DOT ground transportation R. & D. programs


Material Information

DOT ground transportation R. & D. programs report
Series Title:
Serial - House, Committee on Science and Technology ; no. 94-RR
Physical Description:
v, 21 p. : ; 24 cm.
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Science and Technology. -- Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation R. & D
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation -- Research -- United States   ( lcsh )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by the Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation R. & D. of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session ... November 1976.
General Note:
At head of title: Committee print.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025989340
oclc - 02662315
System ID:

Full Text
2 /RR




Serial RR


Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

77-849 WASHINGTON : 1976

- -.-


OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman

KEN HECHLER, West Viiglnia
DON FUQUA, Florida
ROBERT A. ROB, New Jersey
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JIM LLOYD, California
TIM L. HALL, Illinois

LOUIS FREY, JB., Florida
BARRY M. GOLDWATER, I3., California
MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan
GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
*LARRY -PRESSLER, South Dakota

. A

JOHN L. SWIGERT, Jr., Executive Director
HAROLD A; GOULD, Deputy Director
REANK R.. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel
< lJAMES E. WiLsoN, Techinical Cbnaidtant
1. THOMAS RATCHFORD, Science Consultant
JOHN D. HOLMYELD, Science Conmultant,*;,
RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant
REGINA A. DAVIS, Chief Clerk
MICHAEL A. SUPERATA, Minority Counsel


DALE MILFORD, Texas, Chairman

ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey
JIM LLOYD, California
TIM L. HALL, Illinois





WA*:n i


Letter of Transmittal------------------------------ -------------- v
Hearing witnesses and subcommittee visits--------------------------- I
Findings and recommendations-------------------------------- 3
Summary of hearings---------------------------------------------- 5
Fiscal year 1977 Department of Transportation budget request------ 5
Role of the Office of the Secretary in R. & D-------------------- 6
UMTA fiscal year 1977 budget request---------------------- 6
FRA fiscal year 1977 budget request ---------------------------- 8
FHWA fiscal year 1977 budget request--------------------------- 9
NHTSA fiscal year 1977 budget request-------------------------- 11
Key institutional, economic, and policy issues affecting R. & D----- 12
The need for user input--------------------------------------- 14
Historical R. & D. trends--------------------------------- 15
Near term versus long term R. & D------------------------------ 16
The need for increased Government R. & D---------------------- 17
The need for Government R. & D. to support rulemaking ---------- 18
The need for prototype development and demonstration ------------ 18
Areas for expanded R. & D-------------------------------- 19
New institutional mechanisms proposed-------------------------- 20
Need for trained manpower------------------------------------ 21


Washington, D.C., November 3, 1976.
Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representative8, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As a result of the Congressional reorganiza-
tion of 1974, oversight jurisdiction over all transportation R&D pro-
grams was given to the Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation
R&D. In May 1975, the Subcommittee held an initial series of public
hearings on the R&D programs of the Department of Transportation.
These hearings provided a useful overview of the scope and size of
each of the six DOT modal agencies' programs.
Since then one of these agencies, the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, has been treated separately. Because of the Subcommittee's
legislative jurisdiction associated with FAA, its R&D Program has
been and will be reviewed annually, in the same way as the NASA
aeronautical program.
This year the Subcommittee decided to deepen its oversight of
the remaining, ground transportation agencies in DOT. The format
selected was a simulated authorization in which the agencies' budget
request for Fiscal Year 1977 was reviewed along with institutional
and policy issues affecting their R&D programs.
Accordingly, public hearings were held in July and August con-
cerning the R&D pro grams of the Urban Mass Transit, Federal
Railroad, Federal Highway and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrations. I am forwarding herewith a report of these hearings
entitled, "DOT Ground Transportation R&D Programs."
Subcommittee on Aviation and Transportation R. & D.

July 20, 1976:
Mr. Hamilton Herman, assistant secretary for systems develop-
ment and technology, Department of Transportation.
Mr. George Pastor, associate administrator for R. & D., Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA).
July 21, 1976:
Mr. John Hoban, deputy director, Rail Transportation Dept.,
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; and chairman,
Rapid Transit Committee, American Public Transit
Mr. J. J. Welch, Jr., senior vice president, Vought Corp.
July 27, 1976:
Mr. Bruce M. Flohr, deputy administrator, Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), accompanied by Mr. Robert Parsons,
associate administrator for research and development, and
Mr. Martin Zell, associate administrator for policy and program
July 28, 1976:
Mr. William J. Harris, vice president, Research and Test Depart-
ment, Association of American Railroads.
Mr. Walter Simpson, vice president-engineering, Southern
Railway Co.
Mr. Robert Mathews, vice president for R. & D., Railway
Progress Institute.
August 4, 1976:
Prof. Harold L. Michael, Department of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University.
Mr. James Granum, director, Transportation Development
Division, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility.
August 5, 1976:
Mr. G. D. Love, associate administrator for research and develop-
ment, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
August 24, 1976:
Mr. Howard Dugoff, associate administrator for R. & D., Na-
tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
August 25, 1976:
Mr. Donald Friedman, president, Minicars, Inc.
1. Fairbanks Highway Research Station, Langley, Va., July 14, 1976.
2. Transportation Test Center, Pueblo, Colo., July 16, 1976.
3. Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Mass., August 9,


Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013


The present network of transportation modes in the United States
has been shaped as much by government action as it has by free market
forces. In the past, government action in the transportation field has
been characterized by a patchwork approach to R&D and a labyrinth
of direct and indirect subsidies. Without a coordinated effort to guide
government actions in the future, this process will continue and in-
evitably will yield a result that fails to serve the best overall interests
of the nation.
The Subcommittee believes that the Department of Transportation
should take a more forceful leadership role in providing a focus for all
transportation R&D. It can do this by promptly formulating a national
transportation policy that addresses the proper role of each mode
within the national transportation system, especially the classes of
markets best served by each. Such activity should be accomplished
with full participation by all those affected and should include the
necessary flexibility to respond to changing conditions, and new R&D
derived opportunities.
The Government has clearly recognized the vital importance of the
ground transportation modes to our national well-being through a
massive contribution of funds for operation and maintenance activities.
In contrast, the Subcommittee found the level of Federal expenditures
for R&D in this area to be totally inadequate in view of this commit-
ment and in recognition of the vast potential of R&D for solving
long-term problems.
The Subcommittee believes that investments in R&D are far more
beneficial, in the long term, in promoting a healthy transportation
system than are operating subsidies. Accordingly, the ground mode
administrations should fully examine all opportunities for a greatly
expanded R&D program and, when justified, should propose new
initiatives along with the necessary funding to the executive and ul-
timately to Congress.
In recent years the emphasis of ground transportation R&D pro-
grams has shifted strongly to those with near-term pay-off. Among
the reasons for this are: (1) Disenchantment with an earlier period in
which large amounts were invested in the development of high-
technology, advanced systems for which a viable market had not
yet developed; and (2) recognition of the need for satisfaction of
near-term requirements by a struggling and traditionally conservative-
minded national transportation industry.

While mindful of the practical need for immediate aid to the national
transportation system, the Subcommittee feels that the correction in
R&D priorities, referred to, has gone too far. Therefore, the ground
transportation administrations should move to balance their R&D
programs by substantially increasing the content of basic research and
technology that is needed for improvements in system productivity
and services as well as future technical innovations.
There is great potential for more efficient integration of the various
transportation modes into an intermodal system. Current funding
levels are inadequate to conduct the technology development and
demonstration necessary to realize this potential.
The Secretary of Transportation should define and propose an
expanded program of intermodal R.D&D.
The Subcommittee found evidence of unnecessary competition and
duplication among the various transportation R&D field centers.
The Secretary of Transportation should undertake a thorough
review to clarify and, where appropriate, consolidate the roles and
missions of the field centers engaged in transportation R&D. This
review should include consideration of the research capabilities avail-
able within other Federal agencies, such as NASA and DOD, industry
and the universities. Its results should be reported to this Subcom-
mittee at the earliest practical date.
The Department of Transportation recognized the need for a
coordinated approach to transportation R&D by creating the position
of Assistant Secretary for Systems Development and Technology. A
parallel need exists, in the Congress, for a centralized, continuing
review of transportation R&D activities. Currently, such jurisdiction
falls within four separate committees whose interest and expertise is
usually directed toward the broader questions of agency policy and
regulation rather~than R&D.
The Subcommittee urges that the legislative responsibilityrfor
R&D activity inWall modes of :transportation reside in the Committee
on Science and Technology.



The following is an overall summary of the DOT budget request
for fiscal year 1977:

Research and
Administration Total development

Office of the Secretary------------------ ----------------------- 67.8 29.9
Coast Guard--------------------------------------- 1,209.6 19.0
Federal Aviation Administration.------------------------------------------ 2,403.6 99.3
Federal Highway Administration----------------------------------------- 6,914.3 48.0
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.------------------------------------ 177.0 28.0
Federal Rail Administration------------------- ------ ----- 774.2 53.0
Urban Mass Transportation Administration------------------- -----2,483.6 67.5
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation- -------- -------6.6 0
Total--------------------------------14,936.7 367.7

These resources are distributed as follows:
(Millions of Dollars)


where the $108 million for internal hardware goes toward the develop-
ment of systems that will be used by the Coast Guard and the FAA;
the $125 million, for external hardware, is for systems to be operated
by people outside the DOT and to support the establishment of
regulations. Socio-economic R&D is an investigation of the social
and economic factors pertaining to the employment of transportation
systems. It is concerned with questions such as what does the public
really want, what are they willing to do? Also involved are studies
of the organizational, management and economic factors in operating
particular types of transportation.

The department estimates that 64 percent of the $368 million will be
contracted out to industry, 7 percent to universities and 16 percent
to state and local governments.
The Office of the Secretary is responsible for the overall planning,
coordination and direction of the Department's research, develop-
ment and demonstration program. In addition it manages certain
multimodal R&D programs, and coordinates departmental university
research. It also focuses its attention on policy formulation and
long-term transportation R&D requirements.
Hamilton Herman listed the aims of the Secretary's fiscal year
1977 R&D program:
1. Updating economic regulations, eliminating intermodal restric-
tions, developing processes for resolving issues.
2. Improving traffic flows, increasing acceptance, minimizing
congestion, reducing costs (fixed and operating).
3. Protection of the system, operating personnel, passengers, and
freight from harm and loss.
4. Reducing deleterious effects of transportation on the public,
user, and natural environment (noise, air pollution, and land/water
5. Energy conservation of automobile and other highway equip-
ment (AEEP).
6. Forecasting needs, projecting and evaluating approaches to
new systems-the DOT University Research Program, etc.
The purpose of UMTA's Research and Development effort is to
provide knowledge about alternative technologies that can be used
to improve mass transportation service. This knowledge can be ap-
plied by policymakers at various levels of Government, by localities
in assessing the proper mix of transportation systems to meet their
particular transportation needs, and by suppliers of transit equipment
and services in making the business decisions to invest in manpower
and capacity to serve the transit market.
Insofar as possible, this knowledge is based on empirical observation
of *prototype or operational vehicles and systems; but engineering
calculations, simulations, and other forms of analysis are used where
the technology has not been reduced to practice.
UMTA's R&D effort in hardware development is aimed primarily
at those high risk, high payoff opportunities where Federal involve-
ment is essential if the potential benefits are to be realized. These are
normally multi-million dollar research and development efforts often
followed by a lengthy product development process extending over a
period of several years. Thus, 5 to 10 years may elapse before they
can be deployed in an urban environment.
Ideally, private industry, through the competitive marketplace,
ought to be able to institute the necessary product improvements to
existing vehicles and systems to make them more attractive, economi-
cal, energy efficient, and easier to maintain. From a practical stand-
point, however, evidence exists to show that this is not the case in

transit. While the Federal Government is attempting to bring new,
innovative systems to mass transportation technology, the equipment
manufacturers are not keeping pace with the necessary product
improvements. This failure on the part of industry is due primarily
to the following factors:
1. The "lowest price" procurement practice usually associated
with UMTA assistance is not conducive to the incorporation of
expensive product improvements. Under present procedures a.
product with demonstrably lower life cycle costs would not be
selected in price competition unless its price was lowest.
2. The manufacturing industry for transit vehicles is not a
healthy one at present, and corporate funds are usually not avail--
able for costly R&D projects. There is very little competition in-
the industry, and, thus, little incentive exists to initiate product
3. The market for transit vehicles is relatively small as com-
pared to the automobile or truck market. The number of buyers
and sellers, as well as the number of units, is limited. Since the
transit market is almost totally created by the Federal support
of up to 80 percent of capital costs, Federal policy determines the
market behavior.
In view of the private sector's limitations, Federal Government
sponsorship of R&D and product improvement will be needed if im-
proved transit technology is to be made available to the cities. Escalat-
ing capital costs, and mounting operating deficits indicate a truly,
urgent need and national interest in producing near-term measures
that can reduce life-cycle costs or attract additional patronage
(especially for non-work trips) or improve the efficient utilization of
vehicle fleets and facilities. Any contribution in the form of reduced
costs or increased revenues resulting from technology improvements
is every bit as valuable as direct UMTA financial assistance to transit
UMTA's R&D activity, therefore, must strike a balance between
present-day product improvements and longer range, high risk, high
payoff technological innovations.
In fiscal year 1977, UMTA will begin with the prototype develop-
ment of the Advanced Group Rapid Transit (GRT) system in test
track configuration, and will continue the Advanced Concept Train
(ACT). The prototype development of two low-polluting Paratransit;
Vehicles will be completing the testing phase early in fiscal year 1977.
Those flywheel energy storage conceptual design innovations that
promise an economic advantage over conventional propulsion schemes
will enter the paper design phase of development. UMTA will ac-
celerate the upgrading of needed technology improvements for bus
and rail vehicles as well as the development of critical component
technologies for advanced automated guideway transit systems. Ex-
pansion of demand-responsive technology to make it suitable for
areawide service coordinated with fixed route transit, and continued
development of advanced electronic vehicle location technology will
also be a part of our fiscal year 1977 effort. The major new initiative
planned for fiscal year 1977 will be developmental effort in preparation
for demonstration of a relatively simple automated Shuttle and Loop
Transit (SLT) system in an urban setting to determine the socio-
economic acceptability of such systems, which have heretofore been


used only in airports and commercial or recreational centers. The
SLT project derives directly from Congressional action on the fiscal
year 1976 UMTA R&D budget; that action, in turn, was greatly
influenced by an assessment of Automated Guideway Transit con-
ducted by the Office of Technology Assessment at the request of the
Senate Appropriations Committee. The need for such a project was
also endorsed by the DOT Task Force on Automated Guideway
Transit R&D.
The mix of projects is shifting significantly toward those with
payoffs in the near future. In fiscal year 1977, only the following
projects are directed toward longer range results that are unlikely to
be implemented in revenue service within five years:
Flywheel Energy Storage
Advanced Concept Train (ACT-1)
Advanced Subsystems Development Program
Advanced GRT
AGT Technology
AGT Socio-Economic Research
These projects account for about 58 percent ($17.8 million) of fiscal
year 1976 R&D funding, but only about 46 percent (17.3 million)
of fiscal year 1977 funding. There are included in some of the remain-
ing near-term program elements a few look-ahead projects that will
impact longer-term R&D, and in the longer-term projects, some efforts
that will produce near-term results.
[in thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year-
Subactivity 1976 estimate 1977 estimate

A. Research and Development (mass transportation technology):
1. Bus and paratransit technology- ----------------- 3,600 3,600
2. Rail transit technology------------------------------------------ 15, 300 15,500
3. New systems and automation------------------------------------ 11, 500 16,900
4. Special projects------------------------------------------------ 500 1,500
Subtotal ----------------------------- 30,900 37,500
B. Service and methods demonstrations------------------------------------- 7,000 19,000
C. Planning methodology and technical support-------------------------------- 3,000 3,500
D. Policy development and program evaluation-------------------- 2,000 2,500
E. Management Techniques and methods (development and demonstration)-- ---- 3,000 5,000
F. Bicentennial Washington, D.C------------------------------------------ 7.500........
Total -------------------------------------------------------- 53,400 67,500


Bruce Flohr described the general thrust of the FRA R&D program
as follows:
It is important to understand the direction the Federal Railroad Administra-
tion is taking in all of its programs at this time. We are focusing attention on near-

term payoff and cost effective programs through increased emphasis to meet the
national needs for efficient, safe and responsible operations. This effort is in re-
sponse to, and in cooperation with, state and local governments, the railroad
industry, and the shipping community in a combined effort. In addition, our
safety research has received new directions due to improved accident reporting
and analysis.
So it follows that the research and development program (including software
and hardware) should be directed to solve the more immediate problems facing
the industry. This is an industry which has had a decline in market share, as well
as earnings. The railroad industry must innovate by prudent use of research and
development as one of the tools in the recovery process.

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year-*
Program 1976 1977

1. Industry problems------------------3,------- -----------3,000 4,500
2. Intermodal freight system demonstrati------------------------ 5,100 6,500
3. Freight car management---- --------------------------- 2,000 2,500
4. Improved rail freight service-----------------------------------3,000 3,100
5. Safety research --------- ------------------------------------------ 5,200 6,450
6. Improved track, inspection and data acquisition technology------ --------10,000 8,850
7. Improved passenger service---- ---------_-_ _-__-_-_-_--- 1,000 250
8. Advanced technology--------------------- ---------- 100 100
9. Tunneling technology--------------------------------------- --400
10. Propulsion----- -- ---- ------- ---------------2,150 2,000
11. Energy/electrification---..------------------------------- 1,450
12. Transportation test center------------------------------9,600 10,200
13. Rail dynamics laboratory------------- -------3,400 2,000
Northeast corridor development ----- --------------------------- 6,700 1 (125,000)
West coast corridor development---------------------------------- -- 500 (1)
Model intermodal terminal Washington Union Station------------------------------ 1,500 1(500)
Intermodal terminal planning ------------------------- --3,500
Administration-__----------- -------------------------- 4,000 5,100
Total -- -------- ----------61,150 53,000

i Under "Rail service assistance" in fiscal year 1977.

Safety has been the primary factor in the Federal-aid Highway
Program from its inception in 1916. The Congress has repeatedly
expressed its concern for safety in highway legislation over many
decades, recognizing that safety and mobility must both be provided
if the Nation's highway transportation systems are to serve the
public interest. Working in close cooperation with the State highway
departments, the Federal Highway Administration and its predecessor
agencies adopted standards, which are continually updated as new
information becomes available, for highway design, construction
maintenance, and for traffic control devices that have proven most
successful from the standpoint of both safety and efficient service.
In conjunction with those highway design and construction stand-
ards, the Highway Safety Act of 1970 established a set of safety
standards. A safety research and development program has been


developed in support of these safety standards. The program is
directed toward identifying, correcting, and evaluating the effective-
ness of the solutions to the most critical elements that contribute to
loss of life, disabling injuries, and property damage on American
highways. The emphasis of the research is to provide workable solu-
tions in a timely fashion to a high priority set of highway safety
[In thousands of dollars

Fiscal year-
Fiscal year 1977 projects 19761 1977

Coping with adverse environmental conditions------ ---------- - -688 640
Traffic and pedestrian safety improvements----------------------------------- 2,025 1, 530
Increased safety by improving highway design--------------------------------- 2,005 2,480
Dealing with disorder in freeway traffic- --------------------------------------- 685 450
Research fellowships for highway safety engineers ------------------- ------------- 235 235
Railroad-highway grade crossing research------------------------------------------ 75 350
Improved protection against natural hazards of earthquake and wind- ------------------- () 350
Safety aspects of increased size and weight of heavy vehicles---------------550 800
Highway maintenance technology for a safer transportation system(--- ------ -(3) 500
Detection and communications for traffic surveillance systems------------------------ (1) 850
Implementation of results from safety projects--------------- ---2,037 815
Total---- ------------------------------- 8,300 9,000

1 Includes only those projects continuing in fiscal year 1977.
2 Previously funded under "Research and development highways."

Research and development, highways
Federal highway legislation has placed strong emphasis on the need
for the development and application of new technology to the Nation's
highway system. In carrying out this function, FHWA Research and
Development plays a key role. In partnership with the States, R&D
must identify and exploit new technology to permit the highway
program to carry out its mission, and must conduct studies to identify
future problems in time to correct them, or to avoid them before they
become overwhelming. A key element in the development of these new
technologies is the application and deployment of viable results to the
problems of the State highway departments. Each major project within
the FHWA research and development program includes an imple-
mentation plan.
The projects proposed for funding in the fiscal year 1977 research and
development program will result in faster, better, and more economical
solutions to the many problems associated with planning, developing,
building, operating, and maintaining an integrated transportation
system. The major thrust of the program centers around improving
the efficiency and economy of building the necessary structures, pave-
ments, and traffic control systems while ensuring peak performance at
low maintenance and minimum undesirable environmental effects.


fin thousands of dollars)

Fiscal year-
Fiscal year 1977 projects 1976, 1977

Improved operational efficiency of freeways --------------------------------- 1,000 700
Pollution reduction and improving the highway environment--------------------- 1,005 1,445
Use of waste products and substitute materials in highways ------------------------- 615 990
Improvement of soil conditions and remote sensing of ground conditions --------------- 785 620
Protection of highway structures from hazards attributed to flooding ----------------- 595 585
Tunneling technology for future highways---------------------- 1,965 1,900
Improved highway pavements-------------------------------------------- 1, 186 1,285
Development of new test procedures----------------------------------- 365 380
Metropolitan intermodal traffic management system-------------------------------- 550 1,220
Practicality of automated highway systems -------------------------------------- 250 300
Implementation of results from completed highway research projects--------- 2,255 1,075
New concepts development and system characterization--------------------- 900 946
Measuring and improving system performance----------------------------------- 587 555
Improving planning methodology------ --------------------------- ---- 1,237 1,169
Research and development support and overhead ----------------------- 875 1,000
Total -- ----------------------14,170 14,170

1 Includes only those projects continuing in fiscal year 1977.


Howard Dugoff described the NHTSA R&D program as follows:
The major thrust of our research program in the Motor Vehicle area is to
expand the technology base to support future rulemaking. The application of a
better technology base to rulemaking will increasingly provide reasonable levels
of crash protection for occupants of smaller cars such as compacts and sub-
compacts. The standard or family-sized sedan has already attained this basic
level of protection. In the traffic safety area, important work is underway in
Alcohol Countermeasures to get the drunk driver off the road; Advanced In-
spection Techniques to reduce traffic accidents caused by motor vehicle equipment
failures; and Driver Programs to upgrade driver licensing, behavior, and per-
formance. In the Statistics and Analysis area, a major effort is underway to
upgrade the level of data obtained from automobile accidents. This is reflected
in the development of a National Accident Sampling Strategy which will co-
ordinate all levels of effort into an integral national sampling plan providing
both statistically sound and clinically valid answers.
All of our efforts are aimed at the reduction of the societal loss that takes place
daily on our Nation's highways, in terms of fatalities and injuries. Implementation
of such a highway safety and motor vehicle safety program depends on a strong
research and development effort, which must remain a significant part of our
overall program.


[In thousands of dollars

adjusted 1977
requirements mark

Motor vehicle research------------------------------------------------ 12,705 13,335
Traffic safety research------------------------------------------------- 5,230 5,000
Accident investigation and data analysis ------------ --- ---- 7,259 9,000

Total ----------- --- ---------------------------------- 25,194 27,335
Motor vehicle research:

Crash survivability------------------------------------------------- 4,500 4,090
Operating systems--------- --------------------------------------- 1,900 1,850
Tires ----------------------------------------------------------- 700 700
Experimental safety vehicle----------------------------------- ------- 3,910 5,000
Driver-vehicle interaction----- ------------------- -725 745
Vehicles-in-use research--------------------------------------------- 420 500
Automotive recorder research------------------------------ -------------- 300 300
School bus safety --------------------------------------------------- 250 150
Total------------------------------12,705 13,335
Crash survivability:
Vehicle structures-- ---------------------------1,500 1,340
Occupant packaging -------------------------------------------- 1,000 750
Biomechanics ------------------------------------------------- 2,000 2,000
Passive restraint fleet test-,-- -(-----------------(1) (1)
Total-------------------------------4,500 4,090

i Now functionally included under the "Accident investigation" line item.


Because of the character of transportation in the United States,
institutional, economic and policy questions frequently have a greater
affect on R&D policy than do the technological opportunities. The
hearings revealed that the following areas have great significance for
the direction of transportation R&D.
Delivery of R. & D. to the marketplace
Hamilton Herman pointed out that:
The literature is full of potential new technologies and operational concepts,
and many of these have been taken to the proof of concept or technical feasibility
stage either by Government programs or by private funds. Still more needs to be
Proof of technology alone is not sufficient. Acceptance in the marketplace is a
prerequisite and there is a great reluctance to be first with untried systems
particularly when huge capital outlays are required and very often provided
largely by public funds. In a declining market, most efforts have been concerned
with sheer survival and in this environment, change, even if it promises greater
efficiencies, is difficult to institute where uncertainties exist. Technology sharing
is our process-but credibility is the qualifier-much more realworld information
is needed.
George Pastor added:
An important distinction must be made here between Federal R&D in support
of activities where the ultimate consumer, the customer of the product resulting
from the R&D, is the Government itself and where it is not. In the former category
are the Department of Defense, NASA, and our sister agencies, FAA and Coast
Guard. These agencies can control the entire process from exploratory research to
final product operational deployment totally by themselves. It is infinitely more
complex and less well understood how the results of Federal RD&D can be
delivered to the civilian sector, in our case the urban transit market, and become
accepted innovation through the utilization of products and processes by the



competitive free market process. This issue of developing a "delivery system" for
the results of Federally sponsored R&D (or the issue of "commercialization" as it
is often referred to by ERDA) is probably more important to the success of any
Federal R&D for the civil sector than the kind of R&D or the amount of R&D
funding devoted to the activity. In the final analysis, the only measure of success
or failure of a Federal civil R&D program is the number of ideas, products, and
processes which become successfully adopted for operational use by the civilian
Although UMTA is not the customer of the end products of its
R. & D., the Capital Assistance Grant Program, in which up to 80
percent of the cost of transit equipment is provided by the Govern-
ment, constitutes a powerful delivery system. It creates the urban
transit market even though product selection is a local choice. Because
of this there is a strong need for continuity between the UMTA
R. & D. program and its Capital Grants.
John Hoban added:
A more important problem facing all of UNMTA's current R&D efforts is the
lack of an operative mechanism to carry successful research efforts through the
multi-phase development process which leads to practical, usable new products
for the transit industry. We call this process a "delivery system". The lack of such
a delivery system has contributed heavily to the all-too-frequent situation in
which expensive, high-caliber research work is shelved for lack of an adequate
development strategy.
Institutional problems
Many of the methods for improving efficiency, convenience, service
and cost affect conventional thinking and organizational practice.
Hamilton Herman gave the following examples:
Standardization in the rail transit industry is difficult to achieve because exist-
ing infrastructure such as stations, tracks, tunnels and signaling does not allow
for it. The introduction of urban transportation systems requires the advice and
consent of a multitude of diverse concerns and may significantly affect land use
and the structure of the city. Labor practices vary significantly from mode to
mode and are often imcompatible with each other. Cooperative behavior between
modes is often precluded by regulation or past practice.
It, is clear, then, that the introduction of change into these monolithic struc-
tures is difficult at best and will require our continuing attention and investigative
Industry health
Hamilton Herman argued that:
In general, it must be expected that the industry, given the opportunity to be
profitable, must itself be the prime mover in innovation and change, for in the
long run, it is the competitive marketplace which will produce the best ideas and
continuing improvements in service.
The industry, however, has not been profitable and there has been little incen-
tive to try to place new systems and techniques into the market. Some have
tried with disastrous results.
The Department has played a significant role in the reversal of this trend but
the level of R&D in the industry is extremely low and time is short to make the
determinations which will be persuasive in the face of significant new investments.
John Hoban, speaking of the Urban Transit industry, said:
The industrial base supporting the industry has been in decline for many years
particularly in the area of rail mass transit. This was compounded by attempts
on the part of the Federal Government to carry out major development programs
in which we experienced continuing delay, evaluation, reevaluation, review,
rereview, and more delay. The result of this start and stop approach was that
several major potential suppliers have become disillusioned with the transit
field as a productive area of endeavor. What is needed now is for the Federal
Government to provide sufficient financial assurance to potential suppliers to
encourage these suppliers to reenter the field or to expand their current activities.


Jack Welch described some of the difficulties facing manufacturers
in the transit field:
We expected that upon the successful entry of AIRTRANS into revenue service
by 1974 we would have proven its technology and its marketability for city as
well as commercial applications throughout the country. It must be remembered
that when we made our proposal to Dallas/Fort Worth, UMTA had not yet decided
to help fund the project. They decided subsequently to do so, but at the time
we had good reason to expect that the local initiative and confidence expressed
by the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Board in their decision to require automatic
transportation would be repeated by other known Federal authorities and even
commercial groups. We expected in other words that a successful AIRTRANS
at Dallas/Fort Worth would make the market for what we now describe as AGT,
relatively free from the need for Federal support. AGT has not yet developed
in this fashion for two reasons, first, AIRTRANS has taken more time and
money to mature and prove itself than we originally anticipated. Secondly, with
the passage of the $11.8 billion Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1974, the
Federal influence on urban public transportation procurement has become all
pervasive. The private urban public transit carrier is becoming a thing of the
past. Both of these developments are of considerable consequence.

Because the results of ground transportation R&D are ultimately
consumed by customers other than the Federal Government, it is
imperative that the user's requirements be fully understood by
R&D managers. George Pastor described the extent of UMTA's
efforts to obtain user input:
There is a new dialogue between transit operators, taxicab associations, local
communities, industry, and UMTA. There are workshops, consultative bodies,
advisory meetings, and reviews held in connection with most of our R&D pro-
grams to obtain user input throughout the life of the project.
Typical of this was the first national R&D Priorities Conference,
sponsored jointly by UMTA and the American Public Transit Asso-
ciation (APTA).
John Hoban, speaking for APTA, confirmed this judgement:
I am pleased to report significant improvement in these problems due to the
hard work and open-minded attitude displayed by UMTA administrator Robert
Patricelli and Associate Administrator for research, development and demonstra-
tion George Pastor. However, while we have been extremely heartened by this
responsiveness of UMTA towards addressing activities more near-term and prac-
tical in nature, we are concerned that the funding levels for R&D have not in-
creased sufficiently to keep pace with increases in capital funding levels.
In the railroad arena the relationship among government, supplier
and carrier is very close. For example, the Association of American
Railroads (AAR) conducts an internally-funded, but thoroughly
coordinated R&D program of its own (with 1976 expenditures of
$4.6 million). In a number of programs, FRA personnel sit as full
members of the steering committees. The Associate Administrator
of FRA serves in effect as an ex-officio member of the AAR Research
Committee and participates in all meetings and discussions of that
committee in regard to the AAR research effort. In addition, some of
the FRA's own funds are managed by AAR in carrying out projects
which are of mutual interest. Dr. William Harris added this:
It has been suggested that a formal advisory committee structure be established
to ensure that the supply industry and the railroad industry have an opportunity
to contribute to planning of the FRA in the field of research. I personally do not
believe that such a formal advisory structure is necessary at the present time.


There is extensive interaction between the several parties including labor, rail-
roads, supply companies, the AAR, personnel of the Transportation Systems
Center, the Transportation Test Center, the FRA's Washington staff, as well as
many contractors of the FRA. Mechanisms currently exist that ensure adequate
exchange of information without requiring the establishment of a formal advisory
panel structure.
In the area of highway research, Dr. Gerald Love described Federal,
state and local coordination as follows:
As a means of assuring that all highway research and development are coor-
dinated and duplication of effort is avoided, an overall structure of research cate-
gories and projects has been devised which is designated as the Federally Coor-
dinated Program (FCP) of Research and Development for Highway Transpor-
tation. The program has been developed and is continually updated to reflect the
most urgent problems facing local, State, and Federal highway officials. It is
based on the concept that the most productive and efficient method of achieving
our national research goals is to coordinate and complement the research efforts
-of all involved agencies. This overall coordination is accomplished by FHWA
Research and Development personnel who review all research and development
projects conducted by State highway agencies partially funded with Federal
funds. This process also provides a project focal point so that the objective of
each research study significantly contributes to the outputs of all other project-
related research activities.
Also, the law provides for 1.5 percent of the total Federal aid
highway apportionment to each state highway agency as a set aside
to conduct planning and research activities. These HP&R funds will
amount to approximately $25 million in fiscal year 1977. Of these
The Transportation Research Board, through the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) under the administrative direction of
.State transportation agencies, also administers a contract research program funded
by a pro rata contribution of 44 percent of each State's 1y percent HP&R funds.
The NCHRP, which is funded at approximately $3.5 million annually, is directed
towards providing solutions to some of the highway problems of national

George Pastor, UMTA Associate Administrator, discussed certain
trends that have affected, to some degree, all of the DOT ground
R&D programs.
During the 1964-70 period, the UMTA funding was characterized by relatively
low levels of capital assistance and very low levels of RD&D funding. More
important, the 1960's were characterized by racial, social, and urban unrest;
by policies such as war-on-proverty, new towns, etc. There was a trend and a
public desire to turn to the problems of our own people and our own cities. The
process of disengagement in Viet Nam, accomplishments of our space program,
and the subsequent curtailment of space and defense efforts paved the way to
the 1970 amendments to the UMTA Act which significantly increased the funding
level for the UMTA program reflecting a national commitment to revitalize our
urban centers and finding a civilian outlet for our aerospace and defense produc-
tion capacity.
The period of 1970 through 1973 was characterized by continuously increasing
annual funding levels and a great desire to put the Nation's technological know-
how to work In order to produce visible, tangible results in operation in our cities
at the earliest possible time. During this time, ambitious research and develop-
ment projects were undertaken in conventional transit (bus and rail) as well as
in new, innovative systems, such as Morgantown and the Urban Tracked Air
Cushion Vehicle.
This was a period of great activity, enthusiasm, promises of results, and ex-
pectations. New companies were born or formed; the aerospace and automotive
industry, as well as the traditional transit manufacturing industry, foresaw a
newly created urban transit market rivaling the field of aerospace and potentially


capturing a significant segment of the automobile market (replacing the second
family car). There was a renaissance of urban rail beginning with San Francisco
and Washington building new metros and Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, and others
planning theirs. Older cities (New York, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadel-
phia) were planning on rejuvenating their fleets, expanding their systems with
new lines, and introducing the yet-to-be-developed Light Rail Vehicles. There
were 40 or more communities in the United States at various stages of planning
some application for some form of Automated Guideway Transit Systems (PRT
or people movers or like systems).
Two factors contributed to the short duration of this period, each of which
teaches a lesson and which, therefore, will be reviewed briefly as follows:
1. Overstimulation of the urban transit market
As increasing Capital Assistance funding became available during the 1970's,
the resultant demand increased even faster so that, in 1973 and since then, the
demand has exceeded the available funds. Simultaneously, as labor rates and
inflation increased both operating and equipment costs, and revenues failed to
increase commensurately, partly because raising fares adequately was politically
unacceptable and partly because the anticipated increase in passengers would
take years to materialize, the operating deficit of transit increased alarmingly.
Thus, capital intensive transit began to appear to many as the "bottomless pit"
that no one can fill or afford.
2. The apparent failure of new technologies
The well publicized problems (technical, financial, contractual, and initial
operational) of BART, Airtrans, and Morgantown introduced a credibility gap
for new technologies among the public, the press, the Administration, and Con-
gress. There was an almost universal conclusion that new transit technologies are
expensive, unreliable, and do not work.
As a result, the period of 1974-75 is dominated by a retrenchment away from
high technology, an increasing reluctance to take highly capital intensive initia-
tives, and the emergence of a desire to improve what we already have gradually
with great emphasis on cost-effectiveness through better managerial and mar-
keting techniques, service and operational improvements, and introduction of
new, non-capital intensive concepts to transit systems. While Capital Assistance
funding continued to increase and new legislation in 1974 even introduced oper-
ating subsidies at the Federal level for the first time, the RD&D funding was
decreasing and, within the RD&D funding, a significant shift away from the
hardware oriented research and development occurred.
Non-capital intensive solutions favoring paratransit, shared ride, carpooling,
reserved bus lanes, contra-flow, bus priority systems, traffic management, con-
siderations for auto-free zones, vanpooling, and jitneys came to the forefront of
innovation. A Nation which was used to technological progress developed doubts
about technology as the solution for its urban transportation problems. The
irony of this development is that it was not technology that failed, but rather
the method of its introduction, the unrealistic promises, and the general impatience
which attempted to deploy complex, sophisticated new systems from laboratory
research through full operational product development on our city streets in two
to three years. 1 L M &fe^ W ,


Speaking for UMTA, George Pastor said:
If one defines 'near-term R&D' as that which produces operational deployment
of results in five years or less, a trend was introduced for more emphasis on this
type of near-term R&D. A large segment of UMTA's non-hardware oriented
RD&D falls in this category; namely, the Service and Methods Demonstration
Program and Marketing and Management Oriented R&D, as well as Urban
Transit Planning Software Development. In conventional transit hardware,
R&D in support of standardization, safety, cost reduction, and limited product
improvement, as well as energy conservation oriented R&D and applications, will
be emphasized. In innovative transit, emphasis will be shifted to improved
reliability and service availability. Better understanding of socio-economic factors
attendant upon introduction of transit automation is also being sought, and cost-
reducing standardization of state-of-the-art systems is being pursued.


Nevertheless, there is a full recognition of the need for continued Federal R&D
participation in the high risk, high technology activities which provide a baseline
for new innovations to be introduced five years or more from now.
Bruce Flolhr described the direction of the current FRA program
as one that is highly responsive to the needs of an ailing industry:
We are focusing attention on near-term payoff and cost effective programs
through increased emphasis to meet the national needs for efficient, safe and
responsible operations. This effort is in response to and cooperation with state
and local governments, the railroad industry, and the shipping community in a
combined effort. . So it follows that the research and development program
(including software and hardware) should be directed to solve the more immediate
problems facing the industry.
Walter Simpson described the railroads' need to fully understand the
consequences of operational and equipment changes before the fact:
Today, more than ever, due to low profit margins, railroads cannot afford mis-
takes. They can be too costly. When one recognizes that there are nearly two
million freight cars, one can quickly appreciate that even a small mistake can be
catastrophic to correct or live with. As a result, railroads tend to stick with proven
designs. This "show me" or conservative approach to rapid technology change
also spills over into our supply sector. They also see the market risk of small
error and thus tend to stick with proven designs.
He added:
I believe the FRA working closely with the industry through the Association
of American Railroads is finally on a real payoff avenue. As you probably have
been told, the FRA R&D program has been redirected and now deals with some
of the industry's current problems. Several programs in particular have been
initiated which offer great potential for railroad payoffs. Specifically, the facility
for accelerated service testing, better known as FAST, will provide both railroad
suppliers and railroad operators the "what if" answers. Equipped with the cause
and effect relationship of buying new equipment or changing certain maintenance
policies, railroads should be much better prepared to help themselves out of their
current situation.

Referring to highway research, Professor Michael said:
I agree with the Federal Highway Administration that a substantial portion of
the research program must be research on specific problems which will likely have
implementable results within a few years. I note with alarm, however, that this
emphasis in Federal agencies is increasing each year and that it tends to become a
requirement of research in the hands of some administrative personnel. This I
believe to be undesirable.
Research is the search for new knowledge whose application has not been
specifically identified or it is for practical solutions to specific problems. Both are
Let me emphasize that research should not require implementation within any
required time frame. Of course implementation is always desirable if and when it is
practical to do so. The emphasis in research, however, must be on new knowledge-
and not on implementation.


Jack Welch pointed out that UMTA's $60 million annual R&D
investment is approximately 3 percent of its total funding:
This com pares to an overall Federal spending percentage for R&D of just under
6 percent. Of the $60 million, about half is scheduled for Service and Methods
Demonstrations, Planning Methodology, Management Techniques, and other
non-technology studies, research and support. We take no issue with the funding
of this latter activity. This is clearly a fruitful and proper area for Federal support.
We do express our concern to you, however, that the remaining low level of
technology R&D funding, just over 1 percent of the total UMTA budget being
authorized by the Congress and undertaken by UMTA, is just too small.

Professor Harold Michael pointed out that highway transportation
is the major mode of transport in this country and will continue to be
for many years. Over 80 percent of our passenger miles and much of our
ton miles of goods transport is via that highway mode. It is therefore,
surprising that so little funding is available for research:
The total Federal Highway Administration annual budget for all purposes is
by far the largest of any of the modal agencies and yet its research and develop-
ment allotment is one of the smallest, actually less than one (1) percent of the total.
Even If one includes the total budget for all purposes and for research and develop-
ment of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, because it also
includes research in the highway mode, the percentage of Federal funds for R. & D.
is only slightly over one (1) percent. This is unrealistically low.
James Granum urged an increase in Federal outlays for transporta-
tion R&D.
We believe outlays for R&D should be related to the total planned program both
in magnitude and balance. Although we do not advocate research for its own sake,
there is little evidence that problems related to the inevitable growth in national
transportation demand are now solved. Accordingly, we urge that funding ear-
marked for R. & D. in Federal transportation budgets be increased on an orderly
basis to about 5 percent of total program levels.


In those areas where DOT is responsible for promulgating regu-
lations there is a need for R&D so that such rules can be made with
full knowledge of what is technically-feasible and economically viable.
For example, Howard Dugoff described the principle function of
NHTSA as follows:
The fundamental purpose of our activities in the various areas of engineering,
and the sciences, is not to advance the state of technology in the areas, but it is
to examine and analyze the state of technology in those areas, so as to provide a
supporting foundation for rulemaking activity.
We are basically not in the business of developing advanced structural materials
for vehicle crash worthiness. We are basically in the business if assessing the
production and prototype vehicles in order to establish a realistic and defensible
basis for regulations that we are asked to promulgate which according to the
statutory requirements upon us, must be reasonable, practical, and appropriate,
and advance the nation's highway safety interests, which means we have to push
the technology to its practical limit, so a lot of the work that apparently looks
to you like an exercise in the obvious, is in fact, from our standpoint a necessary
effort to examine systems that already exist, and to make trade-offs which provide
a basis for rulemaking functions.
Now, to be sure, the efforts that we have made along these lines in the past
have produced some advances in technology, particularly in the crash worthiness
area, where I think it is fair to say that the motor vehicle industry, although it
certainly has capability to do such development, has in the past lacked motivation
to devote resources to improving technology in an area that is fundamentally not

Because of the chronically depressed market conditions and tradi-
tionally conservative business outlook of the ground transportation
industry there is a great need for Government R&D to proceed
beyond the technology development stage to prototype, even produc-
tion prototype, demonstration. Hamilton Herman explained the
requirements for this as follows:


One thing has become clear in our efforts to understand and facilitate the
continued improvement of our national transportation system.
Many of the solutions involve novel institutional arrangements, as well as
technologies. General acceptance and valid testing frequently can only be obtained
by installation and evaluation in an operational environment.
The Department has used the process of demonstration both in passenger and
freight systems. Examples of these are the Haddenfield dial-a-ride experiment
and the automation of the Chicago rail terminal freight information system.
This technique can only be successful when it is carried out in close cooperation
with the local authority or user especially as we wish to preserve the ability for
decisions to be made at that level.
Over one-third of our R&D effort must be devoted to prototype development
test and evaluation in order to carry our R&D effort through to the point where
the public is educated, motivated, and willing to accept technological changes
in transportation. In short, they want to kick the tires.
John Hoban added:
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of a rigorous development
and testing program which assures to transit operators the reliability and main-
tainability of transit hardware. This importance is increased even further in
cases such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, where we attempt to
utilize advanced technology.
An adequate delivery system of transit R&D is possible if the Federal Govern-
ment will provide long-term funding tied to a management "milestone" system
to evaluate the progress of research work at several important stages. This system
of milestones should be incorporated into UMTA's R&D management process
and should include the following elements:
Phase I-Preliminary development
1. Analysis of requirements and development of formal requirements statement;
2. Cost/performance tradeoff evaluation;
3. Evaluation of alternative concepts, preferably involving more than one
potential supplier;
4. "Bread-board" feasibility testing;
5. Preliminary design selections. At this stage, several alternative designs should
be selected and further developed, again involving competing potential suppliers.
Phase II-Design and prototype development
1. Evolution of detailed design and operational procedures.
2. Prototype construction and testing. We would suggest that more than one
alternative be funded as far as prototype construction. This would allow transit
industries a chance for thorough review of alternative approaches to specific
transit properties.
3. Selection of successful design or design elements as suggested industry
To help provide a focus for R. & D. in the future, the Office of the
Secretary has undertaken an assessment of what the transportation
system might look like over the next 25 years. The purpose is to
identify likely and potential technological and institutional advances
that relate to existing problems. The early results of this assessment
have indicated a need for R. & D. in the following areas:
1. The immediate need in the rail freight industry is for rehabili-
tation of the rail infrastructure guidewayy and terminals) and for
improved operational efficiency. Beyond that, substantial improve-
ments in productivity are possible with multimodal containerization,
automation of yard operations, and higher speeds.
2. In urban passenger movement the need is for regional networks
that provide high access and connectivity to both low and high
density areas.


3. Intercity passenger systems require improvement in the short-
haul (100-300 mile) regime and better integration with the urban
4. The automobile as the greatest consumer. of energy in trans-
portation must be made more efficient. In addition, much can be
done toward eventual complete automation of the vehicle/highway
James Granum, in calling for R&D funds to be prioritized accord-
ing to the projected amounts of end use of each mode, added the
following need for expanded effort:
. In past Congressional testimony the Federation has proposed that an equal
percentage of the program funds within each modal budget be pooled to support
research, development, and demonstration of new technologies outside current
modal boundaries. We reiterate that recommendation..


John Hoban speaking for APTA, made the following proposal:
What remains then Jis the task of establishing a method of conducting transit
research and development which will provide a respQnsive, timely, user-oriented
research program similar to the national cooperative highway research program
(NCHRP). This program, which is administered by the transportation research
board on behalf of the highway departments of the 50 States, is the successor to
similar cooperative programs undertaken by the former highway research board.
It is sponsored by the States, working through the association of American
State highway and transportation officials. Each State agrees to pool a portion
of its allocation of FHWA highway planning funds in order to carry out the
NCHRP activities. FHWA has waived the necessity to match the federal money
with local contributions.
With this money, the NCHRP has financed a continuing program of contract
research into a variety of technical, economic, social and legal aspects of highway
and other transportation activities. Each year, the various State agencies suggest
areas for research, and a small number of these are selected for funding. Each
selected study area is assigned to an advisory board, assembled by the Trans-
portation Research Board (TRB), which drafts a problem statement, selects a
consultant contract, and supervises the conduct of the study. Each study cul-
minates in a major report which is given wide distribution by the TRB.
The key to the NCHRP success is the pass-through of federal dollars to the
control on a joint basis to the field agencies actually responsible for the con-
struction and operation of highways. What we are seeking is a similar formula-
for the pooling of federally-generated dollars under the control of the transit
industry. The outlines of such a program, which we have tentatively designated
the National Cooperative Transit Research Program (NCTRP) are as follows:
A portion of the monies now provided in section 6 RD&D funding should be
set aside for the establishment of a National Cooperative Transit Research
Program. These funds could either be distributed to the States and designated
recipients and pooled as they are in the NCHRP, or the funds could, with the
agreement of the States, be channeled directly to the American Public Transit
Association, the agencywhich would carry out the program.
Advisory boards convened by APTA would serve as a screening body which
would undertake the/process of identifying and refining the needs of the transit
industry throughout the country. APTA would also undertake the task of identi-
fying those areas which should receive priority attention in a joint effort with
Management of the research effort would be carried out by APTA, or by
individual transit agencies with APTA serving in a strong advisory role. This
arrangement would assure a realistic approach to research problems and the de-
velopment of timely, practical, and-most important-usable research results.
APTA, having recently merged with the non-profit Transit Development Cor-
poration, is in excellent position to undertake this type of work.



John Hoban stressed the need for trained technical and managerial
The transit industry today faces a need to invest not only in technolocigal and
systems innovation, but in people and managerial skills as well. The transit
industry is expanding rapidly, creating a need for increasing professionalism and
sophistication on the part of its managers. Present training programs are, al-
though in some cases well conceived and carefully executed, unable to fully meet
this need. Again, I believe that we might begin to meet this need by adapting a
successful program which is currently in use elsewhere. In this case, Great Britain
has established a British transport staff college. Primary activities of the college
are the training of mid-career managers of high potential, the training of senior
executives holding or preparing to hold high responsibilities and a continuing
effort to update and improve the skills of senior management through a series of
relatively short seminars. The college is supported in part by the British transpor-
tation industry and in part by tuition and fees.
Such a program can and should be developed in this country. It should be
primarily staffed not by academicians, but by selected managers from the transport
industry who have been earmarked for promotion and development by their
companies. They would obtain this development both by teaching more junior
managers and by learning from senior managers. In addition, I believe that it
would be most beneficial for such a staff college to establish satellite programs
associated with urban universities to provide part-time and evening instruction in
transit management techniques to the large number of lower-echelon managers
and supervisors who will become the next generation of middle and senior manage-
ment. Present programs seem to favor research-oriented colleges and universities,
generally located away from urban centers. This has considerably reduced the
availability of university programs to lower-echelon urban transit staff, who could
gain a great deal of benefit from such exposure. In the work that I have been doing
at PATH, TDC and APTA, the need for trained transportation people is very
much in evidence. I believe that a program such as this would significantly
strengthen management skills in the transit industry and ultimately improve the
industry's performance and should be supported in part by management training
funds from section 10, in part by UMTA scholarships and in part by tuition and
Professor Michael referred to the same need for trained manpower in
the highway field:
In my opinion, the greatest deficiency existing today in highway transportation
is the absence of adequate competent personnel responsible for management,
operation and maintenance of the system. I mention this here because in my
opinion this inadequacy is closely connected to research. Education of competent
personnel requires that they primarily be taught to think and be given the op-
portunity to become acquainted with the body of knowledge in their area of in-
terest. Research is, in the words of Lawrence Hafstad, former Vice President for
Research of General Motors, the "effort of the mind to comprehend relationships
which no one has previously known". It is logical to combine the higher education
of our young men and women seeking careers in transportation with the research
effort. These two activities have much in common and experience shows both
education and research benefit and, in the end, transportation.


3 1262 09114 3007