Developing a Method Selection Tool for Travel Forecasting (2017)

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.

Deve ACKNOWLED This work was with the Feder which is admin Medicine. COPYRIGHT I Authors herein persons who o Cooperative R purposes. Per FMCSA, FRA, product, metho uses will give a request permis DISCLAIMER The opinions a are not necess or the program The informatio edited by TRB loping a GMENT sponsored by t al Highway Adm istered by the T NFORMATION are responsibl wn the copyrigh esearch Progra mission is give FTA, Office of d, or practice. ppropriate ack sion from CRP nd conclusions arily those of th sponsors. n contained in t . W Metho he American As inistration, and ransportation R e for the authen t to any previo ms (CRP) gran n with the unde the Assistant Se It is expected th nowledgment o . expressed or im e Transportatio his document w NC eb-Only d Selec Mar White Ri In par Kittelson Po Oregon Sys S Keith Lawt Po sociation of St was conducted esearch Board ticity of their m usly published o ts permission to rstanding that n cretary for Res at those reprod f the source of a plied in this re n Research Bo as taken direct HR Docume tion To en Outwater RSG ver Junction tnership wit & Associate rtland, OR tems Analyt alem, OR on Consultin rtland, OR  ate Highway an in the Nationa (TRB) of the N aterials and for r copyrighted m reproduce ma one of the mate earch and Tec ucing the mate ny reprinted or port are those o ard; the Nation ly from the subm P nt 234: ol for T , VT h s, Inc. ics LLC g, Inc. Contracto d Transportatio l Cooperative H ational Academ obtaining writte aterial used he terial in this pub rial will be used hnology, PHMS rial in this docu reproduced ma f the researche al Academies o ission of the a ravel F r’s Final Repor n Officials (AAS ighway Resea ies of Science n permissions f rein. lication for clas to imply TRB, A, or TDC endo ment for educat terial. For oth rs who perform f Sciences, Eng uthor(s). This m orecast t for NCHRP Pr Submitted M HTO), in coop rch Program (N s, Engineering, rom publishers sroom and not AASHTO, FAA rsement of a p ional and not-fo er uses of the m ed the researc ineering, and M aterial has not ing oject 08-94 arch 2017 eration CHRP), and or -for-profit , FHWA, articular r-profit aterial, h. They edicine; been

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Final Report Project No. 08-94 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................... V AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. VI ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ VII CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1 1(A) Legislative History ......................................................................................................................... 1 1(B) Transportation Planning Process .................................................................................................. 3 1(C) Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 3 1(D) Audience ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1(E) Deliverables ................................................................................................................................... 5 1(F) Content of this Report .................................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................................ 7 2(A) State-of-the-Practice Review ......................................................................................................... 7 Travel Model Improvement Program Agency Needs Assessment Survey ...................................... 7 Travel Demand Models .................................................................................................................. 11 Assignment and Simulation Models ............................................................................................... 20 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 23 2(B) Software Design .......................................................................................................................... 24 Method Selection Components ...................................................................................................... 26 Software Development ................................................................................................................... 33 Final User Functionality of TFGuide .............................................................................................. 37 CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS AND APPLICATIONS .................................................................................. 41 3(A) Travel Forecasting Guide Software Tool ..................................................................................... 41 3(B) Administrative Functionality of TFGuide ...................................................................................... 41 Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 48 Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 50 Performance Measures .................................................................................................................. 51 3(C) Pilot Tests .................................................................................................................................... 54

Final Report Project No. 08-94 iv Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments .......................................................................... 54 Regional Transportation Commission ............................................................................................ 56 Virginia Department of Transportation ........................................................................................... 57 Dunbar Transportation Consulting ................................................................................................. 59 CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 60 4(A) Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 60 4(B) Recommendations for Future Enhancements ............................................................................. 60 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 64 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS, AND SYMBOLS ........................................................... 68

Final Report Project No. 08-94 v LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1: FEDERAL REGULATIONS DIRECTING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND MODELING NEEDS ........................... 2 FIGURE 2: PLANNING PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES ...................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 3: SHARE OF AGENCY USE OF METHODS AND TOOLS ................................................................................................. 10 FIGURE 4: IMPORTANCE OF AGENCY CHALLENGES TO CONDUCT ANALYSES FOR PLANNING ......................................... 11 FIGURE 5: STEP 6—LIST OF METHODS BY CATEGORY ............................................................................................................... 31 FIGURE 6: DECISION-ENGINE ER DIAGRAM ................................................................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 7: EXAMPLE WIREFRAME AND NOTES FOR THE MENU OR RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE ........................................ 37 FIGURE 8: FINAL COMPREHENSIVE LAYOUT DESIGN OF MENU OF RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE ........................................ 38 FIGURE 9: USER LOGIN SCREEN ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 10: LANDING PAGE AFTER USER AUTHENTICATION ..................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 11: TFGUIDE—ADMINISTRATIVE HOME PAGE ................................................................................................................ 42 FIGURE 12: PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE LIST OF METHODS ........................................................................................................ 43 FIGURE 13: PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE LIST OF METHODS WITH DETAILS .............................................................................. 43 FIGURE 14: PARTIAL SCREENSHOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW METHOD ............................................................ 44 FIGURE 15: “LOWER CLASS METHODS” ELEMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR A NEW METHOD ...................... 45 FIGURE 16: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW METHOD PACKAGE RELATIONSHIP .............................................................. 46 FIGURE 17: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW PROGRAM CATEGORY .................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 18: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW PLANNING PROGRAM OR PLAN .................................................................... 48 FIGURE 19: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW REQUIREMENT CATEGORY ............................................................................ 49 FIGURE 20: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW REQUIREMENT ELEMENT ............................................................................... 50 FIGURE 21: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW REQUIREMENT ................................................................................................. 50 FIGURE 22: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW RESOURCE CATEGORY .................................................................................. 51 FIGURE 23: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW RESOURCE ........................................................................................................ 51 FIGURE 24: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW PERFORMANCE CATEGORY .......................................................................... 52 FIGURE 25: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW PERFORMANCE ELEMENT .............................................................................. 53 FIGURE 26: ADMINISTRATIVE FORM FOR NEW PERFORMANCE METRIC ................................................................................. 54 FIGURE 27: AMBAG SCENARIOS FOR PILOT TESTING TFGUIDE ................................................................................................ 54 FIGURE 28: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SCENARIO FOR AMBAG ............................................... 56 FIGURE 29: ORIGINAL AND NEW TEMPORAL DETAIL ORDER .................................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 30: RTC CURRENT METHODS AND RESOURCES SCORING EXAMPLE ....................................................................... 57 FIGURE 31: TFGUIDE REFERENCE GUIDE—EXAMPLE PARTIAL METHOD DESCRIPTION ...................................................... 58 FIGURE 32: FUTURE METHODS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE METHOD SELECTION TOOL .................................................. 62 TABLE 1: ROLE OF TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS IN DEVELOPING AGENCY'S TRAFFIC/TRANSIT/FREIGHT FORECASTS .... 9 TABLE 2: STEP 1—PLANNING PROGRAMS AND PLANS .............................................................................................................. 26 TABLE 3: STEP 2—CATEGORIES AND ELEMENTS OF THE PLANNING CONTEXT ................................................................... 27 TABLE 4: STEP 3—PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND METRICS ................................................................................................. 28 TABLE 5: COST AND BENEFIT SCORES ......................................................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 6: REGION OR STATE POPULATION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ....................................................................................... 39

Final Report Project No. 08-94 vi AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research report herein was performed under NCHRP Project 08-94 by RSG, in partnership with Kittelson Associates, Inc., Oregon Systems Analytics LLC, and Keith Lawton Consulting, Inc. Maren L. Outwater, PE, from RSG was the project’s Principal Investigator and this report’s primary author. John Lawlor and Jeff Doyle from RSG were the principal software engineers who developed the software tool (TFGuide) for this project. Kevin Hathaway was responsible for the software design, graphical user interface, and the User Guide. Throughout the project, Richard Dowling, PhD, TE, PE, and David Reinke, from Kittelson, and Vince Bernardin, PhD, and Joel Freedman, from RSG, provided expert technical advice on travel forecasting methods and the relationships between these methods. Keith Lawton and Brian Gregor, from Oregon System Analytics, provided useful reviews of the conceptual design and initial draft of TFGuide. Kaveh Shabani, from RSG, and Brian Grady (now with Picaboo Corporation), conducted the state-of-the-practice review. The authors are grateful to the pilot test agencies that provided useful feedback on the draft software tool: Gina Schmidt and Sanghyeon Ko, PhD, from Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG); Xuan Wang, PhD, PE, from Regional Transportation Commission (RTC); Peng Xiao, PE, PTOE, PMP, and Terrell Hughes, PE, from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); and Julie Dunbar from Dunbar Transportation Consulting (DTC).

Final Report Project No. 08-94 vii ABSTRACT This report documents research undertaken to provide guidance on travel forecasting methods to agencies with diverse planning needs. Past guidance on methods was narrow and did not connect travel forecasting methods to planning activities. This project sought to produce applicable methods by evaluating agencies’ planning programs, desired performance metrics, requirements, and constraints. Methods are ranked by costs and benefits so users can review the determinants of each method and weight the requirements so that the methods reflect an agency’s priorities. The guidance recommends methods individually or as a package (i.e., a modeling system) to meet agency planning needs, and the guidance is implemented using an interactive decision- support system (TFGuide). TFGuide permits changes to the requirements to produce a different set of methods for consideration. The final product described in this report evaluates and considers the travel forecasting practitioner’s needs, the transportation planner’s expectations, and the agency decision-maker’s understanding.