. Levinson discussed his work on agent-based route and travel demand modeling for determining when and where people make trips. A large part of this research was devoted to examining network growth, and how travel demand influence where investments are made in a transportation network, and subsequently how these investments determine travel demand. Dr. Levinson suggested that our existing travel demand models were old, but that we haven't come up with anything terribly new, and it would be important to look for new models. His research has focused on developing new models to understand travel behavior as opposed to traffic zones or more aggregate units of analysis to understand decision-making behavior.
Several of the undergraduate and graduate courses offered by the Department of Civil Engineering are incorporating these network growth models, and computer simulation to understand how changes on routes affect other routes and what can be done.
Looking forward, Dr. Levinson suggested that it would be important for UMN students to use the Twin Cities as an incubator model for the connection between transportation and land use. David also strongly recommended that we begin to introduce more computer modeling and simulation modeling into the classroom to familiarize young transportation planners/students with the tools that will be necessary for the future to help see how capacity issues can be solved or may become worse.
Question from Dr. Elizabeth Wilson: What are the "other factors" you mentioned? Response: Time is important, so are the number of stops along the way (using GPS technology), the aesthetic value of the route (placing people on different routes and the route characteristics were rated) to predict preferences for routes.
Dr. Gary Barnes: Research Fellow, State and Local Policy Program, Humphrey School
Dr. Barnes discussed the economics of transportation and reasons for choices and options offered. This not only had to do with route choices (in terms of savings in time and money) but more with modal choice. His research has also focused on the providers and "funders" & vehicle uses to maximize efficiency within the system. Dr. Barnes suggested that there were a high number of transportation service providers who had vehicles to transport those with specific needs, however, in some cases, there were only a few people which met the qualifications for such a ride, and some "funders" were paying for vehicles not being used for a large portion of the day. Dr. Barnes indicated that some of his research had also focused on collaborative approaches between agencies to maximize vehicle use to serve multiple client bases.
Dr. Barnes' research has focused on community transportation, from personal transportation to transit to special transportation needs (paratransit). From a policy perspective, paratransit issues have not received the attention they deserve, and information on the special needs of travelers should be addressed in the future.
Dr. Barnes noted that there are numerous federal and state aid programs designed to fund community transportation needs, but that those organizations which receive funding can only do so much with it, or provide transportation services as part of the service to their clients. There are also regulatory measures on the type of vehicle that can be used for specific purposes. Dr. Barnes suggested that a question to consider is who can receive a ride and who cannot based on certain characteristics between the riders/clients and the legislative decisions governing funding.
Dr. Barnes also discussed surveying users to understand their use of the transportation system, and institutional constraints and political barriers affecting transportation. Specifically, identifying why they chose the services they did, and what their needs require of a transportation service. This question can also help us understand how the system in total is performing for all users, and not just those with private vehicles etc.
Question from Jim Grube: How do you handle the conflict of transportation as a right, necessity or privilege? Response: What are the choices we make when we chose service options - what are the implications of making one decision over another? These are value decisions and not necessarily an efficiency decision. Therefore, understanding the impacts of these value decisions is difficult.
Question from Mark Larson: Have you scoped the magnitude of the service providers and how vehicles are being used to develop these conclusions? Response: We conducted a survey in the last year to evaluate the effectiveness of agencies offering transportation services in some form or another, of which there are approximately 3,000 organizations. Getting at the question of how the vehicles are being used is difficult, because some vehicles are being used for other purposes beyond transporting people.
Comment from Arlene McCarthy: There are values associated with these groups, but there are political issues which need to be addressed. Ms. McCarthy suggested that there might be problems with "mission creep," in terms the groups mission and values.
Additionally, there are resource issues that need to be considered. While we might think that it would be more efficient to combine services, there are other costs which need to be evaluated and communicated.
Dr. Steve Simon: Professor, University of Minnesota Law School
Dr. Steve Simon, who came to provide input into privacy related concerns and transportation, indicated that the majority of his research has focused on rural transportation safety and crashes related to alcohol abuse. He noted that people were 5 times more likely to die in a rural crash as opposed to an urban crash in part related to the emergency response time, but also in part related to the abuse of alcohol.
Transportation planners must consider that "one size does not fit all" and that rural versus urban transportation issues are not alike. In terms of privacy considerations, Dr. Simon indicated that different groups of drivers have result in different considerations of privacy issues. For example, Dr. Simon noted that with his work on impaired drivers, drivers who use alcohol have given up privileges and protections because of their high risk behavior. Teen's also have few privacy protections, because parents are responsible for their children and have a right to know specifically what it is they are doing; here he referenced a parent's ability to search a child's room. But older drivers, another high risk category of driver, have much more challenging privacy concerns that must be considered.
Technology has allowed government tremendous access into locating an individual and tracking their movements, and a question is whether this will be imposed on drivers or will drivers have the ability to control and provide what information they wish. Dr. Simon suggested that Implied Consent is an interesting project being applied by the state to collect information for institutional purposes. A tremendous amount of work needs to be done on communicating the message of injuries
Question from Jim Grube: What role does the insurance industry play in terms of increased costs for insurance because of either impaired drivers, elderly or teen drivers? Response: On an overt basis, insurance is actuarially based, but insurance is primarily based on driver's records within categorized groups. One question to consider is who pays the cost for unsuccessful trips (crashes)? The problem is that we assume most people are covered with insurance, and this is a fallacy. One problem is that the cost for getting a license back following an arrest for drunk driving is approximately $750 dollars. The problem becomes people being able to afford insurance payments, and opting out of paying premiums for insurance and dropping coverage. It is likely that the number of those drivers with insurance have dropped significantly in the last 10 years. One concept being evaluated is Insurance at the Pump, a rational idea that provides drivers with insurance for each trip between fill-ups.
Question from Jonathon Gifford: We have relied on technology to improve our traffic safety: Anti-lock breaking, airbags, and stability control systems. We have been reluctant to impose behavior limitations on drivers. Response: That's an important question that needs to be explored. Law enforcement management professionals are tremendously concerned about "loosing control of the roads." One reason, we have not kept pace with the ratio/number of officers on the roads and the increasing VMT of travelers on the roads. As we dilute this ratio, young drivers are less likely to violate the law because they know more officers are watching. There is also a concept of 'Me'ism' on the roads; if one person can purchase a bigger car then another, they have more rights on the roads, which is present in driving behavior (more speeding, tailgating, e.g. risk behavior) and subsequently there is less societal compliance for the safety regulations imposed.
Response Question from Jonathon Gifford: The initial question was trying to get a little more to how in Europe there is a willingness to monitor driving behavior, where as that would be completely unacceptable in America. Response: We live in a different society, and have a different constitutional and societal value structure. The bottom line is that we are loosing control of the roads and the safety regulations imposed.
Max Donath: Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Director of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute, University of Minnesota
Dr. Max Donath's research at the ITS institute has focused on policy and planning research related to technology. By ITS, Dr. Donath indicated that we are discussing communications and computing and their impact on safety mobility. Dr. Donath noted that the vast majority of citizens around the world travel with cell phones on a regular basis, and with transportation being location-based, the question becomes how can we take advantage of this technology to improve our safety and mobility.
The challenge is how we can use the funding we have effectively to improve our transportation system within a given time frame for research to be conducted. Dr. Donath's challenge to the conference participants was to determine how we could "push the envelope" to find solutions to this problem. The notion that our culture is different and the fact that we can drive with radar detectors to locate police vehicles says a tremendous amount about how our society and behavior has changed and we must address this.
Dr. Donath indicated that he liked that term "Human-centered technology," saying he felt technology should adapt to humans, rather then humans adapting to technology. Our challenge must also be to involve policymakers and planners to develop new approaches that help attract people to transit and other services away from the personal automobile.
Dr. Donath further mentioned that we must be careful with new transportation systems being adaptable to all age ranges, particularly older drivers understanding and being able to use new technologies to their advantage on the roadways.
Dr. Donath mentioned privacy issues like Dr. Simon before him, noting the use of cameras to stop red-light runners as a simple mechanism that has proven its effectiveness but which is not being used (for legal reasons). "It's a problem when we have the technology but aren't willing to take advantage of it." Our challenge must be to conduct research into policy, planning and legal systems along with education to develop the future transportation system.
Comment from Jim Grube: Dr. Donath and Dr. Simon are discussing safety, however, a question we must consider is freedom versus safety (Mr. Grube referenced the Great American Think-Off debate he recently heard).
Comment from Dr. Simon: Parents are able to impose rules on children to address behavior issues, and perhaps if we begin to educate and work with parents to change behaviors at a younger age with the use of technology, we might be able to reduce future problems as children grow into adulthood.
Dr. Tom Horan and Lee Munnich responded with comments concerning the notion of institutional responses and privacy. Dr. Horan: There is an institutional capacity issue as to what organizations can and cannot due/handle; while we have systems in place, we don't always know how to integrate these systems to smoothly coordinate responses to problems. Lee Munnich: Colin Bennett came from Vancouver, B.C., and on issue he raised was how we protect the rights of the individual; most countries have commissions responsible for reviewing and legislating privacy issues, but the U.S. has a much more dispersed privacy policy, and the public has a strong notion about the protection of privacy, and the vehicle is an extension of their own home. Response: Colin Bennett (a privacy expert who gave a lecture at the Humphrey School during the last academic year) made a valid point that we do not trust our government, that "they or it" can protect our privacy. He noted the Department of Veterans Affairs loosing a laptop with thousands of Social Security Numbers. The question is can we trust private industry to do a better job? On numerous occasions, the private sector has lost vital information, and it behooves us to find out how we can use technology to improve the trust in transportation providers, planners; how do we make these systems more transparent, which is extremely important. If there is a mistake, can we as private individuals correct the mistake? There is a tremendous divide between the folks who provide technology and those using the transportation network and we must work to bridge the divide for more efficiently managed and safer roads.
Question from Mark Larson: We know that America is resistant to regulations; bus has anyone considered the user costs of the chronically impaired drivers? If there is a group that is chronic, are we considered imposing the costs of their activities back on them versus all drivers. Response from Dr. Simon: We have looked at some of these issues, for example in property damage related crashes, but it's a narrow look, and not complete. Part of the difficulty is in tracking the results of these cases. Dr. Simon referenced traveling southbound on I-35W out of the Minneapolis area at 11 PM on a Saturday evening, suggesting that it was a very busy time on the roadway, and that typically 1 in 15 drivers is impaired at that time, but with limited law enforcement, we are only able to capture a fraction of these individuals, thus making it difficult to understand the entire cost on a transportation system, but that it is a cost barred none-the-less by the entire system even if certain individuals are not caught.
Panel 2: Dr. Tom Horan (Moderator), Dr. Joe Sussman (MIT), Dr. Marty Wachs (RAND Corporation), Dr. Jonathon Gifford (GMU)
Dr. Tom Horan opened the discussion by questioning how research can help build new skills which transportation and infrastructure planning professionals will need to manage the transportation and infrastructure systems of the future. Information Technology (IT) is a driving force behind the future of a transportation system, just as it is in the business world, and information about services and products - feedback - is vital to understanding the performance of the system. Dr. Horan referenced the effectiveness of businesses like UPS, constantly evaluating their performance as a company, and questioned how some of these same types of feedback could be used in the public sector to help make improvements.
Dr. Horan then raised several questions for panelists and other conference participants to consider: How is information exchanged or not exchanged between agencies (using the example of emergency response agencies)? The behavior of an organization to assist the individual but also share information is critical. How does an organization effectively manage the users? How does real time & information enrich the infrastructure and how do we measure its performance? Dr. Horan followed these questions by introducing the conferences three national panelists, Dr. Joseph Sussman, Dr. Jonathan Gifford, and Dr. Marty Waches.
Dr. Joseph Sussman: Professor of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Joseph Sussman opened his remarks with a discussion of how the transportation field has evolved over time. He then discussed the notion of CLIOS: Complex, Large Scale, Interconnected, Open, Socio-technical System, which he suggests requires advanced mathematics and a strong emphasis on institutional change. To this point, the transportation system as we know it has been relatively static, however, Dr. Sussman suggests "We are dealing in an era of institutional change, and a new concept of what I call enterprise architecture." Dr. Sussman noted that we are talking about the integration of transportation into other socio-technical systems, along with an expanded role of stakeholders, and finally all the idea of macro-design performance consideration for the transportation enterprise.
Dr. Sussman discussed what he called the Three Eras of Transportation Planning/Engineering:
* Infrastructure Era (Highways)
* Transportation Era
* Transportation as CLIOS Systems Era
With Dr. Sussman thoughts on enterprise architecture, stakeholder definition and macro-design performance as critical facets of the transportation system, he discussed what he saw as necessary tools for the future transportation professional to be equipped with to manage both the current system and future changes/challenges. All of the aforementioned points were tied to the following discussion:
1. Advancing Technology: Dr. Sussman argued that we need to incorporate technology and an operations focus in classrooms and toward today's transportation planners. Transportation professionals need to consider how the system can be tailored to customer service, and we need to sufficiently educate future planners on how to achieve the greatest good for the greatest many in some cases (this is paraphrased from his discussion and not a direct quote). Dr. Sussman noted that the highway system was one dimensional, in that the government provided a high speed road that anyone could travel on, but that now, we are over capacities on most highway roads, and have entered into congestion pricing options which make the system a more customer oriented system (to denote choice). Dr. Sussman suggested that "we are speaking of a higher and more effective level of intermodelism, extending into what is called supply-chain management." IT is a new form of intermodelism for both freight and traveler information, in the sense that we can now further link different modes to serve the user.
2. Disaggregate demand modeling is critical for the future transportation professional. Real-time network control and management of traveler information systems is necessary, as is safety of network users. In addition to these approaches, other demands are being placed on the system related to technology: information environment, optimization of routes, vehicle automation & crash avoidance (his point here was that we might also focus on avoiding the crashes in the first place by enhancing safety in the roadway). Dr. Sussman also suggested that research into sophisticated pricing, yield management in other modes and congestion or environmental pricing are other topical areas we might consider based on the technology that is available. Dr. Sussman finally suggested regionally scaled transportation management - controlling the transportation enterprise within the regional scale based on the technology that is available. Sitting economists who indicate that competition in the marketplace (in today's world) takes place at the regional level, and environmentalists suggest that we must manage the environment at a regional level. We now have the transportation technologies to enable us to manage the various networks at the regional levels, and we might consider how to use these tools best.
3. Institutional Change: Dr. Sussman suggested that institutional change was only one of five points within the CLIOS system that must be considered, suggesting that institutional change is the "other side of the coin," allowing transportation professionals to utilize the available technologies. Changes in the level of service at different levels of government - the federal government no longer pays 90 percent of the cost for a new freeway, and state and local governments were being asked to do more. Dr. Sussman argued that there needed to be changes made in the private sector, and that public/private partnerships should be considered. Dr. Sussman indicated that there was tremendous "buzz" within the transportation community about advancing relationships between the public and private sectors concerning HOT roadways and infrastructure, and what these relationships mean for the future of transportation networks. Finally, he argued that we needed to examine the relationship between supply chain management and regional strategic planning process.
4. Global Perspectives: Enabled by technology, we must consider how . The challenge of operating regionally with technology, however, given the institutional pressures that exist, we might consider examining how governments can relax some sovereignty and privacy issues in the interest of a regionally scaled transportation network. Dr. Sussman further suggested that research on supply chain management needs at the regional level would also be necessary.
Question from Jim Grube: Referencing a comment made by Dr. Sussman earlier, Mr. Grube asked what are we competing for in Dr. Sussman's mind? Response: Dr. Sussman indicated that we are competing for economic activity regionally, better quality of life for the residents of the region. We are competing intra-regionally and globally. As part of this answer, Dr. Sussman suggested that there were two dimensions to consider: traditional performance measures at the regional scale and flexibility & performance for response. Response Comment: Mr. Grube responded by suggesting that a barrier to economic development from a transportation perspective could be the land use controls instituted by governments, to which Dr. Sussman agreed.
Dr. Marty Wachs: RAND Corporation
Opening with a story about the Rose Bowl football game and the technical proficiency with which agency handle mass movements of people into and out of large events, Dr. Martin Wachs sought to emphasize the point that complex changes to transportation systems might fail if subjected to the most simple of changes. "We are well into the intelligent transportation systems age, but there are fatal gaps." He argued that there was an unevenness between ITS & the current transportation system. Agencies are slower to change then technology, and as Dr. Donath mentioned earlier, if the technology is available, why isn't it being used more frequently.
Dr. Wachs then discussed how metropolitan and regional planning practitioners all have different opinions and experiences with technological changes, and used the example of CalTrans. Dr. Wachs highlighted an Elizabeth Deakin study which examined the mainstreaming of ITS systems in California, funded by CalTrans. Students interviewed CalTrans officials about how they were adapting and adopting ITS systems for deployment, which found that proponents in different agencies affiliated with ITS programs had different exposures and reactions to ITS systems, different confidence levels and different levels of knowledge. As a result, Dr. Wachs suggested that we continue to support engineering work and attempt to integrate ITS more regularly in the curriculum to make new transportation planners more comfortable with the emerging technology.
Dr. Wachs also discussed exploring the differences in race, age, sex etc., within transportation issues and needs. There was a question concerning how a policy such as ramp metering might be discriminatory, why? Wachs responded that this would be a fundamental research question to consider. He suggested the following question: Why do people believe that ramp metering is discriminating toward specific ages, races, groups etc? Building on this question, Dr. Wachs suggested that research could be conducted to understand how elderly travelers used ITS related functions (web based or vehicle technologies) when making decisions on route choices in trips or other transportation related/required activities.
Dr. Wachs further noted that a research opportunity exists to understand cost effectiveness of building new lanes, traditional traffic control systems versus alternative strategies and how they affect the overall performance of the transportation network. Would agencies be better served enhancing ITS for truckers etc to reduce congestion or using dollars to improve hard road technologies to help reduce problems (a better pavement that lasted longer and provided better grip between the vehicle and road)?
Dr. Wachs finally suggested that the opportunity to collect information on different systems and provide short courses to educate people on what is happening potentially in other parts of the world exists, but we need to be more vigilant about getting that information out to the people. He ended his discussion by stating that people would be more likely to accept technology when there has been a collaborative research effort conducted.
Dr. Jonathan Gifford: Professor, George Mason University
Dr. Jonathan Gifford opened his remarks by asking who is the target audience our research efforts are trying to reach, planners or engineers? There are other fields of study and practice, including biology, environmentalists, cultural affairs that affect the planning and engineering of transportation projects which also factor into the mix. In the past 50 years, the transportation world has evolved, but there has been a lack of vision to anything comparable. The onus has fallen to the states, regions and municipalities to manage these large systems, because of Washington's lack of funding and attention. What does this mean for research, economic issues, motivations for walking and other forms of transportation? What is the vision for the next 50 years?
Dr. Gifford suggesting that understanding the linkage between transportation and development is going to be critical for transportation professionals. What does the transportation planner need to know about development and motivations therefore? Beyond understanding the different modes, networks, and capacity issues, there is a need to understand what occurs beyond the pavement. Dr. Gifford mentioned CAP rates that developers are faced with, and transportation professionals (young and old) must also be aware of these rates.
What does a shift to the service economy mean to transportation planners and engineers in the future? Dr. Gifford suggested that we are much less captive to the resource endowments, and we are less tied to bulk distribution logistics and centers - it is no longer necessary for people to live close to major distribution centers (ports/harbors). Industries are much more footloose and can adapt, outsourcing is much easier outside the U.S. and move operations within the U.S. to other areas, and industries are more reliant on supply-chain management and total logistics cost. Total logistics costs refer to warehousing, port of entry, and related operations costs for transporting goods. It is very difficult to predict where freight locations will be in the future; while we discuss regional economies, it's unclear how shifts will occur. Dr. Gifford suggested that an opportunity existed to research how enhancing the flexibility of other modes of transportation could change the freight movements of other modes, dealing with terminal logistics to make service sectors more competitive to compete with the national highway system. Dr. Gifford suggested that it was time we reach out more to the freight community to understand their thinking and procedures and how tools they employ could be used by transportation planners and engineers to maximize the current system and make our systems more responsive in the future. How do we deploy services for maximum flexibility, while managing environmental problems or the challenge of integrating and maintaining the existing network?
A multidisciplinary effort needs to be undertaken to engage interest groups and other government and non-governmental organizations to exchange information on how to improve the system. Dr. Gifford suggested building an enterprise-wide system that enabled multiple groups participating in the transportation industry on board with more information. How do we achieve regional level optimization - how do we get multiple agencies to give up their own turf and relax regulations in an effort to improve the regions overall interests and performance is a research question Dr. Gifford highlighted.
Dr. Gifford indicated that there is a tremendous need for faster, better, cheaper decision-making processes. In a world with real-time data availability, we must modify our existing models to be able to obtain results more effectively and with greater accuracy to help forecast future changes.
Dr. Gifford then discussed the notion of culture and technology. Are we in a technology deterministic world, where technology forces us to behave in certain ways, or is technology socially constructed? Our relationship to transportation is socially dependent. Dr. Gifford referenced a book referring to the Eskimo population adapting the use of snowmobiles to support their cultural activities. Dr. Gifford came back to this point later in the discussion by suggesting that there are many cultural and behavioral changes that could enhance transportation.
Dr. Gifford concluded the main portion of his remarks by discussion the concept of optimization; people will not act in an individual, utility maximizing way all of the time. Dr. Gifford referenced the term "Bounded Rationality," suggesting that people will not exclusively evaluate all options, tying this concept to the stigma of public transit versus the symbolism of the latest SUV's and a person's decision-making behavior. There are non-rational decisions people make, and while present in other activities, they are very present in transportation - in this specific reference, Dr. Gifford referred back to Dr. Levinson's comments about route choice, aesthetic values and time trials being conducted.
Comment from Elizabeth Wilson (Humphrey School): Dr. Wilson was surprised at the lack of discussion on energy issues and transportation/ITS. Response: Dr. Gifford agreed with Dr. Wilson, suggesting there are policy initiatives which could be considered, such as tail-pipe emissions and pricing, remote censing of tail-pipe emissions etc.
Dr. Sussman noted that we must consider the role of institutions in advancing concerns in transportation. There need to be cultural and policy shifts. Dr. Sussman stated that sustainability in transportation is key - tying this to the concept of sustainable development is a key research question(s) to consider in the future. Dr. Sussman further suggested that we must be cognoscente of the need to integrate more people into research to help transmit the message and connect organizations. We must provide more opportunities to people in private practice to help advance the message. Also, we must examine how faculty teach in the classroom; tenure track review shouldn't focus on just one thing. Dr. Sussman noted that traditional education is a very reductionist and vertical view, and a more integrated system view will help.
Dr. Horan offered the last thought from the panel in that there needed to be a sense of security between people & technology for helping to plan for trip making behavior.
Panel 3: Frank Douma (Moderator), Arlene McCarthy, Jack Ditmore, Ken Buckeye, Jim Grube, Mark Larson
Frank Douma, Assistant Director for the State and Local Policy Program, provided opening remarks for the panel, mentioning that up to this point in the day's program, we had focused on where the University of Minnesota's current research initiatives have focused, and the national perspectives. However, it was time to hear from local leaders on what they see as the future for a research agenda and how the Humphrey School and other offices at the University of Minnesota could better assist them and provide transportation professionals with new skills and training. Mr. Douma then introduced the panelists in the order that follows below.
Ms. Arlene McCarthy: Chief Transportation Planner, Metropolitan Council
Ms. Arlene McCarthy began her remarks by noting that there is tremendous difficulty in obtaining real-time, quality data - data that is available is scarce and expensive to obtain on what riders desire from a transit service. The opportunity exists for agencies and educational institutions (Mn/DOT, Met Council, UMN) to explore how research can be improved and also conduct research initiatives. It's expensive and hard to collect good information on what riders want from a transit service, and this would be an opportunity for the agencies etc. to work with researchers at institutions. Ms. McCarthy felt that Dr. Donath's comment about technology adapting to human needs was very important, and using technology to obtain data would be very important for organizations like the Met Council. Her comments tied back to her earlier point about the cost of obtaining data, through rider survey's for example, which could be significantly reduced with improved technologies to collect information.
Ms. McCarthy then discussed the land use and cost/benefit information associated with land use issues, which would be very helpful to have, along with local entities and the decision-making process for transportation issues. A trade-off exists between land use and transportation, and we have only begun to scratch the surface. Ms. McCarthy highlighted research into the benefits of land use decisions on the transportation infrastructure and vice versa to help understand the supports between the two areas of planning. Understanding the motivations for the developer and their decision-making perspective would also be very important to have.
Public financing and understanding of finance decisions will be critical for the future transportation planner and education thereof. Examining the cost effectiveness of long-range decisions in transportation would be crucial for any transportation professional. Planners need to have a better understanding of financing issues. In addition, long-range forecasting and funding streams, financing mechanisms, and technology are changing so quickly, and new forms of funding are being developed - planners must be able to understand along with real-time information if the technology is changing so quickly.
Question from Dr. Horan: Travel demand forecasting doesn't adequately evaluate investments in ITS systems, in compared with physical investments. Is there are research opportunity here? Response: There is value in looking at these links, but we need to examine further how we are using these types of information already. Ms. McCarthy also touched on the fact that she felt there were very few people who actually understood the existing models for predicting transit ridership, elasticity models and other methods for example, and how best to apply these models. She felt an opportunity exists for not only improving the current models, but also in keeping the models current, and how technology could be used and even improved upon to manage real-time data that could be easily transcribed and represented to policy makers.
Comment from Dr. Horan: There are different users in the transit system, those who are expert users versus those who rarely use the system, and there exists and opportunity to understand what types of improvements in communicating information to all users exist and at what cost.
Comment from Dr. Levinson: There are small changes to the transit system, much less then an integrated ITS system for example, which could be made to improve transit ridership and the users satisfaction. Dr. Levinson noted that thousands of bus stops in the metropolitan area only say "Bus Stop" without any other information on when the bus would be at that stop. Response: One thing MetroTransit has been doing to improve service is to provide information on the route numbers that serve those bus stops, but there are thousands of bus stops without any information, and to outfit those bus stops with even small pieces of paper would mean a significant investment - labor, vandalism, upkeep etc. all factor in.
Mr. Ken Buckeye: Program Manager for Congestion Pricing, Mn/DOT
Mr. Kenneth Buckeye, speaking on behalf of Randy Halverson from Mn/DOT, noted that the planning profession has changed drastically overtime, and that he was concerned at how little current students, new planners and transportation professionals knew about the building blocks of a transportation system. The profession has evolved into a political management and public involvement position.
Mr. Buckeye raised the following question: If 80% of the US lives within an MPO area, and the trend appears to be moving toward mega-regions, and we must be thinking about these mega regions and how they are changing the profession. There is tremendous demand for sustainable development and diversification, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, environmental, equity and aesthetic considerations, along with continued demand for services from the highway system. Building on Ms. McCarthy's comments, Mr. Buckeye stated that better knowledge of budgeting issues is needed to help solve complex problems.
Mr. Buckeye also suggested that more transparency of what the public was paying for in infrastructure improvements is necessary. There is a consensus, Mr. Buckeye concluded, that planners are generalists, and there needs to be a better understanding of tools planners have at their disposal and how they are using them to advance transportation projects. Mr. Buckeye stated further that planners need to be generalists with specialty skills. Planners must understand modeling, design, economics, environmental issues, and equity components. Planners need to improve their community involvement skills, and understand engineering and construction issues. Mr. Buckeye finally noted that planners needed to develop further skills in operations and IT management, along with public and private financing.
Question from Dr. Sussman: What performance measures have been used to determine the current effectiveness of the Hiawatha Light Rail line? Response: Forecasting procedures were carried out to determine the growth of the LRT system, and the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is already at the 2025 ridership point based on the initial forecasts of ridership - therefore, this project has been tremendously successful. But there has also been tremendous redevelopment and urban form changes that have occurred as a result of the deployment of the LRT line. Response from Ms. McCarthy: 40% of the riders are new to transit, in addition to the economic benefits we've experienced. Also, political barriers have shifted, seeing the success of the rail line.
Question from Jonathon Gifford: How do you plan for interim technologies as an administrator? Response from Mark Larson: Mr. Larson responded by indicating a need to train people in the management of technology and process, just as factories or businesses dealing in industrial management receive.
Mr. Jack Ditmore: Director of Operations, Management, and Budget, Dakota County
Mr. Jack Ditmore began his discussion by raising the issue that system's thinking and systems perspectives are key to transportation planning. Mr. Ditmore listed three critical areas he saw transportation professionals needing to focus on:
1. Dealing with Institutional Changes: Communication is vital for planners and transportation professionals, and there is tremendous need for enhanced communication between the fields of planning, engineering and policy (among others) to help alleviate institutional pressures and problems. With multiple government levels, townships, cities, and the county, there is great pressure on developers and planners to coordinate development and transportation activities with numerous guidelines, and enhanced communication can help resolve some of these problems. Mr. Ditmore, using the example of teaching hospitals, suggested that we build toward "teaching governments."
2. Futures Thinking: How can we use the current and future capacity models to figure out 15 and 20 years from now what capacities will be like and how we can improve the system?
3. Systems Integration: Mr. Ditmore suggested that opportunities existed to evaluate/examine how other government agencies operate their systems (using the example of criminal justice and law enforcement agencies and prisoner intake/processing time) and how these systems might be integrated into the transportation networks.
4. Technology Transfer: Mr. Ditmore suggested that we need to speak more clearly within organizations about other organizations. Institutions often don't understand one another, and this is another avenue of communication that is necessary. Mr. Ditmore referenced the MIT program "IT for non-IT managers," and the need for research into the support systems and IT for transportation professionals.
Comment from Dr. Horan: GIS began as a highly specialized technical program, but spatial information has become much more valued and used.
Comment from Ben Schooley: Access to data and the use of that data is complicated by those managing the data, and an examination of the relationship between data, managers of data, and those using the data will be important.
Comment from Mark Hoisser: A disconnect exists between social service planners and physical service planners, and it will be necessary for the gap to be closed.
Mr. Mark Larson:> Director of Performance Management, Mn/DOT
Mr. Larson opened by noting that Mn/DOT is examining more optimization of resources and business management strategies to use resources more effectively.
Mr. Larson noted that in Europe, operations agencies/groups are separate from the policy organizations. As for applied research activities, how can we use IT for assessing the performance of systems is necessary; Mr. Larson suggested that planners needed better automated field tools that would help with modeling transportation issues on site. Bridge condition predictive modeling is also crucial.
Optimization performance modeling would be critical according to Mr. Larson; business management tools to get the biggest bang for the lowest dollar cost - public finance and budgeting.
Life-cycle and benefit/cost analysis of investments is also critical.
Mr. Jim Grube: Director, Transportation County, Hennepin County
Mr. Grube, Hennepin County Engineer, began his comments by indicating that at the county level of government, the question of access versus mobility was paramount in discussions related to transportation planning and policy. Mr. Grube then suggested the question to consider is what is the transportation system at the local level (what does the individual desire at the local level)? In a response to this question, Mr. Grube mentioned first and foremost that safety was a key concern of transportation system users. Secondly, the public desires predictability in a transportation system. Finally, Mr. Grube suggested that comfort was key to the public.
Mr. Grube suggested that new transportation planners need to have an "understanding of everyday life" as a means of perspective on how the transportation system works for everyday people. He suggests that building internships and other opportunities for students and faculty to gain real world perspective would be crucial for young planners to understand what really happening out there now, and for the future. "We are making decisions that have 50-75 year implications, let's make sure we understand what it is we're trying to accomplish." Transportation decisions are long term, and planning education must reflect this according to Mr. Grube.
Mr. Grube felt strongly that competition, regionally and globally, was a key subject area the university could focus its attention on, citing Dr. Sussman's earlier comments. "It's imperative that the University of Minnesota maintain its competitive edge." Mr. Grube mentioned that "all the planning in the world comes down to the people" and that we sometimes forget the most obvious solutions to transportation issues, and communication is critical.
Panel 4: Max Donath (UMN) Synthesis
Dr. Donath began his comments by quoting "Plans are nothing, planning is everything" - President Dwight D. Eisenhower
The question becomes how we make sure the people who actually make plans and policy understand enough about technology so that we might have real-time and useful planning. Dr. Donath quoted Dr. Horan and Dr. Gifford in saying that Washington (and subsequently policymakers and planners) often get tied down in spreadsheets and statistics, but that we tend to become too focused on this type of information and loose cite of the larger perspectives and issues.
Dr. Donath suggested that modeling and mathematics tools provide a new window into understanding cause and effect relationships, but that there is a need to communicate and engage the data and the transportation system directly to truly understand some relationships. We must educate students and current, practicing professionals as a means of passing on knowledge and skill sets. How do people understand what others are doing - IT people knowing what planners are doing etc (Communication)
The University of Minnesota has tremendous connections with the local community leaders, county officials and state officials to help educate public agencies and policymakers with the tools developed. Dr. Donath, following comments by Mr. Ditmore about teaching hospitals and Mr. Grube's comments on internships, suggested that the University could continue to reach out to the public sector offices to develop additional internship opportunities, as a means of furthering the education of young transportation professionals.
Dr. Donath specifically highlighted disaggregated demand analysis is being crucial for young transportationists to understand. "We are now going into a different world and spinning off specialized organizations," as opposed to the old concept of bigger-is-better according to Dr. Donath. "We are moving from different worlds to come down to the microscopic level." Dr. Donath also highlighted Dr. Levinson's work on agent-based modeling, and understanding individual behavior in transportation.
In discussing spin-off's, Dr. Donath noted that traditional transit services have operated under the assumption that more busses will attract more people - but now we are seeing a rise in the number of small, highly specialized transit services tailoring their service toward particular citizen groups (e.g. paratransit services), and we must begin to enhance the agent-based modeling techniques to understand what services people desire most. "Technology can be used to reverse the notion of the Ford model - everyone wants the same Model-T, but we now know better, and how do we develop a transportation system tailored to the individual."
Final Thoughts
Comments from Frank Douma: The Humphrey School does require an internship experience as part of the graduate program, and many graduate students fined the experience very valuable. Mr. Douma also highlighted the use of technology in public participation, and access to both the public and stakeholder groups.
Comments from Dr. Sussman: The idea of stakeholder participation in the process is critical.
Comments from Dr. Krizek: While the University works hard at serving as liaison's and educators, it's important to consider just how much can be done given the circumstances of students, faculty and staff and the time demands already being placed on them to generate research, teach and conduct outreach activities. Response from Dr. Wachs: It's important that researchers and educators are not tied down to research entirely, but they can serve as a major contributor to the world of knowledge on these issues. Dr. Wachs indicated that we must keep in mind that many young faculty members have the opportunity to engage in research activities, but as careers develop and age over time, the opportunity exists for them to pass on research opportunities to the next generation of faculty and begin participating in greater outreach activities based on their knowledge. In addition, Dr. Krizek said he also valued the length of research projects (building on Dr. Levinson's comments earlier) that allowed for additional time for research projects.
Comments from Dr. Horan: Following Dr. Wachs comments, Dr. Horan highlighted The Reflective Practitioner, and how researchers could gain valuable insight into their research efforts by applying the techniques they study and evaluate. There is an institutional design issue at play that must be considered, and the dynamics of sharing information across departments, agencies and governments.
Comments from Mark Larson: The great universities of the world are those that are able to make breakthroughs, as well as those that are able to cross-disciplines and reach out to communities, and the University of Minnesota is one of those institutions and situated very well to continue that effort for many years to come. The integration of technology, public policy etc., are all key ways of helping to shape the future, but the great universities of the world are not the ones that only have the most peer-reviewed research, there are other activities that they are engaged in which make them great. Mr. Larson noted that it is a difficult balancing act to manage, but we must not focus solely on research efforts.
Comments from Jack Ditmore: The predecessor organization to the Humphrey School prided itself on bringing together practitioners and academics to form the organization, and the idea was to conduct outreach activities. However, as times change, so does the mission of what the organization is and can achieve, and there needs to be some further thought on what the overarching mission of the organization is going to be for the community, and what objectives/challenges the organization will undertake is important.
Closing Comments from Lee Munnich
Lee Munnich:
Thank you to all the days' participants, this type of dialogue between academics and practitioners is the kind of discussion that is needed. Thank you to Frank, Adam, Alec, Ben & special thanks to Dr. Tom Horan.
Adjourn
Humphrey School of Public Affairs | 130 Humphrey School, 301 19th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55455