|
发表于 2005-12-1 20:16:57
|
显示全部楼层
[讨论]-来谈谈交通网络可靠性分析
Shoregh的信息很全面, 目前国际上的研究也就这个状况了. 这个领域哈有许多东西值得研究, 可以将电力网络和通信网络的可靠性研究成果借过来.
提供一个信息: 英国的 Mike Bell等人, 日本的Iida等人, 和香港的William Lam等人有个跨国际的小组, 他们定期开会(INSTR), 交流交通网络可靠性方面的研究. 见下面. 其中提到下一次ISTTT在伦敦召开, 2007年. 大家积极准备论文, 明年一月是详细摘要的截止期.
Minutes of INSTR Scientific Committee meeting on Sunday 22nd September 2004, Hotel Grand Chancellor, Christchurch, NZ.
1.Introduction
Welcome by MGH Bell. Thanks to Alan Nicholson and Andre Dantas for organising 2nd INSTR and the preconference trip to Queenstown. The trip was enjoyed by all participants.
2.Venue for 3rd INSTR
The Scientific Committee received two offers for holding the 3rd INSTR in 2007. The first offer came from David Watling to hold the conference in Leeds or the Lake District, the second from Henk van Zuylen to hold the conference in Delft.
Agachai Sumalee presented the Leeds offer: To hold the conference in Leeds would have the advantage of having both ISTTT and INSTR in England in July 2007. The offer has the full support of the university. There are good transport connections to Leeds from London. It is suggested to hold the conference in the Lake District. The Lake District is two hours from Leeds and six hours from London by bus.
Henk van Zuylen reported on the Delft offer: Delft is less than 1 hour by flight from London, therefore it is also suggested to hold the 3rd INSTR just before or after ISTTT. He emphasized that Delft as a nice venue for a conference. Further, holding the conference in Delft would fit with a new research programme launched by the Dutch government and Delft University on transport reliability called “From A to Better”. He also noted a possible disadvantage: Currently the Schengen visa does not cover the UK so that non-EU participants for both conferences would have to apply for two Visas. As a possible preconference trip sailing in the canals around Delft was suggested.
The Committee requested clarification on whether these two offers would also be valid for 2010. Henk van Zuylen replied that this is not the case because of his retirement. Agachai Sumalee did not want to comment on this in the absence of David Watling. If the offer of David Watling would be accepted the committee further thought Leeds would be more suitable as a venue with a preconference trip to the Lake District.
In the absence of Henk van Zuylen and Agachai Sumalee the Committee voted with a majority of 4:3 for Delft with Mike Bell not voting.
3.Constitution for INSTR
Mike Bell asked if there is a need for a written INSTR constitution. Mike Taylor noted that ISTTT does not have a written constitution but that the minutes and long-standing history of ISTTT implicitly form a constitution. The committee asks Mike Taylor to write down what he understands the ISTTT constitution to be.
Following issues should be addressed in the constitution:
•How is a convener chosen? (INSTR has no address)
•How are papers selected (for conference and publication)?
•How are publications handled?
Henk van Zuylen is asked to comply with the forthcoming INSTR constitution as far as possible.
4.Publications
Alan Nicholson reported on two options:
•Special Issue in Transportation A which would mean to select 8-10 papers. Answer from Frank Haight awaited.
•ublish a book as done before. This would allow publishing a greater number of papers. Positive answer on this possibility from Chris Pringle expected.
The committee expressed a clear preference to publish a book and continue the (so far short) INSTR history. Mike Bell and Alan Nicholson will discuss conditions for a book every three years with Chris Pringle. The committee discussed following main advantages of book versus journal: Speed of publication, more papers can be selected, book proven to be successful. The committee is aware of the possible counterargument that for academic records and CVs a publication in a peer-reviewed journal might count more in some countries.
Internet publication was further discussed as a possible third option but not thought to be feasible because of missing exposure to a wider audience.
However, the committee suggested that the conference proceedings (6 page summary papers) could be published on the internet immediately.
5.Review procedure
Current reviewing procedure is not very rigid. All papers except three not relevant to the conference topic were accepted for this symposium. Majority of committee expressed a preference for higher standards, and ISTTT or TRB are thought to be good examples. It was noted that a full paper review before the conference will require a large enough network and is time intensive. However, Henk van Zuylen is aiming to do so for next INSTR.
6.Yasounori Iida retirement
Yasounori Iida requested to be withdrawn from the Scientific Committee. The primary reason for this is his retirement next year. Secondly, he notes that four Japanese members in the committee might be too many to keep the international balance.
Mike Bell thanks Yousourni Iida for his contributions as a founding member of INSTR. The Committee asks Yasounori Iida to become an honory member and to keep in contact with this conference series. This is accepted by Yasounori Iida.
7.Close
Mike Bell asks if there are any further issues and closes the meeting by thanking all attendees.
|
|