The meeting was really very beneficial for me because it highlighted the interests of the other 4 Policy Working Groups and  exposed our thinking to the RTCC who were very knowledgeable and sophisticated in these areas of concern.  

         A number of important observations were made which I have tried to record here more or less in the sequence in which they occurred:

1.  the subject areas should be customer driver - focus on mobility
2.  the research should respond to long term needs not just our sense of 
     current needs. We should be thinking decades out in the future
3.  we need a better metric of value than just time savings; new thinking 
     concerns speed of making investments
4.  we should contact Betty Deakin re the Issues and themes arising in the 
     Planning and Environment area. They should bear strong linkage to 
     ours. They will not cover non-environment planning, e.g.  freight 
     planning. 
5.  other R&T areas feel that they need policy guidance from us
6.  we should consider fleet and vehicle related issues; no one has the ball
7.  most R&T groups had about 8 theme areas
8.  consider concept of building some scenarios for our work and that of 
     others
9.  re priorities: Do not try to prioritize;  A rationale for each area is more 
     useful than a list of priorities;  Identify great opportunities = low 
     hanging fruit
10. I made the case that our task was somewhat different in that the 
      policy sphere embodies a perspective.  
 

AEP R&T Chairs meeting notes (following  RTCC)

1.  focus on R&T payoffs
2.  tasks  5 and 6 are part of the charge to the groups
3.  think longer term
4.  there is no paid writing help – volunteers will be needed
5.  who is audience?  RTCC? Or congress or ?
6.  need to broaden inputs
7.  need reaction and support from associations for policy stuff
8.  contact consultants to get them into the game
9.  need an overview chapter, perhaps linked to scenarios, that each 
     R&T group can respond to 
10. the view was that we should not identify who should do the   
      work.Should treat prospective roles.  There is an agreed  
      distinction for ourwork in policy.
11. the emphasis is on making the case for funding rather than fine  
      tuning priorities
12. need early consideration of the approach to be used in task 2 – 
      needs and payoffs – need to discuss
13. entire process, wall to wall, is in our scope 

AEP  Mar 28, 2000