Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
These subjects require a background in mathematics, statistics, and microeconomicsâ the last prerequisite usually being the weakest link among most transporta- tion engineers and planners. Transportation planners with degrees in disciplines outside of engineering usually lack an adequate foundation in all three areas. There are few training opportunities for practitioners in any of these areas. Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology (MIT) and the University of Sydney offer highly acclaimed, weeklong, intensive courses in discrete choice modeling. MIT also offers a weeklong course in the mod- eling and simulation of transportation networks. (In- formation about these courses can be found at http://web.mit.edu/mitpep/pi/courses_topic.html#data_ modeling and http://www.itls.usyd.edu.au/professional development.asp, respectively.) Ken Train has also put together an excellent distance learning course on discrete choice methods with simulation. (See http://emlab .berkeley.edu/users/train/distant.html.) All are a step in the right direction. However, these courses are mathe- matically rigorous, which limits their appeal and suit- ability for planners and modelers without a strong quantitative background. Moreover, these courses cover only a few of the topics identified earlier. The author is not aware of any program that offers training in the broader list of new- age modeling skills. The National Highway Institute also offers courses in travel modeling. There are undoubtedly a number of other short courses available through planning agencies, university extension services, consultants, and software vendors. Most of these courses have a nuts and bolts ori- entation that facilitates rapid assimilation of the con- cepts, in a format that does not intimidate participants lacking a strong quantitative background. The weakness of such courses is that they can only impart a broad overview of the topic. Participants often leave short courses with enough knowledge to begin participating in model development and application, but lack the deeper understanding needed to design, implement, test, and evaluate all but the simplest of travel modeling systems. This is not a criticism of such courses, as they are intended to meet the needs of entry- level planners, not mid- level and senior modelers looking to expand their skill base. If formal training in these areas is not readily avail- able, how will transportation planners and modelers acquire these skills? The evidence is not encouraging. Ken Cervenka has facilitated an online focus group seek- ing input about whether and how to move toward new- age models. Similar dialogue has progressed through the Transportation Model Improvement Program listserv. The views expressed are all over the board, but many participants are either not speaking the same language or do not feel they understand these new concepts well enough to enter the debate. Furthermore, the absence of formal mentoring or training programs beyond those already noted speaks for itself. There are few distance learning opportunities for graduate degrees or certifi- cates in transportation planning or engineering, and none tailored to travel modeling or simulation. As with our new- age modeling techniques, it is help- ful to turn outside of our profession to find compelling solutions. There are numerous executive MBA programs that incorporate distance learning in some or all of their coursework, and the idea of professional certificates in emerging technologies is gaining currency in many uni- versities. Most of these programs cater to established professionals. Such students typically cannot take extended leaves of absence to participate in traditional university degree programs, so the coursework comes to them, often supplemented with brief periods of residency to gain interaction with professors and colleagues. (Many executive MBA programs only meet on campus for one 4-day weekend per month and perhaps a few weeks during the summer. The rest of the course work is done by the student at home, often with directed reading or lectures delivered by streaming video. This obviously places an additional burden on the student to keep up, since formal class meetings are further apart than with traditional lectures in residence. The success of the exec- utive MBA programs suggests that most students have the maturity and motivation to thrive in such a pro- gram.) Such an instruction format would pay significant dividends for modelers seeking to hone their skills. They would obtain a deeper exposure to the subject material than is possible with short courses, but without the dis- ruption of studying full time. If one accepts that current training opportunities offer neither the content nor the depth to close the gap between researchers and practitioners, the question quickly becomes how this might be overcome. A contin- ually evolving training program taught by the leaders in R&D of travel models can certainly play an important role. The MIT and Sydney courses are compelling suc- cess stories that can be extended to many of the other topics identified earlier. There are several obstacles to overcome in this regard: ⢠Universities respond to incentives. Without a strong federal commitment to such a program there is little likelihood that such a program will be developed or maintained. ⢠Most public agencies and individuals cannot afford the cost of tuition and travel for such courses. Establish- ment of a scholarship fund for public agency planners is imperative to make such a program affordable. ⢠Public agencies will need reasonable assurances that the staff they send to such training will remain at their agencies long enough to benefit from the investment. 122 INNOVATIONS IN TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING, VOLUME 2
