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.
79 Public agencies across the United States who are working with advanced models were asked to participate in an interview. The Interview Preparation Guide shown in Appendix A was sent to the agencies in advance. This e-mail was sent to agencies asking for their participation in this study: PB is preparing a synthesis of practice for the National Cooperative Highway Research Project entitled, âAdvanced practices in travel forecasting.â The study aims to document the current state of implementation of advanced models, with particular emphasis on implementation and institutional issues and lessons learned to date. It will also include a brief general review of advanced practices and case studies of selected agencies. A precise definition of advanced practices hasnât been definitely nailed down yet, but our working definition is that it broadly encompasses those techniques beyond the four-step sequential modeling paradigm used over the past sev- eral decades. However, our purview extends to complementary models deployed by transportation agencies, to include integrated land use-transport, dynamic network (including TRANSIMS), freight, and statewide models. An important first step in our work is to interview practitioners to gain insight into the many issues theyâre facing on the road to advanced modeling. While such users obviously includes those actively using or developing such models, we also plan to inter- view agencies that have decided against the advanced models, those uncertain about how or whether to proceed, or those in the early stages of deciding on next steps. Your agency was one of several that we identified in consultation with the Synthesis panel and TRB staff. We would greatly value your input, and hope that you are able to participate in the survey. Attached you will find an Interview Preparation Guide. It covers many of the topics that we would like to discuss with all partici- pants, although we realize that some might not be applicable in your case. We do not intend to collect the Guide; it is provided to provoke thought and possibly internal discussions on your end prior to the interview, and a convenient place for you to write down notes. If you have or are moving towards more than one of the advanced practices listed above we will ask for this informa- tion about each of them. Please make additional copies or consol- idate your comments on one Guide, whichever works best for you. Please note that part of our questions revolve around your reac- tions to the major findings of TRB Special Report 288, âMetro- politan travel forecasting: current practice and future direction.â If you have not read this report already it is available for purchase or free download at http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id= 7821. Please focus particularly on the summary findings and rec- ommendations on pages 1 through 13. I will be contacting you in the next week to arrange for the inter- view. Whether completed in person or by phone we expect that the interview will take between one and two hours for most agencies. Please feel free to contact me at <phone number> or by email if you have questions or comments in advance of my contacting you. Following, an interview appointment was set up. While some interviews were held in person, most interviews were done on the phone. A response rate of 95 percent was reached. The following agencies were interviewed about their advanced modeling work: Person Travel Models Boise (MPO for northern Ada County and Canyon County): Mary Ann Waldinger Chicago Metro Agency for Planning (CMAP): Kermit Wies Federal Transit Administration: Jim Ryan, Ken Cervenka, Nazrul Islam Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG): Eric Sabina, Jennifer Malm, Suzanne Childress Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC): Chuck Purvis Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG): Ronald Kirby, Ron Milone Michigan DOT: Karen Faussett, Donna Wittl Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC): Rebekah Anderson, Zhuojun Jiang New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC): Kuo-Ann Chiao Ohio DOT: Greg Giaimo Oregon DOT: Bill Upton, Brian Dunn, Brian Gregor Portland Metro: Dick Walker, Keith Lawton Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC): Kelly McGourty, Maren Outwater, Mark Simonson Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG): Gordon Garry, Bruce Griesenbeck San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG): Wu Sun San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA): Billy Charlton, Elizabeth Sall Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): Hsi-Hwa Hu Land Use Models City and County of Honolulu: Steve Young Metropolitan Council Twin Cities: Dennis Farmer Montgomery MPO: Kenneth Groves, Michael Clay (Auburn University) San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG): Wu Sun San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA): Billy Charlton, Elizabeth Sall Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG): Gordon Garry, Bruce Griesenbeck Ohio DOT: Greg Giaimo Oregon DOT: Bill Upton, Brian Dunn, Brian Gregor Freight Ohio DOT: Greg Giaimo Oregon DOT: Bill Upton, Brian Dunn, Brian Gregor Portland Metro: Dick Walker Dynamic Traffic Assignment Models Chicago Metro Agency for Planning (CMAP): Kermit Wies Northwestern University: Hani Mahmassani TRANSIMS Federal Highway Administration: Fred Ducca, Brian Gardner Portland: Keith Lawton Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG): Gordon Garry, Bruce Griesenbeck APPENDIX B Interviewed Agencies
