Although many issues were identified during this conference, two stand out as being critical for the future of TSM. 1. Everyone present agreed that an important factor in the TSM process is the local official, operator, or individual who initiates and guides the progress of TSM actions through the complicated institutional process of project development. There was a significant difference of opinion, however, on the relationship between these TSM entrepreneurs and the other, more established, transportation agencies found in a metropolitan area. Another facet of this issue was the link between these local TSM initiatives and the regional TSM progam. An investigation should be made of the different types of relationships and the links that can exist and of the barriers to successful implementation they may involve. It is hoped that the current demonstrations in California, Florida, and Connecticut will provide useful insights into the entrepreneur concept, but much more will have to be done if this concept is to be accepted as the basis for transportation planning in urban areas. 2. The second issue arose from the general feeling that transportation planning has become an extremely complicated undertaking and will likely become even more complex as more concerns, issues, and problem definitions (oftentimes from sources external to the transportation field) are incorporated into the process. At this period in the history of transportation planning, we should be asking ourselves how we can make some sense out of a process that has been added to, modified, and molded to incorporated new concerns but has not benefited from a fundamental rethinking of its organizational structure. Perhaps this confernece, in focusing on the future of TSM, will have begun a dialogue that can provide the impetus for such efforts. However, this is only a beginning. What should the transportation planning process be? How do we get there from where we are today? How do we balance the many interests in an urban area, both metropolitan and local, that were created over the past 20 years to guide transportation planning? How do we bridge the real and artificial gaps that exist between planning and implementation? Planning and programming? and TSM planning and non-TSM planning? (Author)

  • Record URL:
  • Availability:
  • Supplemental Notes:
    • Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. This paper appeared in Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 190: Transportation System Management in 1980.
  • Corporate Authors:

    Transportation Research Board (TRB)

    Washington, DC   
  • Authors:
    • Meyers, M D
    • Roark, J J
  • Conference:
  • Publication Date: 1980

Media Info

  • Media Type: Digital/other
  • Pagination: p. 3-8
  • Monograph Title: Transportation system management in 1980: state of the art and future directions
  • Serial:

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00319363
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Files: TRIS, TRB
  • Created Date: Dec 30 1980 12:00AM