PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratingsreporting requirements. General opinion is that as the federal program begins to consider performance measures –information availability will be even more of an issue.Other■ Related to L13 and L13aItem #39:B-09Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for ProjectLevel Planning and Design(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 3 10 3RAC 1 4 3 7 13 16 5Standing Committee on Research■ The research needs to retain a focus on peak spreading (e.g., developing K and D factors for a 20 year focus) as well asthe impact of capacity constraints on project planning (especially in cases where a trendline volume forecast causes anexponential growth in delay). Thus issue 3 of Hardt's response remains critical.■ The reduced scope should be accompanied by a reduced cost.■ The issues addressed in this problem statement are critical to all Caltrans Districts engaged in any type of modeling orsimulation. As we become more adept at modeling behavior on corridors, we will have even greater need to understandand predict the impacts of land use changes, the effects of peak spreading and the impact of capacity constraint for eachproject. The development of useful, reliable post-processing tools is long overdue.■ Further research into improvement of the post processing of travel demand models is warranted.■ [Rating: 5] Providing effective project level analyses is a high priority and ongoing need as noted in FHWA’s CorporateRisk Assessment (NEPA Process, Travel Forecasting)Research Advisory Committee■ Design traffic quantifications are now done by one person at ODOT. No personnel for modeling. This project has someuse to ODOT.■ ODOT's forecasting staff considers this project vital. Ohio utilizes the outdated NCHRP 255 procedures daily to providethe 200+ project forecasts we produce. These procedures need updating for the various reasons mentioned in theproposal.■ This is a common issue for demand modelers, however, there are several tools that exist in modeling software. Nationalguidance on how and when to use matrix estimation or to use NCHRP 255 is not necessary as it is a project by projectdecision. A study to focus on post-processing tools to further analyze model output would be useful - especially forurban areas.■ It would serve as a compliment to the much more complex and advanced work being done to fundamentally move travelmodeling forward.■ SHA Submission (Operations)■ Support based on MD SHA's revised objectives. Re-evaluate budget and time frame accordingly.■ This issue is directed more at urbanized areas and overly congested facilities. I don't think there would be muchapplication in our communities.■ Work is needed in this area. Emphasis on land-use is good. Should consider results from Ohio on activity–based traveldemand methods. (To be completed in 2010) I like the proposal for hybrid approaches to provide the methods greaterflexibility. Suggest strengthening the validation and reassessment of the methods and models from observed data sourcesas part of the initial method development to address transferability issues. This validation would most likely extend theproject from a 12-month period. Past practices indicate that providing documentation on the development of the modelsIV-25