Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction

1. Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction AMPO Travel Modeling Work Group December 10, 2007 Washington, DC

2. 1863Founding of the National Academy of Sciences

3. About the National Academies • Historic mission: form committees of experts to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public. • Provide independent, objective, and non-partisan advice with high standards of scientific and technical quality. Checks and balances are applied at every step in the study process to protect the integrity of the reports and to maintain public confidence in them.

4. Transportation Research Board • One of five major divisions within the National Academies • Much of what TRB does is different from the core mission of the National Academies • “Metropolitan Travel Forecasting” is a traditional National Academies policy study

5. Sponsors of the Study • Office of the Secretary, USDOT • Federal Highway Administration • Federal Transit Administration

6. Scope of the Study • Determine state of practice in metropolitan travel forecasting • Identify technical shortcomings of the models for their intended uses • Recommend actions needed to ensure appropriate technical processes are being used

7. Committee Martin Wachs, chairman, RAND Corporation, MPOs Michael R. Morris, North Central Texas COG Charles L. Purvis, Oakland MTC Guy Rousseau, Atlanta Regional Commission Richard E. Walker, Metro Portland, OR Academia George B. Dresser, TTI, TX Ronald W. Eash, Northwestern University, IL Robert A. Johnston, University of California, Davis Eric J. Miller, University of Toronto, Canada State DOTs Laura L. Cove, North Carolina DOT Mary Lynn Tischer, Virginia DOT Consultants Thomas B. Deen Richard H. Pratt

8. Technical Advisory Group • Williams Davidson, PB Consult • Thomas Rossi, Cambridge Systematics • Williams Woodford, AECOM

9. Sources of Information • Web-based survey of MPOs • In-depth interviews of MPOs • Literature review • Briefings from stakeholders • The expertise of the committee

10. Review of the Committee’s Report • Elizabeth Deakin, U of California • Mark Hallenbeck, U of Washington • Lester Hoel, U of Virginia • Charles Howard, Seattle MPO • Keith Killough, SCAG • Ron Kirby, Washington DC MPO • Frank Koppelman, Northwestern U • Keith Lawton, Consultant

11. Oversight of the Review Process • Adib Kanafani, U California • Mike Walton, U Texas

12. The Result

13. Findings 4-step model is basic approach (estimate trips, distribute among origins and destinations, determine mode, assign to network) • Basic framework unchanged for over 50 years • Many variations in complexity of approach • Complex issues lead to complex models (e.g. travel models linked with land use models) • San Francisco City, Columbus Ohio MPO, and New York MTC have adopted more advanced approaches

14. Findings (con’t) • There is no single approach to travel forecasting that is “correct” for all MPOs • The planning context and the nature of questions being asked should determine the type and complexity of model tools employed

15. Findings- Current Models Inadequate for demand analysis of many applications • Induced travel • Land use policies • HOT and time variable road pricing • Environmental justice • Telecommuting • Mode of access to transit • Traveler response to congested networks

16. Findings- Current Models (con’t) Certain modes are poorly characterized, e.g. • Non-motorized travel • Freight and commercial vehicle travel

17. Findings- Current Models (con’t) Inadequate for supply-side analysis- No disaggregate estimates of volumes and speeds on specific routes by time of day. This affects- • Evaluation of traffic ops improvements • Time shifting in congested networks • Evaluation of freight movement policies • Emissions estimates • Evacuation planning

18. Findings- Current Models (con’t) Advanced travel models are being developed • Detailed representation of person and household activities and travel • Continuous representation of time and network performance • Implemented in a few places – appear to work well

19. Findings- Current Practice • Inadequate data • Optimism bias • Quality control • Validation errors • (FTA commended for efforts to ensure QC)

20. Findings- Obstacles to Model Improvement • Preoccupation with meeting immediate demands of production • Fear of legal challenges • Significant budget and staff limitations • Insufficient evidence that advanced models can be implemented for a reasonable cost and provide significant improvements • Poor/inadequate data

21. Findings- Federal Government Federal support for models development not commensurate with federal demands on modeling • Reduction in federal support: in 60’s and 70’s federal investment = $15 million annually in current dollars compared with about $2.5 million today • Growth in federal planning and environmental requirements for states and MPOs has increased significantly

22. Overarching Recommendations • Develop and implement new modeling approaches better suited to providing reliable forecasts for such applications as operational analyses, environmental assessments, evaluation of policy alternatives, freight forecasts • Take steps to ensure better practice • Federal, state, regional collaboration needed to deliver better models and practice

23. Recommendations for MPOs MPOs would benefit from establishing a national cooperative R&D program • $4-5 million annually, governed by MPOs themselves, for models selection, deployment, evaluation • NYSMPO “shared cost initiative”

24. Recommendations for MPOs (con’t) • Continue peer reviews • University partnerships • Reasonableness checks of project forecasts • Document experience with advanced practice

25. Recommendations for States • Support development of MPO cooperative research program • Evaluate, in cooperation with MPOs, socio-economic forecasts used for modeling • Continue MUGs

26. Recommendations for Federal Gov’t • Support and provide funding for incremental improvements to 4-step models that are appropriate for use. • Support and provide funding for development, implementation, evaluation of advanced models. • Continue TMIP • Increase funding – 0.005% of federal aid is about $20 million, which is roughly comparable to the $15 million of support in the ‘60s and ‘70s. • MPO Certification- models check-list; incorporate MPO peer reviews • Provide flexibility for MPOs to apply models appropriate to their needs.

27. Federal, State, Local • Establish goals, responsibilities, improved training elements, means of improving travel models—perhaps through a steering committee of principle stakeholders. • Develop and keep current a national handbook of practice (not a standards manual)—perhaps through national organization that could bring partners together & perhaps funded by MPO CRP, NCHRP, federal government. • Document data requirements for updating travel models, validating models, freight modeling, meeting air quality conformity requirements, etc.

28. A strategy for change • Practice resistant to change. • For the past 40 years, advances in R&D & innovation in modeling has led to only incremental change. • Need to break out of this cycle. • Harness the coordinated resources of each level of government. • Return to creativity and innovation of the early days of travel forecasting.

29. TRB Annual Meeting Session Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction-Wednesday, January 16, 2008, 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM, Hilton Georgetown W.Charles L. Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, presiding Findings and Recommendations of the Report Martin Wachs, RAND Corporation Perspectives of Stakeholders Gloria Shepherd, Federal Highway AdministrationRonald T. Fisher, Federal Transit AdministrationCharles E. Howard, Puget Sound Regional CouncilDeb Miller, Kansas Department of Transportation Proposal for a Metropolitan Planning Cooperative Research Program Michael R. Morris, North Central Texas Council of Governments Summary of Discussion and Next Steps Martin Wachs, RAND Corporation