The Urban Transportation Monitor
Volume 19, Number 2
February 4, 2005
Reprinted with permission from Lawley Publications, www.urban-transportation-monitor.com, tel. 703-764-0512.
As part of the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) a total of 13 Peer Review meetings have been held thus far. Peer Reviews are being used by planning agencies to help "ensure that technical processes they are applying or developing meet the agency’s needs, meet the standards of professional practice, and/or meet Federal, state or local planning requirements."
The Urban Transportation Monitor obtained the opinions of transportation planners at agencies that have conducted peer reviews in the past and found that overall there exists a very positive attitude towards the peer review process. Further details about the opinions of planners that participated in the process are shown in the table below.
| Agency | Contact | Peer Review Date | Overall Opinion on Peer Review | Percentage of Recom. to be Imp. | Adequacy of Reporting Peer Review Recom. | What Can Be Improved in Terms of Time Allowed, Type of People Particip. in Peer Review, Format and Time Allowed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlanta Regional Commission | Guy Rousseau 404- 463-3274 grousseau@ atlanta regional. com |
Completed, February 3-5, 2004 | Extremely helpful. As a result a unified work program was established to implement recommended improvements. |
80-90% | Reporting was very good. Resulted from a collaborative effort. Detailed enough. |
Everything was fine, the 2-3 days was perfect. |
| Southern California Association of Governments | Deng-Bang Lee 213- 236-1855 Lee@ scag.ca. gov |
Spring 2005 (Meeting 3) | TMIP Peer review is very useful in several
ways: a. Agencies received funding, logistical, and technical support for conducting the TMIP Peer Review. b. The recom. were incorporated into the model improvement program. Without such review, we might have potential issues down the road since we had relative limited knowledge in certain areas. c. We would have better model and be more credible in our model with the Peer Review. |
Most if not all of the recom. have been implemented in the latest model improvement project. | VOLPE center provided logistical support and meeting summary report. Their report are very comprehensive and detail. Every one can understand the summary report very easily. In a scale of 1 to 10, I will rate 9. | I hope both FHWA and FTA can provide list of individuals who are specialized in the area we need since both FHWA and FTA have better knowledge about who is good in what area either through TMIP program or their on-going review. |
| Memphis MPO | Sarah Sun HSun@ co.shelby. tn.us |
Completed, October 27-28, 2004 | It is extremely useful. | Memphis MPO is still at the beginning of the process. We plan to use 85% of the recom. | In our case, it is very adequate because we have excellent peer review members. They are in volved in each step of the process and they really care about the outcome of the project. Most of the time, the opinions are unanimous. | I am not sure about improvement since I am happy with ours. However, I think some sort of reward/ recognition program of the devoted peer review member would be great. |
| Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Area) | Chuck Purvis 510- 464-7731 CPurvis@ mtc.ca. gov |
Completed, December 2-3, 2004 | The peer review panel meeting for the (San Francisco Bay Area) MTC was very useful and exceeded our expectations. Our panel met on December 2-3, 2004, at MTC's offices, so we are still (as of late January 2005) in the process of writing up the panel meeting discussions. | MTC staff expects that the recom. will be highly influential in future consultant work scopes, as well as future in-house efforts at the MTC. | MTC staff has taken on the responsibility for reporting the peer review panel discussions. The draft panel report is very detailed, and will probably exceed 40 pages of detailed discussions. | Our peer review panel was an appropriate blend of academics, consultants, and local government agency staff. Our agenda appeared packed, but we were able to get through all items of interest to us. We are very, very appreciative of the time and effort that the panelists provided to our agency. |
| Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) | Jon R. Spring 907- 343-7994 SpringJR@ ci. anchorage. ak. us |
Completed, May 24-25, 2004 | I would recommend a TMIP Peer Review to any MPO that is interested in improving their model, especially if they can attract the quality panel that Anchorage was able to gather. As is typical of many mid sized MPOs, AMATS staff relies heavily on consulting services to develop its model. AMATS has found that the third party perspective provided by the TMIP Peer Review panel is very useful in assuring itself that the consultant’s work meets professional standards. There are also major public education benefits to the model peer review. A good peer review helps to address the public perception that the model is a black box. Although much of the discussion is at a highly technical level, good panel members can help to explain to the public how the model works as well as to validate the model methodology in a public forum. | The majority of the short-term model improvements are expected to be im plemented. Anchorage is very interested in implementing the long-term recom. but has limited staff resources available to implement them at this time. | The level of detail contained in the Peer Review recom. was very helpful in making final adjustments to the model. | AMATS conducted its peer review at the end of the model development process instead of at the beginning. Although the review was extremely helpful in refining the model and providing a public forum to discuss the model development, there may be more benefit to conducting the review at the beginning of the process, especially if there are major methodological issues to resolve. |
| Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) | Stephanie J.
Taylor 313- 961-4266 ext. 330 taylor@ semcog. org |
Completed, December 6-7, 2004 | The SEMCOG TMIP Peer Review was very useful as the agency is developing a model improvement plan and unified work program to address model needs. The forum of travel demand model experts allowed for sharing of ideas and consideration of multiple options. | SEMCOG just received the draft report and is hoping to implement as many of the recom. proposed during the peer re view as the agency can afford. | SEMCOG has not yet received a final report from the Volpe Center. SEMCOG staff re viewed initial drafts along with peer review panelists and suggested editorial changes to revise the content from a "meeting minutes" structure to a standard report. The level of detail was good and it was easy to understand. SEMCOG anticipates using this report as a publication to educate our members and guide resource allocation. | SEMCOG took advantage of the flexibility in choosing the panelists, hosting the meeting, and setting the agenda. This approach was decided upon after reviewing other peer review reports/agenda from around the country and considering SEMCOG travel demand forecast model existing and future applications. In the future, it would be nice if there was a write-up somewhere explaining the responsibilities of each party (MPO, FHWA, Volpe) in setting this up. If there is such a document, SEMCOG didn't receive it. |
Source: Individual planning agencies.
The FHWA has produced a synthesis report that summarizes the findings of the individual peer reviews and provides useful additional information regarding peer reviews. The report can be found at http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/services/peer_review_progra/status.stm.
Michael Culp, who manages the Peer Review program for the FHWA, told The Urban Transportation Monitor that they plan to produce an updated synthesis by late summer or early fall this year. He also indicated that the FHWA will be conducting some assessment of the Peer Reviews about 9 to 12 months after they have been held to determine how the Peer Reviews have actually changed the way things are done at the agencies that have participated.
The Urban Transportation Monitor
Volume 17, Number 21
November 14, 2003
Reprinted with permission from Lawley Publications, www.urban-transportation-monitor.com, tel. 703-764-0512.
The recently initiated Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) peer review program, jointly administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration, is receiving positive assessments from the two metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) who have completed their peer reviews. Through the TMIP peer review program, the federal government provides support to MPOs who wish to conduct a peer review of their travel modeling.
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) was one of the first MPOs to successfully conclude a TMIP-supported peer review. Just prior to the review, DRCOG began developing a more integrated regional model and had reached the vision phase of planning the new modeling effort. This early stage is an appropriate time for a peer review as it is early enough to implement changes in the direction of the travel modeling effort. According to Erik Sabina (DRCOG), the review confirmed the following:
Sabina added that DRCOG’s efforts to be well-prepared for the peer review made the review and discussions during the review more focused and efficient.
Another MPO, the Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI; Cincinnati area), conducted its review in July 2003. Cheng-I Tsai, OKI’s manager of data services, indicated the follow ing issues were discussed in the peer review:
Tsai indicated that the review was useful and that the following recom. were made:
Future enhancements recommended by the panel were using tour-based models, incorporating land use factors into the forecasting process, generating person trips by all modes (including nonmotorized modes), incorporating a density measure in the modal utility functions, using a destination choice model rather than a gravity model (including a market-stratified trip distribution and emphasis on explainable constants), using significantly more graphics in the analysis and presentation of model development and forecasts, developing an auto ownership model, implementing an income-based market stratification in distribution and mode choice, collecting more detailed demographic and employment data, and considering household life cy cle-based generation models.
Data on the four other planning organizations that have applied and received TMIP support are included in the table below.
Michael Culp, FHWA contact for the TMIP program, said that MPOs are applying to participate in the peer review program not so much be cause they need to ensure that they are on a sound footing for certification, but because they desire to verify that they are on the right track with their entire or specific components of their travel modeling efforts. Currently, the TMIP peer review program has sufficient funding to conduct three reviews in addition to the six already accepted. After that, funding is dependent on the new reauthorization of transportation funds.
Four current issues that are receiving a great deal of attention in travel modeling, according to Culp, are the following:
For more information on the TMIP peer review program, contact Michael Culp, FHWA, at tel. (202) 366-9229, e-mail: michael.culp@fhwa.dot.gov.
TMIP Peer Reviews: Conclusions/Recommendations From Completed Reviews and Main Issues for Future Reviews
| Awarded Agency | Planning Agency Contact | Peer Review Date | Conclusions/Recommendations or Main Issues To Be Discussed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Council of Governments (Cincinnati MPO) | Cheng-I Tsai tel. (513) 621-6300 ctsai@oki.org |
Completed | Recommendations: Develop independent forecasting capability for employment, population. Look at the following: apparent overestimation of trip lengths in the trip distribution model, the large differences between the constants associated with submodes in the mode choice utility functions, the use of passenger car equivalents for trucks in the assignment process, allowing the area type designations used in various portions of the model to vary over time so the area types in future years are not necessarily the same as in the base year, and the productivity factors used in the truck model, which may serve to over state the growth in truck trips. Future enhancements recommended: using tour-based models, incorporating land use factors into the forecasting process, generating person trips by all modes (including nonmotorized modes), incorporating a density measure in the modal utility functions, using a destination choice model rather than a gravity model (in cluding a market-stratified trip distribution and emphasis on explainable constants), using significantly more graphics in the analysis and presentation of model development and forecasts, developing an auto ownership model, implementing income-based market stratification in distribution and mode choice, collecting more detailed demographic and employment data, and considering household life-cycle based generation models. |
| Denver Regional Council of Governments (Denver, CO MPO) | Erik Sabina tel. (303) 480-6789 Esabina@drcog.org |
Completed | Conclusions/recommendations: DRCOG was on the right track with the planning of its revised modeling effort. DRCOG should move away from the traditional four-step modeling structure to activity-based modeling, including a tour-based approach to trip-making. The modeling effort should include a microsimulation approach in the assignment stage. |
| Southern California Association of Governments (Los Angeles, CA MPO) | Deng-Bang Lee tel. (213) 236-1855 Lee@scag.ca.gov |
To be completed by May 2004 | Main issues: Evaluate the methodology, process of the proposed model improvement project Provide guidance to SCAG's model improvement project Provide recommendations to SCAG's future model improvement direction (SCAG's large, complex region makes a model improvement project difficult; a TMIP peer review is considered necessary.) |
| North Carolina DOT | Rhett Fussell tel. (919) 733-9771 x 272 Rfussell@dot.state. nc.us |
To be completed by spring 2004 | Main issues: What processes are we using that might not be best practices in travel demand modeling? Should we change our housing classification system (how we obtain data for models) used for our smaller areas? If so, how? Where should we obtain housing and employment data instead? What do other areas use? Should we be building travel demand models for all our areas or for areas larger than a certain population? What is that threshold? What other travel demand methods can/should be used in the smaller areas? Are certain traffic assignment loading techniques better for certain types of areas? What should we be using? How much field data collection is necessary? What are typical schedules for developing travel demand models? Are there checks/balances that we are not performing that should be performed? Should we be doing time-of-day modeling for all our MPOs? Is the gamma function or some other function more widely accepted than friction factors tables in trip distribution? Should we dedicate more staff to developing travel demand models? Should all our employees be expected to build models or are some just end users? Are there organizational changes that can facilitate our process? |
| Atlanta Regional Commission (Atlanta, GA MPO) | Guy Rousseau tel. (404) 463-3274 grousseau@ atlantaregional.com |
To be completed by May 2004 | Main issues: Highway and transit network coding QA/QC, traffic analysis zones databases, centroid connectors Land-use forecasting process and linkages (feed back loop) to travel demand model Vehicle availability, induced demand/induced travel, and special genera ors in trip generation Trip distribution innovations Mode choice/nested logit mode split modeling Highway and transit trip assignment, time-of day periods, volume-delay functions New model structure, activity-based and tour-based modeling Data collection (surveys and studies, Census 2000 CTPP data) Institutional issues and other modeling-related issues (e.g., environmental justice, air quality and conformity determination, HPMS data, performance measures, calibration and validation, freight modeling, GIS-T, CMS and ITS coding and modeling) |
| Iowa DOT | Phil Mescher tel. (515) 239-1629 phil.mescher@ dot.state.ia.us |
Application approved Oct. 27, 2003; review in spring 2004 | Main issue: Travel modeling calibration, validation, and reasonableness assessment |
Source: Individual agencies contacted.