Transportation Research Board

2002 Annual Meeting

Washington, DC

Report on

Session 239

Educating Transportation Planning Professionals of the Future

January 14, 2002

Prepared by

Thomas F. Humphrey

Senior Policy Analyst

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Session Organizer and Moderator

Educating Transportation Planning Professionals of the Future

Summary of TRB Session 239

January 14, 2002

Purpose of the Session

Transportation planning has evolved into a very complex and demanding profession, requiring individuals to acquire and maintain a broad set of knowledge, skills and abilities. This session was organized to provide the opportunity for members of the academic community and practitioners to discuss the efforts needed to educate the transportation planning professionals of the future in order to insure that those individuals will possess the fundamental skills required to effectively do their job.

Session Participants

Moderator: Mr. Thomas F. Humphrey, Senior Policy Analyst, Volpe National Transportation System Center.

Presentation: “The Education of Transportation Planning Professionals”[1]

(Research results, based on interviews with practitioners and academic leaders)

Susan Handy, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Texas at Austin,

School of Architecture, Austin, TX

Respondents:

Representing State DOT Planning: Mary Lynn Tischer, Ph.D.,

Director of Planning, AZ DOT, Phoenix, AZ

Representing Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Ms. Jane D. Hayse, AICP, Chief, Transportation Planning Division, Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, GA

Representing Transit Planning: Mr. Richard Stevens, Director, Business Planning and Development, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, DC

The following Committees assisted in identifying participants and co-sponsored the Session:

A1A04 Transportation Education and Training, Elaine Joost, Chair

A1A03 Intergovernmental Relations & Policy Processes, Peter Plumeau, Chair

A1D01 Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning, Neal Pedersen, Chair

A1E05 Transit Management and Performance, Lynn Otte, Chair

A1E04 Rail Transit Systems, Peter Farenwald, Chair

The TRB staff who assisted in the effort included:

Jon Williams

Kim Fisher

Peter Shaw

The participation of all is greatly appreciated.

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Humphrey opened Session 239 by briefly describing the critical nature of this topic. This session does focus on Educating Transportation Planning Professionals of the Future. However, it is but one aspect of a broader issue that affects the entire transportation profession. There is a growing concern about the need to address human resource issues in the transportation arena, from planning through operations and maintenance. A number of important activities are currently underway. For example, the Transportation Research Board has recently launched a new special study on Human Resource Needs in Surface Transportation. Virtually every transportation organization in America has or is in the process of dealing with these issues. At the 81st, 2002, Annual Meeting of TRB, there were many sessions and committee meetings dealing with these topics.

Mr. Humphrey posed the following five questions to the panel:

1. What kinds of skills must new entrants to the planning profession possess as they enter the field?

2. Are the existing curricula in various transportation planning programs adequately preparing new entrants?

3. If improvements, changes or targeted modifications are needed to enhance existing academic programs, what are they?

4. What recommendations for modifications are needed from a practitioner’s perspective?

5. What actions do we need to consider in attracting, recruiting and retaining planning professionals?

Following is a summary of Professor Handy’s paper, followed by the panel’s response.

Summary of Professor Handy’s paper titled:

“The Education of Transportation Planning Professionals.”

Editor’s Note: The following provides excerpts from Professor Handy’s paper and presentation. The editor assumes all responsibility for errors of clarity or correctness that may exist. The reader should refer to the original paper for details. It can be found on the TRB 81^st Annual Meeting CD-ROM.

INTRODUCTION

The practice of transportation planning at the regional level has evolved substantially over the past several decades. Once defined as largely a technical exercise, in which the calculation of required roadway capacity was the pre-eminent activity, transportation planning now encompasses a wide range of sometimes conflicting problems and demands, from growing levels of congestion and worsening air quality to neighborhood preservation and social equity concerns. Federal transportation policy, as now shaped by the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21^st Century (TEA-21), dictates both the factors that state and local officials must consider and the kinds of processes they must use in developing transportation plans. As a result, transportation professionals now more than ever need an extensive base of knowledge and a broad set of skills – technical skills but also communication skills, for example – to effectively perform their jobs.

But are the curricula in the planning and engineering programs that educate and train transportation professionals adequately preparing them for these new challenges? Planning programs, for example, may introduce students to transportation modeling techniques but do not often provide the opportunity for meaningful hands-on experience in developing and applying such models. Engineering programs, on the other hand, may provide sufficient technical training but little exposure to public involvement theory and techniques. With limited course hours in which to cover the broad field of transportation planning, programs must pick and choose what material will be required for all students, what material will be covered in elective courses, and what material will be left to an internship and on-the-job training. The resulting curricula may leave important gaps for those planning and engineering graduates who pursue careers in or related to regional transportation planning. These gaps in training potentially reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of transportation planning practice.

The objective of the study summarized in the paper was to compare the kinds of knowledge and skills important to transportation professionals today to the kinds of knowledge and skills that planning and engineering programs provide their students. This was done in order to highlight areas for improvement and suggest ways to enhance the education of transportation professionals. The study addressed three general questions:

1. What skills and knowledge do today’s transportation planners need?

2. What skills and knowledge are planning and engineering programs providing?

3. How well do these match?

The research involved several components: a literature review on transportation education and planning education, an analysis of ISTEA and TEA-21 planning requirements, construction and analysis of a database on planning programs and selected transportation engineering programs as to their course offerings in the area of transportation planning, a survey of transportation planning professionals, and interviews with selected transportation planning educators and professionals. This paper summarizes some of the key findings from those efforts. After a review of previous studies, the results of the review of planning and engineering programs are summarized, followed by a summary of the results of the survey of transportation planning professionals. The paper concludes with a discussion of several important issues for transportation educators that emerged from this research.

CURRICULUM ANALYSIS

In order to characterize the current state of transportation planning education, an investigation of both the transportation-related training offered by planning programs and the planning-related training offered by transportation programs in engineering, policy and other fields was completed. For planning programs, research was limited to those 66 U.S. schools that offer at least a master’s degree in planning, as listed by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP). For non-planning programs, research was limited to U.S. universities with membership in the Council of University Transportation Centers (CUTC). In each of these 53 universities, transportation-related departments with links to the research center (62 departments in all) were characterized in terms of their planning offerings for graduate students.

Transportation-Related Offerings in ACSP Planning Programs

Of the 66 U.S. planning programs that offer the master’s degree, 24 also offer a Ph.D. degree, and eight offer both of these in addition to a bachelor’s degree. Nearly half (32 programs) offer a concentration in transportation planning, and six schools offer joint degree programs in transportation, all of which are in conjunction with departments of civil engineering. On average, planning schools offer 2.6 courses in transportation planning, but a very high standard deviation of 2.9 indicates significant variability in the importance planning programs place on transportation planning education. In fact, 19 of 66 planning programs in the U.S. offer no transportation planning courses whatsoever, while only six programs offer more than eight courses in transportation planning.

The most common courses offered, by topic, include: general transportation planning (including urban transportation planning; offered by 31.4% of schools), transportation policy planning (12.2%), transportation and land use/growth management (11.0%), seminar or special topics in transportation (9.9%), and transportation systems planning/analysis (7.0%). Two-thirds of the transportation courses offered to graduate planning students are taught by faculty members within the planning department, while 20% are taught in engineering departments, and 13% in various other departments, including geography and public policy.

Planning-Related Offerings in CUTC Transportation Programs

Among the 62 non-planning programs affiliated with CUTC, 45 are housed in engineering departments, typically civil or civil and environmental engineering. One tenth are housed in interdisciplinary departments of transportation studies or transportation science, and another tenth are housed in public policy. Of these transportation-related programs, 93.5% offer the master’s degree, and 69.4% offer both master’s and Ph.D. degrees. Four of the CUTC universities offer a joint degree in engineering and either planning (UC Berkeley, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and Georgia Tech) or public policy (University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin)). Programs typically offer an average of 3.8 planning-related courses, but there is significant variability, as 15 programs offer none or only one such course.

The transportation planning courses most common in CUTC planning programs are generally similar to those most frequently offered in ACSP related programs: 27.2% of the CUTC members offer general transportation planning, 11.9% offer transportation systems analysis/planning, and 8.9% offer transportation policy planning. However, it is much more common for the non-planning schools to offer transportation finance/economics (12.3%, compared to 5.2% for planning schools) and public transportation/transit (11.4%, compared to 5.8% for planning schools) The majority of these courses (75.8%) are taught by civil engineering faculty members, roughly matching the general participation of civil engineering programs in CUTC.

Conclusions on Curriculum Analysis

What this research most clearly shows is that there is no standard or uniform approach to transportation planning education, within either planning schools or non-planning (CUTC) transportation programs. The number of transportation related courses offered and the content of such courses are highly variable. Non-planning programs (the majority of which are engineering programs) offer 3.8 transportation planning courses on average, while planning programs offer 2.6 on average, but some programs offer two or three times as many transportation planning courses. Several of the leading transportation education programs offer potential models of interdisciplinary curricula, but none has yet established a standard for the field. A more detailed analysis of the content of transportation planning courses guided by the survey results described below, to be completed in the subsequent phase of this study, should offer more insights into the range of topics covered and the depth of coverage of each topic in these programs.

SURVEY OF PRACTICING PROFESSIONALS

To directly test the match between professional needs and academic programs, an on-line survey was developed and administered to self-identified transportation planning professionals. Based partly on the results of the literature review and review of ISTEA/TEA-21 planning requirements, lists of knowledge and skill areas potentially important to transportation planning professionals were developed. These lists were used in several key questions in the survey relating to the respondent’s own professional and educational experiences and to the respondent’s assessment of applicants for entry-level transportation planning jobs. Several questions relating to the demographic characteristics and educational attainment of the respondent were also included in the survey, as was a series of attitudinal questions relating to current issues in transportation planning. Several open-ended questions enabled participants to provide unstructured responses.

Finding transportation planners to participate in the survey was not a simple task. Graduates of transportation planning programs, for example, do not all work in the field of transportation planning, and not all transportation planners have graduated from transportation planning programs. To achieve a relatively targeted sample of transportation planners, two groups of professionals were invited to participate in the survey: members of the American Planning Association (APA) Transportation Planning Division and members of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Planning Council.

This method for administering the survey did not produce an entirely random sample of transportation planning professionals. First, not all transportation planners are members of these organizations. Second, not all members of these organizations have provided e-mail addresses. Third, participation depended on self-identification as a “transportation planner.” Fourth, although a precise response rate cannot be calculated, the response rate appears to be relatively low. The notice was sent to 1,041 APA members and to 1,100 ITE members. After four weeks, 360 surveys had been completed, with 23 others deleted for incomplete responses on key questions. Despite these limitations, the sample should be sufficient for the exploratory objectives of this study.

Assessment of Practitioners

In order to assess in more detail the match between the knowledge and skills needed for the respondents’ current jobs and those provided by their formal degree programs, the survey asked a series of three questions. First, respondents were asked to rate the relative frequency with which they address a list of 25 topics and the relative importance of a list of 20 skills. The respondents were then asked to indicate how much time was devoted to each topic of skill in their formal degree program, from “not covered,” to “minor portion of course,” to “major portion of course,” to “full course.” Finally, respondents were asked to indicate whether they think they received the right amount of exposure to the topic or skill in their formal degree programs.

The top five topics in descending order of importance were: regional transportation planning, transportation and land use connection, public involvement, multi-model integration, and travel demand forecasts. Most respondents said that these topics were covered as minor or major portions of courses, but significant shares of respondents said that the topic was not covered at all. Most notably, 35% of respondents said that travel demand forecasts were not covered in their formal degree programs. In their responses on the third question (whether they had received the right amount of exposure to these topics), respondents indicated that their degree programs did not provide enough exposure to any of the 25 topics: no topic received an average rating equal to or above three, or “about right.” The five most important topics suggested a need for more attention in transportation planning curricula. The lowest scores on this third question were for air quality conformity, bicycle and pedestrian planning, and intelligent transportation systems. These scores perhaps reflect the relatively recent priority given to these topics in transportation planning. Current students may be getting more exposure to these topics than the respondents, who completed their degrees many years ago on average.

The top five skills in descending order of importance were: public speaking, data presentation, working with the public, technical writing, and writing for the public. For public speaking, data presentation, and technical writing, most respondents indicated that these skills were covered as minor or major portions of courses, and notable percentages indicated that they were covered as a full course. For working with the public and writing for the public, however, nearly a third of respondents said that these skills were not covered at all. As was the case for topics, respondents indicated that their degree programs did not provide enough exposure to any of the 20 skill areas. The lowest average scores were for budget preparation, TransCAD software, and GIS. As was the case for the lowest scoring topics, the scores for the latter two skills may reflect their relatively recent emergence as important tools for transportation planners.

In addition to asking respondents about the match between their own job needs and educations, the survey asked those respondents involved in hiring decisions for professional transportation planners in the past three years to rate the importance of each topic and skill for entry-level planners and to rate recent applicants on their knowledge and abilities in these areas. The top five topics in descending order of importance were: transportation and land use connection, regional transportation planning, public involvement, professional ethics, and land-use planning. (The appearance of land use twice in this list is notable and may be connected to the spread of planning concepts like smart growth and new urbanism.) The respondents also rated applicants higher on average on their knowledge of these topics than other topics, suggesting satisfaction with applicants in this sense: they are most knowledgeable on the most important topics. However, the average ratings of the knowledge of the applicants were lower than the average ratings of the importance of knowledge for all topics. Although the scales on the two questions do not perfectly match up, this gap may suggest that respondents would like to see applicants with better knowledge of these topics.

The top five skills in descending order of importance were: technical writing, data presentation, data collection, public speaking, and writing for the public. The respondents rated the abilities of recent applicants in data presentation and data collection relatively high, but gave applicants only moderate ratings for their skills in public speaking, technical writing, and writing for the public. As was the case for topics, the average ratings of the abilities of the applicants were lower than the average ratings of the importance of abilities for all skills. Although again the scales on the two questions do not perfectly match up, this gap suggest that respondents are dissatisfied with the abilities of applicants in these skills.

Conclusions on Survey Analysis

The initial survey results suggest that most planning and engineering programs are covering most of the knowledge and skills that transportation planners need at about an adequate level. While that finding could be interpreted as good news for the profession, it also suggests substantial room for improvement. Perhaps the most striking result is the importance of public involvement and communication skills for the respondents and for entry-level planners coupled with the high share of respondents, especially those with masters degrees in engineering, that say that these skills were not covered in their degree programs. These skills are rarely the focus of an entire course, and even when they are incorporated into a course, students are often required to apply their existing skills in these areas without much formal instruction on how to improve them. On the other hand, respondents with planning degrees are often missing out on the development of technical skills. The survey results also pointed to a lag between the skills and knowledge needed by transportation planners today and those they acquired in their degree programs many years earlier.

ISSUES FOR TRANSPORTATION EDUCATION

The literature review, the curriculum analysis, the survey of professionals, and interviews with selected professionals and educators together point to several important and interrelated issues that transportation educators must resolve. The following comments are a synthesis of critiques and recommendations from all of these sources.

Communication Skills

The importance of communication skills is emphasized by just about everyone, researchers, professionals, and educators alike. This set of skills includes writing, data presentation, public speaking, and interpersonal relations. The challenge for transportation educators is to find effective ways of improving the communication skills of their students. Giving students practice in writing reports for the public or making presentations at public meetings is a start, but students also need more formal training to fully develop these skills.

Educator-Professional Link

The lag between the changing transportation planning context and the content of transportation planning curricula suggests a need for strong and respectful links between the professionals and educators. Many such links currently exist: professional planners serve on the accreditation teams for planning programs, educators work with professionals on consulting projects, and so on. Yet formal mechanisms for feedback from professionals to educators on the content of their curricula may be too rare. Part of the problem may be the attitude of educators that they know best what it is their students should be learning.

Theory-Practice Tension

A related issue is an age-old tension between the teaching of theory and the teaching of practice. Professionals often fail to see the importance of the theory they learned as students. Students are often anxious to acquire the skills that they believe will help them land a good job. Educators often find it difficult to teach theory in ways that convince the students of its importance and incite their interest in the material. Yet theory helps transportation planners understand the phenomena they work with and the inherent subjectivity of the work they do. Theory thus provides them with another important tool for doing good work.

Critical Thinking

Teaching transportation planning students to think critically is another important challenge for transportation educators. Transportation planners must understand both the strengths and limitations of the tools and techniques they use. They must be able to identify the different perspectives from which a problem can be defined or a solution evaluated. They must be able to acknowledge how their own attitudes and experiences influence the work that they do. They must be trained to question their work and the work of others in constructive ways. To meet this challenge, educators must think critically about their own work, in particular, the style of their teaching.

Political Context

An ability to work in an increasingly politicized climate is another requirement for today’s transportation planner. Good communication skills, shared insights from experienced planners, a knowledge of planning theory, and critical thinking skills all contribute to this ability. Giving students a taste of the political realities of transportation planning and the kinds of compromises necessary for completing projects is another important challenge for transportation educators and demands creativity in the design of courses and class exercises.

Multi-Disciplinary Connections

Just about everyone also argues for the importance of multi-disciplinary connections to meet these challenges. Many programs appear to have made at least some of these connections, if only motivated by necessity rather than pedagogy. A few programs appear to have made these connections in a meaningful way, ensuring an education balanced between traditional technical skills and the “softer” kinds of skills demanded of today’s transportation planners. The experiences of these programs may provide important guidance for the others on how to create an effective multi-disciplinary transportation planning program.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY RESPONDENTS

1. Jane D. Hayse, AICP

Ms. Hayse first provided a brief summary of her professional background. She has 17 years of professional experience, 12 of which have been with the Atlanta Regional Commission. She has been the Division Chief since 1998.

The Atlanta MPO is housed in the Atlanta COG. The MPO is responsible for long range planning and the development of the TIP. Her position requires very little engineering, but requires policy and technical transportation planning skills and knowledge. They include extensive transportation and air quality modeling efforts. She considers that informal, on-the-job training is more important than her degree experience.

Following is a summary of her response to the five questions.

What kinds of skills must new entrants to the planning profession possess as they enter the field?

• Technical and communication skills are needed
• Public involvement skills
  * Need to be able to deal with conflict-inevitable in planning profession
• ARC Entry level Planner Standard Requirements:
  * Skills – ability to gather and analyze data, provide technical assistance, evaluate programs and report findings
  * Report to various government agencies and to the general public
  * Prepares reports on moderately complex matters
  * Assist with specialized problems to contractors
• Graduation from 4-year college or university, with some experience
• Discussion at MPO about relevance of master’s degree – required or preferred
• Discussion at MPO of planner series – transferable to other planning specialties and technical requirements
• Five topics of importance in hiring an entry-level planner:
  * Regional transportation planning
  * Multi-modal integration
  * Travel demand forecasts/public involvement
  * Air quality conformity
• Five skill areas:
  * Data presentation
  * Data collection
  * Writing – technical and for the public
  * Working with the public
• Need balanced training in policy and technical! There is a real communications breakdown between technical and policy staff – lack of sensitivity to the importance of each

Are the existing curricula in various transportation planning programs adequately preparing new entrants?

• Personal experience with Georgia Tech double degree – engineering and planning grads – very good, solid understanding
• Based upon Handy paper, it sounds like students are not – way too much emphasis on theoretical policy and not enough “real world” experience and “debriefing” of the real world experience
• Entry-level planners always have a difficult time adjusting to being the low person on the totem pole after they have received a master’s degree – think they should be managers after one or two years experience

If improvements, changes or targeted modifications are needed to enhance existing academic programs, what are they?

• Need for many different kinds of instructors – stress the multi-disciplinary approach
• Five topic areas: Agree – regional transportation planning, transportation and land use connection, public involvement, multi-modal integration, travel demand forecasts
• Needs to be better balance between policy and technical skills
• Highway/Transit Network Coding 101
• Use of modeling software in classroom setting – TRANPLAN, TP+VIPER, TRANSCAD

What recommendations for modifications are needed from a practitioner’s perspective?

• There needs to be standard for the field! A transportation planning degree needs to mean basically the same thing, no matter which school it comes from
• Believes a planning degree should prepare one for the job duties of a transportation planner
• Five top skills: public speaking, data presentation, working with the public, technical writing, and writing for the public – All of these deal with COMMUNICATION! New planners out of school are trained to write academically – “more is better” – rather than being succinct and to the point. The public wants to hear sound bites and focused messages. Professors are not training planners to communicate this way
• Air quality conformity must be covered!
• Meeting facilitation is very important!
• Think critically! Be assertive!

What actions do we need to consider attracting, recruiting and retaining planning professionals?

• Professors often hire the best graduates for their own work
• Attracting new entrants – need exposure of what the profession is all about in undergraduate schools
• Recruiting – have had difficult experience with this – professors grab the best graduates – usually word of mouth – no real organization – APA, ITE, APTA, WTS – that is just for transportation planners
• Retaining – benefits, benefits, benefits – have experienced about a 95% turnover three years ago – only four staff have been here longer than five years; need:
  * Increased salaries
  * More promotions
  * Improved benefits

Overall Review of Paper

• Asked the right questions
• Agree that support for interdisciplinary programs needs to be increased – Multimodalism – should be a given
• We need to understand: Why do people choose transportation planning as a profession? The money is not there compared to harder engineering professions. Other reasons to tap into; passion for the work

2. Mary Lynn Tischer, Ph.D.

Dr. Tischer has been the Director of ADOT’s Transportation Planning, Policy, and Programming Division since August 1999. Prior to that position she was Director of the Office of System and Economic Analysis at the Volpe Center. Before joining Volpe she spent many years with Virginia DOT in a variety of Policy and Planning positions.

She began her discussion by identifying the dichotomy between the ideal expectations of a State DOT and the reality of the operation of a state DOT. In summary, given all the anomalies of a public agency, the challenge is to attract hard-driving and creative individuals; with extraordinary analytical, writing, speaking and conflict resolution skills; who see the big picture. Individuals must have an outstanding personality, coupled with unique knowledge, skills and abilities. This is a huge challenge, particularly given the constraints and barriers with which public agencies must deal in attracting, hiring, and retaining professionals.

Dr. Tischer then went on to define “planning,” and “a planner.” A planner:

• Is someone who develops programs of action;
• Knows present mobility needs;
• Can forecast demand; and
• Convinces others to accept and implement a program of action.

She went on to say that the planning process provides the information needed for decision makers to have choices for improving system performance, that:

• Reflect a vision and the goals/objectives to be achieved;
• Include a comprehensive consideration for alternative strategies;
• Encompass a diverse set of concerns;
• Provide for collaboration among numerous transportation-related agencies and organizations; and
• Provides open, timely, and meaningful involvement of the public.

The typical steps in the planning process requires:

• Forecasting future population and employment growth;
• Assessing projected land uses in the region;
• Identifying major growth corridors;
• Analyzing those corridors for various investments needed, through detailed studies;
• Developing alternative investment scenarios;
• Estimating the impacts of the transportation system on air quality; and
• Developing a financial plan for implementation of the investments identified in the planning process.

This leads to the identification of the core competencies required by transportation professionals; they require the ability to:

• Think and analyze;
• “Create” problem-solving alternatives;
• Have knowledge of analytical methods;
• Involve the public and carryout conflict resolution procedures;
• Possess substantive knowledge of:
  * Federal laws and regulations
  * Basics of transportation system supply and demand
  * Relationships among transportation and land use, the economy, society, and the environment
  * Programming basics

There are many skills needed in the planning profession that must be applied. They include:

• Modeling
• Data collection
• Data analysis
• Regional/local liaisons
• Planning studies
• Environmental analysis
• Policy analysis (access management, policy development, functional class and standards, etc.)
• Programming
• GIS
• Asset management
• Air quality
• Transit/rail planning
• Pedestrian/bike planning
• Intermodal planning
• Long range planning

In conclusion, it is obvious that no individual can possess all the requisite skills. This poses a very difficult challenge to be met by the academic community.

Comments on Handy et al Paper

Dr. Tischer complimented the research undertaken by Professor Handy and her colleagues. She did note it was interesting that the survey showed academic programs reported the following significant facts:

• 49% of programs offer NO statistics course
• 31% of programs offer NO coverage of EIS
• 65% of programs offer NO coverage of air quality conformity
• There are few transportation planning courses in a majority of schools

She went on to note the differences between academic and practitioner performance standards:

• Audience is different
• Reward structure is different
• Timelines are different
• Level of risk is different
• Theory – practice tension (academics are more grounded in theory)
• Professor is measuring learning whereas public measures responsiveness (student has to convince a professor who knows more than they do whereas planner has to convince public that s/he knows best when s/he doesn’t live there)
• Types of questions are different

She concluded with several suggestions for consideration:

• We spend a great deal of effort putting together panels on research agendas but not on university curriculum;
• Universities have to be able to respond to changing needs;
• NHI develops courses by talking with experts – universities should also do so;
• Use AMPO, AASHTO, APTA to review and modify curricula;
• Consider certification programs, sponsored by Associations;
• Extend and expand the Metropolitan Capacity Building Program, to incorporate an education element;
• Look to the federal planning requirements – what is required;
• Identify core requirements and specialized modules;
• Look to TRB committees and task forces;
• Recognize that universities cannot provide all the education and information on all possible issues – rather, they need to prepare the planner to deal with changing needs.

3. Mr. Richard Stevens

Mr. Stevens has over twenty-five years experience in the transit industry. As the Director of Business Planning and Development at WMATA, he is responsible for long range planning efforts for the Metrorail and Metrobus systems; conduct of Alternatives Analysis; Major Investment Studies; and liaison with federal, state and regional transportation agencies. His department has developed WMATA’s latest “Transit Service Expansion Plan” which serves as a blueprint for doubling transit ridership in the next 20 years.

Mr. Stevens has been with WMATA for twenty years. His prior assignments were at the Federal Transit Administration and in private consulting.

Following is a summary of his remarks:

He and all the panelists agree on the diverse job requirements of a transportation planner. The types of planning a transit planner can expect to encounter during a career at WMATA include:

• Regional planning
• Long range planning

* Short range planning
* Corridor planning – alternatives analysis

• Operations planning – the nuts and bolts of transit service planning
• Capital planning and programming
• Urban planning

* Environmental planning and analysis
* Policy planning

* Financial planning
* Corporate strategic planning

The challenge to the profession is how to prepare for this experience – which has been described as “long days, long nights and no rewards”? An individual’s first employer out of school will tell her/him to forget about what they learned, because “we have work to do.”

He suggested that there are tricks and shortcuts to accomplish any task, but he believes that:

• ONE NEEDS THE THEORY TO PRACTICE

- If you don’t understand the problem – how can you find solutions?

- Theory is extremely important

- The ability to apply the theory to practice comes from “on-the-job-training” or OJT

• The planner will learn that there are learned skills – schooling and theory, and

• Acquired skills – how to get the job done, how to make assumptions, how to get by with as little data and information as possible

• Combining learned skills and acquired skills requires “critical thinking skills”

• Critical thinking skills are developed through education

• This gets to whether a “soft planner” or an “engineer-planner” have the appropriate training to develop critical skills

Mr. Stevens stated that he was fortunate to get a Civil Engineering degree with a major in transportation, but he was able to create his own master’s program that included urban and transportation planning courses, business courses, survey research and other courses to sharpen his problem-solving abilities. This diverse course structure was invaluable to his professional development.

Mary Lynn used the Metropolitan Planning Regulations as the basis of her comments on what a transportation planner needs to know. He pointed out that when he got out of school, he didn’t even know there was a metropolitan planning process. Clearly, the FHWA and FTA have identified a shortcoming in planning applications because they have developed a number of courses available to the professional through the NHI and NTI – perhaps some portions of these courses need to be brought into the classroom.

He also believes that we need planners who can communicate. This means oral communication, written communication and the ability to communicate ideas in a brief presentation or PowerPoint show. Most managers and CEOs do not have the time to read long reports – get to the highlights and make the point as succinctly as possible.

This leads to the five questions all were asked to address:

What kinds of skills must new entrants to the planning profession possess as they enter the field?

Theory of transportation planning, critical thinking skills, communication skills

Are the existing curricula in various transportation planning programs adequately preparing new entrants?

Yes and no. He does not see a lot of transit planning in our educational course selections. We need a better understanding of how to develop, analyze and evaluate transportation and transit services; focus on transit economics in the areas of capital programming and life cycle costing; travel forecasting – know what the input needs are, and how to understand and interrupt the output; policy analysis.

If improvements, changes or targeted modifications are needed to enhance existing academic programs, what are they?

Critical thinking; analysis techniques; communications; land use and transportation planning; multimodal analysis – think of transportation as a system and not competition between highways and transit; case studies; project team assignments.

What recommendations for modifications are needed from a practitioner’s perspective?

Professionals need to provide some payback. Work with universities, give seminars to students, internships, etc.

What actions do we need to consider attracting, recruiting and retaining planning professionals?

Research dollars to provide students with some real world experiences and data for class work; cooperative programs with state/local/federal agencies; better pay – those long days and long nights need some reward rather than just a passion for the work.

COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE

Approximately 80 people attended this session. Based upon a show of hands, slightly more than half of the audience was from the academic community; the remainder identified themselves as practitioners. The audience feedback was very positive concerning Professor Handy’s presentation and the comments from the practitioners. The following summarizes the discussion.

• Academic programs are constrained by the unavailability of enough faculty to cover the many topics required for new professionals. Also, there is much pressure in engineering programs to minimize planning coverage because of the demand for technical subjects.

• Some of the new requirements in areas such as ethics, environmental justice, expanded environmental areas, etc., require skills that may not exist in academia.

• Some people are comfortable in technical areas; some in communication and outreach; some in writing; but very few possess all those skills. Planners are expected to be many things to many people. We must acknowledge the need to match the right people with the right competencies. A good strategy is to form teams who, together, bring all those skills to bear on a particular issue.

• There are some competencies that simply cannot be “taught.” People have natural skills that need to be nurtured.

• The tension between “practice and theory” will continue. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.

• There is a need to identify the “core competencies” that all planners need as part of their education. The day-to-day skills can best be learned on the job and through experience.

• A discussion of the desirability or need for the “certification” of planners took place, with no definite conclusion.

• There is a need to understand the supply and demand for planners, in order to assess the need for more recruitment and steps to retain planners. We need numbers.

• It was suggested that USDOT could provide significant motivation to fund the development of new academic courses as well as continuing education courses.

• A representative from the UK discussed a similar set of circumstances that exist in England, with similar discussions now underway.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The discussions summarized above are indicative of those underway in all aspects of transportation planning, design, operations, safety, and maintenance. There are several efforts underway among all transportation programs to address education and training needs. This panel focused on a fundamental area in transportation – Planning Professionals. Effective planning is the foundation for and provides the basis for good decision-making. Thus, it is essential that all transportation organizations at all levels of government work with the academic community to consider and incorporate the excellent recommendations that emerged from the panel and audience discussions.

The FHWA and FTA, together with AMPO, AASHTO, and APTA with the assistance of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center has launched a new program called the “Metropolitan Capacity Building.” It is a program that encompasses:

• Information dissemination
• Technical assistance
• Training
• Education
• Outreach and customer feedback

Details on the program can be accessed through the MCB website at www.mcb.fhwa.dot.gov. We trust that the results of this panel discussion will provide substantive motivation for action by all parties engaged in transportation planning education to improve the state of the practice to meet the extensive challenges now being faced by the profession.

---

[1] Presentation based upon a peer reviewed and accepted TRB paper titled: “The Education of Transportation Planning Professionals,” by S. Handy, L. Weston, J. Sony, School of Architecture, University of Texas at Austin, TX