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.
63 CLOSING PLENARY SESSION Next Steps Institutional Issues Ken Cervenka, North Central Texas Council of Governments Larry Blain, Puget Sound Regional Council Ronald Milone, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Chuck Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Aichong Sun, Pima Association of Governments Richard Walker, Portland Metro Kermit Wies, Chicago Area Transportation Study Ken Cervenka It is a pleasure to moderate this closing session. We havean excellent group of speakers, who were asked to address the following four questions in their remarks. ⢠What did you learn from this conference that you did not previously know? ⢠What were you hoping to learn that is still not fully answered? ⢠What do you see as the obstacles that most agen- cies will need to overcome to move forward with more advanced land use and travel modeling procedures? ⢠What are the expectations of your agencies for moving forward with more advanced land use and travel modeling procedures? Larry Blain My comments focus on the four questions outlined byKen Cervenka, which I thought about as I listened to speakers during the different sessions. While I did not learn anything brand new at the conference, a number of things that I have been thinking about were reaffirmed by speakers and by the discussion in the different sessions. The impact of changing demographics, including the baby boomers moving into retirement and the impact of their retirement on travel behavior, was one of those elements. Other points that were reaffirmed by speakers included the globalization of issues, the resettlement of central busi- ness districts (CBDs) by higher- income groups, and the increasing number of one- person households. The next step after understanding these issues is to better anticipate and respond to resulting changes in travel needs. I was pleased to learn about the increasing prevalence of tools, such as the population synthesizer and the tour analysis tools that are now available for use. I wish there had been more discussion about the transferability of models from one area to another. I would also have liked to have heard more on the use of dynamic traffic assign- ment at the regional level and risk analysis, including the multiple uses of stochastic runs to obtain a better idea of the range of possible outcomes. I was not able to attend the education session, but it seemed to focus on educating modelers. I think we also need to educate policy makers about travel modeling tools and techniques, especially the appropriate use of the results from these models. It is important to build a better understanding among policy makers about the benefits of travel models. The lack of funding and limited staff resources were two major obstacles discussed in many of the sessions. Data analysis needs were also noted as obstacles by many speakers. Data on day- to- day individual travel behavior are critical with the use of disaggregate models. Multiday individual travel diaries and other related data collection techniques are needed with disaggregate models. Another obstacle is the fragmented development of models and analysis techniques, with work under way in many urban areas. While there is communication among different groups, a central focus for sharing information and consolidating results is lacking. I would suggest that
