NCHRP

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24931 SHARE

Developing a Method Selection Tool for Travel Forecasting
DETAILS
76 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-46724-7 | DOI 10.17226/24931
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Maren Outwater; National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Transportation
Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientic reports

10% off the price of print titles
Email or social media notications of new titles related to your interests
Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NC
CHR
RP
Web-Only
W y Docume
ent 234:
Developing a Metho
od Selec
ction To
ool for T
Travel Forecastting
Maren Outwaterr
RSG
White Riiver Junction
n, VT
In parrtnership witth
Kittelson & Associate s, Inc.

Po
ortland, OR
Oregon Sys stems Analyttics LLC
Salem,
S OR
Keith Lawtton Consultinng, Inc.
Po
ortland, OR
Contracto
ors Final Reporrt for NCHRP Prroject 08-94
Submitted M
March 2017
ACKNOWLED
DGMENT
This work was sponsored by the

t American As ssociation of State Highway an nd Transportatio
on Officials (AAS
SHTO), in cooperation
with the Federral Highway Admministration, and
d was conducted d in the Nationa
al Cooperative H
Highway Research Program (N NCHRP),
which is admin
nistered by the Transportation
T Research
R Boardd (TRB) of the NNational Academmies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
I N
Authors herein
n are responsible for the authennticity of their materials and for obtaining writte
en permissions ffrom publisherss or
persons who own
o the copyrigh
ht to any previously published or o copyrighted m material used he erein.
Cooperative Research
R Prograams (CRP) gran nts permission to
o reproduce maaterial in this pub
blication for classsroom and not-for-profit
purposes. Perrmission is given with the understanding that none n of the mate
erial will be usedd to imply TRB,, AASHTO, FAA A, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Se ecretary for Res
search and Tec hnology, PHMS SA, or TDC endo orsement of a p
particular
product, metho od, or practice. It is expected th
hat those reprodducing the mate
erial in this docu ment for educattional and not-foor-profit
uses will give appropriate
a acknowledgment of the source of any a reprinted orr reproduced ma aterial. For other uses of the m
material,
request permis ssion from CRP.
DISCLAIMER
The opinions and

a conclusions s expressed or im
mplied in this re
eport are those o
of the researche
ers who perform
med the researcch. They
are not necess
sarily those of th
he Transportatio
on Research Bo oard; the Nation al Academies o
of Sciences, Eng
gineering, and M
Medicine;
or the program
m sponsors.
The informatio
on contained in this
t document was
w taken directtly from the subm
mission of the a
author(s). This m
material has nott been
edited by TRB.

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 Boards 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
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
iii

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
iv

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 6LIST 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: TFGUIDEADMINISTRATIVE 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 GUIDEEXAMPLE 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 1PLANNING PROGRAMS AND PLANS .............................................................................................................. 26
TABLE 3: STEP 2CATEGORIES AND ELEMENTS OF THE PLANNING CONTEXT ................................................................... 27
TABLE 4: STEP 3PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND METRICS ................................................................................................. 28
TABLE 5: COST AND BENEFIT SCORES ......................................................................................................................................... 33
TABLE 6: REGION OR STATE POPULATION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ....................................................................................... 39

D e v e l o p i n g a M e t h o d S e l e c t i o n T o o l f o r T
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 projects Principal Investigator and this reports
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).
vi
C o p y r i g h t N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y
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 agencys 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 practitioners needs, the transportation planners expectations,
and the agency decision-makers understanding.
vii

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND
1(A) LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Travel forecasting practitioners must now answer complex planning and policy questions using
travel forecasting models originally developed with a narrower objective (McNally, 2000).
Travel forecasting models were originally used to evaluate roadway facility expansion. These
models are now used to evaluate pricing, environmental, economic, and growth policies as well
as highway, transit, nonmotorized, and freight alternatives. Evaluations also include an
expanding set of performance metrics to compare the benefits and costs of the alternatives.
Examples of new performance metrics include the effects on the built environment, public
health, and distribution of effects across different socioeconomic groups.
Federal regulations and funding requirements are the primary drivers of travel forecasting model
changes (Johnston, 2004). These regulations have led to travel model improvements in managing
travel demand, connecting modes, reducing emissions, and evaluating equity. More recently,
reductions in public funding have led to travel model improvements in evaluating economic
development, pricing strategies, and comparing economic effects. Figure 1 identifies the travel
forecasting model requirements derived from these federal regulations.
Decision-makers for transportation planning organizations rely on both quantitative and
qualitative evaluations of projects and programs to inform investment, operations, and
management decisions. The federal regulations direct the necessary elements of this evaluation
and provide funding for solutions. As early as 1964, equity analysis and integrated modeling
were the preferred methods to address the regulatory requirements of the Civil Rights Act, but
those early methods did not provide theoretically sound results.
Travel forecasting practitioners now use multiple toolswith the advent of improved forecasting
methodsin concert with increased regulation. These tools include more-focused, less-complex
modeling systems that can address specific questions, and more-complex modeling systems that
can address additional policy implications. Planning agencies also have local requirements that
will affect the types of modeling systems for individual programs or plans. Information on
tradeoffs for different methods and featuresin terms of costs and benefitswill assist planning
agencies in making strategic decisions when developing or updating their current methods and
tools.
The new surface transportation authorization act, titled Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (MAP-21, P.L. 112-141), establishes mandated performance-based measures for
national goals for safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, system reliability, freight
mobility and economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and project-delay reduction. The
last step in the performance-based planning process is establishing targets by which progress is
measured. States will have one year to set a target for each of the national goals, and must
coordinate with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in doing so. States may set
different targets for urban and rural areas.

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 1: FEDERAL RE
EGULATIONS
S DIRECTING TRANSPORTA
T ATION PLANN
NING AND MODELING NEED
DS

1(B) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Transportation planning plays a significant role as state, regional, and local agencies develop
visions for their futures. Transportation planning includes a comprehensive consideration of
possible strategies, an evaluation process that often includes diverse opinions, collaborative
participation by all relevant transportation-related agencies and organizations, and public
outreach and involvement. Transportation planning uses a process to promote involvement by all
users of the transportation system, including the business community, community groups,
environmental organizations, freight operators, and travelers through a public participation
process conducted by the MPO, state department of transportation (DOT), or transit operator.
Transportation planning includes the following:
Describing existing conditions.
Forecasting future population and employment growth, including assessing projected land
uses in the region and identifying major growth corridors.
Identifying current and projected future transportation problems and needs and analyzing,
through detailed planning studies, various transportation improvement strategies to
address those needs.
Developing long-range plans and short-range programs of alternative capital improvement
and operational strategies for moving people and goods.
Estimating the effect of recommended future improvements to the transportation system
on environmental features, including air quality.
Developing a financial plan for securing sufficient revenues to cover the costs of
implementing strategies.
Quantitative tools and methods are used by state DOTs, MPOs, and local agencies to support
many different elements of the transportation planning process. Transportation planning can be
further generalized to identify where forecasting and analysis is performed as part of the larger
process to aid decision-makers and stakeholders in helping to achieve their stated goals and
objectives. This research focuses on the quantitative tools and methods used to perform travel
forecasting and analysis, which provides information for evaluation.
1(C) PROJECT OBJECTIVES

This research developed guidance on the process to select methods for long-range planning
travel forecasting tools. The guidance assists in identifying model improvements appropriate for
the desired level of transportation analysis by weighing the costs and benefits to make informed
choices with constrained resources. This guidance also assists transportation planners and
modelers in communicating the strengths and limitations of the model improvements to decision-
makers.
This research addressed broad model updates required by a transportation plan or program and
corridor- or area-specific model improvements required by a specific transportation project. As a
result, the guidance helps transportation planners and modelers evaluate the requirements of a
plan, program, or project and the desired performance metrics and cost and schedule constraints
to support a transportation plan or program.

The guidance focuses on the primary travel forecasting methods in use today. The travel
forecasting methods included passenger travel forecasting, commercial vehicle and freight travel
forecasting, and assignment and simulation methods. (Other methods are also included in the
guidance that fall outside these three primary categories of travel forecasting methods.) The
current version of the guidance does not include pre- and postprocessing methods used to
develop inputs for travel forecasting methods and develop metrics from travel model outputs,
such as economic, land-use, and demographic methods; person, household, and firm
characteristics methods; impacts and performance metric methods; project prioritization; and
visualization methods. The guidance developed for this project was designed to allow expansion
for new methods in future versions to include theseor otherfuture methods.
The guidance was developed in two forms. First, there is a decision-support system implemented
as an online software tool that produces recommendations for travel forecasting methods based
on a series of user inputs. Second, there is a reference guide that can be accessed via the software
tool, called Travel Forecasting Guide (TFGuide), or via its User Guide, NCHRP Research
Report 852: Method Selection for Travel Forecasting.
The guidance recommends methods that are useful to address a planning program or project
while providing information on the scope, schedule, and budget needed to implement these
methods. These methods require additional resources in staff training, software, hardware, or
data. These additional resources are reported in the guidance at a high level (as desired for
implementing a method), but an assessment of the quantity and quality of these resources and
data was outside the scope of this research. This guidance identifies resources or data items
needed to support a new method, but users are responsible for researching the details needed to
develop a scope, schedule, or budget to obtain these resources. As stated, the guidance and
software developed here were designed to allow expansion for new methods, which could
include methods for data collection, analysis, and use.
This guidance was also designed to account for an agencys existing methods and resources so
that recommendations can focus on future enhancements to support transportation planning
needs. This feature is optionalagencies can choose to identify current methods and resources,
and these will be excluded from recommendations for new methods and the cost and time to
develop these methods. If agencies do not have any current methods or resources, or if agencies
want to evaluate all recommendations (including current methods and resources), then this
feature can be left blank and the recommendations, cost, and schedule for the enhancements will
include all recommendations.
The decision-support system underlying this guidance does not include an evaluation of the
quality or capabilities within an agencys current methods. As a result, the guidance is not
designed to assess readiness for an agencys current methods to support the recommended
enhancements. The focus of the guidance was on identifying and informing users on potential
travel forecasting enhancements that an agency may not be aware of to support transportation
planning analysis.

1(D) AUDIENCE
The three potential audiences for the products of this research are 1) travel forecasting
practitioners; 2) transportation planners; and 3) transportation decision-makers. The goals of
these three audiences align, but the language used to inform each audience varies. The guidance
provides information accessible to each audience: technical information, for travel forecasters;
information connecting the planning question to the methods, for planners; and information on
how to communicate the costs and benefits of each method to decision-makers.
The guidance relies on relationships between the capabilities of various methods with the
requirements and constraints of a planning study. The guidance provides high-level technical
details for each method and references for further details to inform travel forecasting
practitioners, transportation planners, and transportation decision-makers. The guidance has not
been designed to serve as a technical how-to guide for practitioners; instead, the guidance
provides details on the scope, schedule, and budget required to implement each new method.
Users are expected to be both technical and nontechnical staff at state, regional, transit, and toll
agencies. It is expected that practitioners who are new to travel forecasting can learn from the
guidance and that practitioners who have a background in travel forecasting can advance their
understanding of new methods. Users with an advanced travel forecasting background may also
discover new methods by using TFGuide.
1(E) DELIVERABLES
The research includes three primary products:
The first product is an online method selection software toolTFGuidethat includes the
ability to trade off costs and benefits for individual methods and features. This software is
intended to be used by practitioners. TFGuide includes a built-in reference guide.
The second product is NCHRP Research Report 852: Method Selection for Travel
Forecasting: User Guide with instructions on how to use the software tool and reference
guides (included as appendices) for the methods, requirements, and performance metrics
that are included in the travel forecasting guidance. The document is intended to be used
by practitioners in conjunction with TFGuide.
The third product is this contractors final report for the research study, NCHRP Web-
Only Document 234: Developing a Method Selection Tool for Travel Forecasting, which
includes the background research for the guidance, the pilot tests conducted, the
administrative functionality in the software tool, and potential future enhancements. This
document is intended for use by the expert panel and others interested in the background
research.
This research has identified potential methods to answer planning questions. These questions
pertain to the environmental, transportation, quality-of-life, and equity considerations.
Practitioners want to keep up with research on new methods and policy and planning questions
that cannot be answered with current methods, but often do not have the time required to keep up
with new research. A primary goal of this research is to provide a means for practitioners to
identify new methods that directly apply to their challenges. Selecting a travel forecasting

method can affect schedules, budgets, and the quality of information used in decision-making for
transportation investments. This research will support travel forecasting practitioners in
identifying the right-size tool.
1(F) CONTENT OF THIS REPORT

In addition to the front matter and back matter, this Web-Only Document comprises four
chapters:
Chapter 1 includes a discussion of the legislative history for travel forecasting model
requirements, an overview of how travel forecasting fits within the transportation planning
process, the project objectives, and the intended audience for the guidance and
deliverables.
Chapter 2 provides the details of the research approach, including an overview of the
state-of-the-practice review and the software design for the guidance. The software design
includes the method selection components, the online software tool design, and the final
user functionality for TFGuide.
Chapter 3 references the parallel report on the TFGuide software tool and includes
additional information on the administrative functionality in TFGuide and documentation
about the pilot tests conducted using the draft version of the software.
Chapter 4 includes a summary of the project and recommendations for further
enhancements that were identified during the research process.
As noted in the prior section on deliverables and in Chapter 3, NCHRP Research Report 852:
Method Selection for Travel Forecasting: User Guide contains a user guide and reference guides
(included as appendices) for TFGuide. This Web-Only Document focuses on the work conducted
in the project, while the User Guide focuses on the use of the online tool.

CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH APPROACH

2(A) STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE REVIEW
Travel forecasting tools and methods can be classified, organized, and presented in myriad ways.
The research team researched a broad two-dimensional scheme of travel models and decision-
support tools. The research team then developed the state-of-the-practice review to support two
subcategories of methods or tools used in travel forecasting at transportation agencies in the
United States: 1) travel demand models; and 2) traffic assignment and simulation models. The
research team conducted additional reviews on the evaluation of effects and project prioritization
methods that were not included in the final software tool, although these areas are proposed for
future enhancements (see Chapter 4).
This state-of-the-practice review identifies literature documenting and comparing travel
forecasting methods. References from these sources are provided (where beneficial) for
comparison purposes, but extensive descriptions of the methods are not included in this brief
review to avoid redundancy with the original sources.
The state-of-the-practice review is annotated with call-out boxes to connect the current practice
with the methods described in the next section (see Figure 5). In some cases, the methods in
TFGuide are described using different terminology, so these call-
Call-out boxes describe
out boxes are designed to specifically connect the methods with methods in TFGuide that
the practice review. For example, the trip generation methods in are referenced by the
the state-of-the-practice review are described in TFGuide as trip practice review.
production (cross-classification), trip production (regression), or
trip attraction (regression), which are more detailed descriptions for trip generation methods.
Travel Model Improvement Program Agency Needs Assessment Survey

In 2013, the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP)supported by Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)conducted a survey of transportation agency analytical needs to
support transportation planning activities. The TMIP Agency Needs Assessment Survey
comprised detailed questions regarding the types of analyses, tools, and methods used at
transportation planning agencies across the country, including state DOTs, regional MPOs, and
transit and toll agencies. The survey included several methods and tools used to support multiple
planning activities. A total of 203 agencies responded. Figure 2 presents the planning priorities
for the transportation agencies in the survey, with higher values representing the highest
priorities. Overall, travel demand forecasting tools are used primarily to support long-range
transportation plans and transportation improvement programs.

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 2: PLANNING PRIORITIES

P FO
OR TRANSPO
ORTATION AG ENCIES
The TMIIP survey alsso reported the

t role of traavel demandd models in ddeveloping aan agencys
transporttation forecasts. Eighty-ffive percent of agencies use a travel model to deevelop travell
forecasts, and the remmaining 15%% of agenciess use differeent methods tto produce fforecasts.
Twenty-eeight percent of agenciess use a traveel model outpput directly, and the rem
maining 72% of
agencies use other methodsor
m postprocessi
p ingto prodduce forecassts (Table 1).. These data
highlightt not only thee importancee of travel deemand modeels in supporrting planninng activities,, but
also the importance
i of
o other meth hods used eiither separateely or in com
mbination w
with travel
demand models.
m

TABLE 1: ROLE OF TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS IN DEVELOPING AGENCY'S TRAFFIC/TRANSIT/FREIGHT

FORECASTS
TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ROLE COUNT PERCENT
We do not have a travel demand model. We rely entirely on other methods (e.g.,
29 15.4%
sketch-planning models, growth factoring, diversion curves, etc.).
We have a travel demand model but use it in conjunction with other independent
27 14.4%
methods (sketch-planning models, growth factoring, diversion curves).
We have a travel demand model and generally rely exclusively on its direct
53 28.2%
outputs.
We have a travel demand model, but typically postprocess or otherwise adjust its
79 42.0%
outputs to produce forecasts.
Total 188 100.0%
Recently, newer methods within travel demand modelsthose that link trips into tours or
produce linked daily patterns of travelhave gained attention. Transportation agencies have not
yet fully adopted these new methods of travel modeling methods, since most agencies (90%) still
rely on traditional trip-based travel models. However, the landscape for these newer methods is
changing; 28% of agencies are either planning for or considering the newer tour/activity
methods, 25% of agencies are undecided, and 37% of agencies are not planning to adopt the new
methods.
The TMIP survey explored details of additional methods and tools used by agencies in
conjunction with travel and land-use modeling methods; these results are provided in Figure 3.
Most agencies (60%) use data visualization tools. Many agencies also use vehicle emissions
models (48%), traffic optimization or traffic microsimulation tools (45%), or dynamic traffic
assignment (DTA) (33%). Thirty-one percent of agencies also use economic benefit-cost tools.

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 3: SHARE OF AGENCY

A USE OF METHODS
S AND TOOLS
S
Importanntly, transporrtation agenccies indicateed they had nnot widely addopted severral categoriees of
methods and tools (e.g., sketch-p planning andd strategic moodels, crash forecasting,, noise effectt,
project co
osting, air diispersion, an
nd decision-ssupport toolss). Of the 255% of agenciies who use
sketch-pllanning and strategic mo odels, most focused
f on pproducing traavel (14%) oor vehicle
emissionns (4%) foreccasts. The remaining 7% % of agenciess identified w were using thhese models for
scenario planning, laand-use alloccation, trafficc optimizatioon, and data visualizatioon purposes.
Transporrtation agenccies face nummerous challlenges to connduct planning analyses,, as shown inn
Figure 4.. The limitation of curren
nt methods and
a tools waas only of meedium imporrtance, whilee
limited sttaff time and
d budgets weere paramou
unt, pointing to a need foor agencies too be able to do
more witth less.
Transporrtation agenccies also repo orted on the biggest techhnical challeenges, with ffive of the top six
challengees linked to inaccurate
i or uncertain forecasts
f of ssocioeconom mic variabless, origin-
destinatioon travel, freeight, and traavel times. Additional
A teechnical challlenges incluuded a lack oof
sensitivitty to the buillt environmeent and poor spatial and ttemporal ressolution.
10

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 4: IMPORTANC
CE OF AGENC
CY CHALLENG
GES TO COND
DUCT ANALYS
SES FOR PLAN
NNING
Special Note:
N Importance is on a sc
cale of 1-9, with
w 1 being le
east importantt and 9 being most importa
ant.
The TMIIP survey pro ovided a bro

oad overvieww of topics o f interest to transportatioon agencies in
the Uniteed States. Allthough many of the topiics were beyyond the scoppe of this ressearch, they
provide a useful frammework for further
f enhanncements to this researchh (see Chaptter 4) and
confirm the
t importan nce of the toppics that werre included iin this researrch (travel foorecasting
methods)).
Travel Demand
D Models
The curreent state-of-tthe-practice in travel dem
mand modells includes trraditional annd advanced
passengeer- and freighht-demand fo orecasting models.
m The rresearch teamm summarizzed select
literaturee comparing methods on metropolitaan, statewidee, and projecct-level demaand modelinng.
Tradition
nal Passeng
ger Models
Passengeer models preedict the am mount, locatio on, mode, annd route for rresident passsenger travel.
These aree the four steeps in the 4-step plannin ng process. (R Route is disccussed in thee Assignmennt
and Simu ulation Modeels section.) Additional steps
s have bbeen added oover the last three decadees to
predict th
he time periood for resideent and nonreesident traveel patterns. T Traditional ppassenger moodels
are typicaally aggregaate trip-based
d models. Th he National C Cooperativee Highway R Research Program
(NCHRP P) has producced three verrsions of a reeport (Reporrts 187, 365,, and 716) too provide traavel
demand forecasting
f guidance
g andd reflect trav
vel characterristics (TRB,, 1978; TRB B, 1998; TRB B,
2012). Thhe most receent version iss a thorough h descriptionn of techniquues and param meters used in
the 4-step
p planning model.
m The 4-step
4 processs refers to trrip generatioon, trip distriibution, modde
choice, and
a highway assignment.. Additional steps (i.e., ttrucks, externnals, time-off-day, and trransit
assignmeent) have beeen added to thet 4-step prrocess over m many decadees. For referrence, the
11

following identifies the most common methods in traditional passenger demand models from this
report.
Trip generation is commonly considered the first step in the 4-step modeling process. It
addresses the question of how many trips of each type begin or
Trip Production
end in each location. It is standard practice to aggregate trips (Regression)
to a specific unit of geography (e.g., a traffic analysis
zone).Trip generation models require explanatory variables that are related to trip-making
behavior and functions that estimate the number of trips based on these explanatory
variables. While these functions can be nonlinear, they are usually assumed to be linear
equations, and the coefficients associated with these variables are commonly called trip rates.
Whether the function is linear or nonlinear, it should always estimate zero trips when the
values of the explanatory variables are all zero. Mathematically, this is equivalent to saying
that the trip generation equations should include no constant terms.
The gravity model is the most common type of trip-distribution
Trip Distribution
model used in 4-step models. In the equation, the denominator (Gravity)
is a summation that is needed to normalize the gravity
distribution to one destination relative to all possible destinations. This is called a doubly
constrained model because it requires that the output trip table be balanced to attractions,
while the numerator already ensures that it is balanced to productions.
Most mode choice models use the logit formulation. In a logit mode choice model, the
alternatives represent the modes. The utility is a function of the explanatory variables. These
variables may include the following:
Modal level-of-serviceAuto in-vehicle time, transit in-vehicle time, wait time, walk
access/egress time, auto access time, transit fare, parking cost, number of transfers.
Traveler characteristicsVehicle availability (sometimes relative to other potential
drivers), household income, gender, age, worker/student status.
Area characteristicsDevelopment density, pedestrian environment.
FHWA, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), TRB, and the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation sponsored a study to gather information needed to determine the national state-of-
the-practice in metropolitan-area travel demand forecasting by MPOs and state DOTs (TRB,
2007). This special report evaluated the current state of practice and identified shortcomings
along with recommendations for improvements; its audience was officials and policymakers who
rely on the results of travel forecasting. The transportation analysis methods discussed in this
report (3-step, 4-step, 5-step, population synthesis, household activity-based, and traffic
microsimulation) are matched with land-use analysis methods (geographic information systems,
accessibility models, real estate market models, input-output models, and business and
residential location models) that can be tailored to the issues being addressed, based primarily on
the level of detail required for analysis. The research concluded that no single approach to travel
forecasting procedures is appropriate for all planning and policy needs.
12

In a study by Mishra et al. (2013), a comparison of destination choice and gravity models has
been presented using a real case study applied within the Maryland
Statewide Transportation Model. The authors noted several trip- Destination Choice
distribution models in the paper (e.g., Fratar Growth model, Model
Simple Growth Factor model, Furness model, Detroit model,
Gravity model, and Destination Choice model), but focused their discussion on the last two
models. The authors found that while the gravity model has some limitations as an aggregate
model, disaggregate approaches have recently gained more attention with the development of
logit and other discrete choice techniques.
The application of destination choice models is still being studied, and while these models
include the capability to accommodate population heterogeneity, there is not broad adoption.
Destination choice models are estimated at the disaggregate level, and impedance variables
interact with individuals demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. As a result, a
destination choice model with continuous attributes interacting with impedance cannot be
applied in practice since individuals continuous attributes are unavailable at the traffic analysis
zone (TAZ) level unless an activity-based (AB) model is applied to simulate each individuals
travel behaviors. In addition, when a destination choice model is developed at the individual
level, and then applied at the TAZ level, a spatial aggregation error will occur in both model
estimation and application.
Mishra et al. (2013) also discussed some of the advantages of destination choice models over
gravity models, which included the presence of agglomeration effects and hierarchy in
destination choices. Moreover, simultaneously modeling the effects of land use on travel
behavior was found to be another advantage of destination choice models. The authors noted the
inability to evaluate many policy issues for long-range planning as a disadvantage of gravity
models. Mishra et al. (2013) concluded that the destination choice model better replicates the
observed trip length and origin-destination matrix for home-based work trips and supports the
hypothesis that the destination choice model provides more accurate results than gravity models
in statewide travel demand model applications.
In a study completed at Queensland University of Technology by Khan (2004), various nested
logit mode choice models for different trip lengths and trip purposes were estimated using the
data from a stated preference survey conducted in the study area. As part of this study, the author
conducted a state-of-the-practice literature review on passenger mode choice modeling, focusing
on modeling specifications and estimation techniques. Two types of trip generation models were
evaluated: 1) multiple linear regression (zone- or household-based); and 2) cross-classification.
The study observed the following:
Both the trip generation models have been highly assessed by transport planners due to their
distinct paradigms; however, linear regression continues to be most popular due to its simple
formulation and analytical tractability. Shen (1994) developed a trip generation model for
New Jersey and New York in the United States using both the regression and classification
approaches. He demonstrated that regression analysis is a very practical tool for trip
generation analysis under the circumstances where no household survey data is available and
13

socioeconomic data is at the aggregated zonal level. Szplett and Kieck (1995) found that the
individuals residing in rural areas generally have to take more long distance trips than the
households in urban areas. Therefore, the trip generation rates are always unpredictable and
unstable and cannot be accurately determined using cross-classification approach. Freedman
et al. (1999) further supported the analysis of Szplett and Kieck by criticizing the cross-
classification approach due to the inaccuracy of the results proposed by the model as
compared to the actual data. (Khan, 2004)
Three types of mode choice models were reviewed and considered in this research: 1) logit
choice (multinomial or binary); 2) probit; and 3) general extreme
Mode Choice
value. The most commonly used choice models are logit models,
(Disaggregate) Model
with probit or general extreme value models working under less-
strict and more-complex conditions. The report presents a comparison of these three methods
based on the basic hypothesis, major constraints, model formulations, model estimation
complexity, introduction of access modes, and practical applicability. Probit and general extreme
value models are typically not used in practice because of the more-complex estimation process.
Horowitz (2006) conducted a NCHRP synthesis that detailed current knowledge and practice on
statewide travel forecasting models designed to address planning needs. The author discussed the
types and purposes of models being used, integration of state and urban models, data
requirements, computer needs, resources, limitations, and overall benefits. The core of this
synthesis included results of surveys received from every state that has a statewide travel
forecasting model. Information about modeling activities was provided by 49 states returning at
least one questionnaire. The responses to the synthesis questionnaires, along with those from an
earlier questionnaire distributed by the TRB Statewide Travel Demand Models Peer Exchange in
2004, permitted a general assessment of the state-of-the-practice. The questionnaires focused on
individual components of the models and the modeling processes.
This report presented a list of statewide travel demand model uses, with the top 10 including the
following:
Corridor planning.
Statewide system planning or system environmental impact statement (EIS).
Bypass studies.
Regional planning, assisting an MPO model.
Project-level traffic forecasts or project EIS.
Regional planning, substituting for a local model.
Air quality conformity analysis, freight and intermodal planning, traffic impact studies,
economic impact studies and long-term investment studies (tied for 7th place).
States with experience in model usage had a greater confidence in model validity and tended to
report more uses. The report included a wide variety of applications for statewide models. None
of the states reported using their models either for truck-weight studies or for safety analyses.
The FHWA Office of Project Development produced procedural guidance on travel and land-use
forecasting in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process (Resource
14

Systems Group, Inc., 2010). The purpose of the interim guidance was to encourage improvement
in the state-of-the-practice in project-level forecasting as it is applied in the context of the NEPA
process. This guidance shares key considerations, lessons learned, and best practices regarding
how to apply forecasting. DOTs can use the guidance to avoid common issues and improve the
quality of forecasts, resulting in faster and more effective project delivery. Others had
documented technical guidelines for producing forecasts for projects; however, guidance on
procedural or process considerations in forecasting was not provided.
Advanced Passenger Models
TRB sponsored a synthesis as part of NCHRP to conduct a comprehensive review of current and
past efforts in advanced modeling (Donnelly, 2010). The synthesis explored the use of travel
modeling and forecasting tools that represent significant advances. The synthesis included five
types of models: 1) AB; 2) dynamic network; 3) land-use; 4) freight; and 5) statewide models.
The synthesis included a literature review; detailed interviews among federal, state, and
metropolitan agencies, and consulting firms; and case studies. The study team interviewed more
than 30 practitioners and researchers for the study and the study team discussed the highlights of
each interview, with the interviewer(s) summarizing the key topics and discussion items. The
major findings of those discussions were that the right model is the one that best meets the policy
needs of the agency. This research summarizes the types of policy questions, whether they can
be answered with traditional models, what type of advanced model would be most beneficial,
and the benefit provided by the model. Policy issues for highway, transit, emissions and
greenhouse gases, pricing, land use, validation, interaction with population, and other topics are
included.
The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) also sponsored a study to
assess advanced travel model performance for use by MPOs (Vanasse Hangen Brustlin et al.,
2011). The study provided technical guidance to the MPO community on the relative costs and
benefits of committing resources to the development and implementation of AB models as a
replacement for traditional models. The study provided qualitative and quantitative data to
inform and support educated, fact-based decisions by MPOs on the allocation of resources to
advanced travel forecasting techniquesspecifically, the implementation of AB models.
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) commissioned research to understand the
feasibility of implementing AB models in Virginia (Virginia Department of Transportation,
2009). The report summarized the theory and practice of 4-step models and AB models, assessed
the costs and benefits of moving to an AB model framework, and reviewed the practical
concerns regarding the performance of such models. The research included interviews with
agency staff in many of the metropolitan areas in which AB models were being developed or
were in use; the research also reviewed published literature on the theory and practice of AB
models. The report also described techniques that are available to improve traditional 4-step
models, and noted many techniques can achieve benefits attributed to AB models.
In a TRB paper by Lemp et al. (2007), two competing approaches to travel demand modeling
were compared (traditional 4-step travel demand models and AB models) using an application in
Austin, Texas. The paper revealed several differences in model performance and accuracy, in
15

terms of replicating travel survey and traffic count data. The authors concluded that AB
modelswhile requiring more data manipulation, model calibration, and applicationare
generally more sensitive to changes in model inputs, showing that aggregate models omit
important behavioral distinctions across the population.
FHWA, in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), has also conducted
a comparison of the forecasting results for three projects, at the regional and local level, for trip-
based and tour-based models (Ferdous et al., 2011). The three projects represented growth in
land-use and transportation investments. The results indicated that tour-based models performed
slightly better compared to observed data at the regional scale, and both models performed
equally well at the local level.
TRB-sponsored research has described a decision-making framework and has cataloged
analytical tools that detail likely effects of user-fees and tolling on revenue generation and
system performance (Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. et al., 2012). Volume 2: Travel Demand
Forecasting Tools of NCHRP Report 722 focuses on travel forecasting tools available for
providing demand estimates for priced facilities. The report contains the following
recommendations for models used to analyze demand for priced alternatives:
The travel model should be sensitive to pricing across several dimensions, including route
choice, mode choice, destination choice, and time-of-day.
The travel model should have a minimum segmentation of 45 purposes and 34 income
groups.
A binary toll\nontoll choice model should be considered either as a sublevel nest in mode
choice or as a preassignment step to overcome toll bias and allow for nonlinear
specification of the tradeoff between time savings and toll cost.
An improved time-of-day choice model is recommended, though primarily in the context
of tour-based decisions.
The reports authors recommended development of an AB microsimulation model as a long-term
enhancement, to leverage flexibility in the definition of tolling options and the availability of a
synthetic population for sensitivity to tolls and equity analysis.
Transit Passenger Models
Transit ridership forecasts use transit passenger models for different short- and long-range
planning purposes:
Service expansions or reductions (short-range).
Fiscal year budgeting (short-range).
Fare increases, special fair policies, and new fare instruments (short-range and long-
range).
Station planning and design (short-range and long-range).
Projections for short- and long-range transit plans.
FTA New Starts and Small Starts fixed-guideway funding applications (current-year
forecasts plus optional 10-year or 20-year forecasts).
16

The methods chosen for these applications will often vary based on whether the planning
purpose is to produce a short- or long-range forecast. Many transit agencies view regional travel
models as primarily focused on automobiles, including transit model components aimed at
removing a reasonable share of the region-wide person trip demand. MPOs in urban areas with
significant transit share have invested in and developed transit model components that include
more sophisticated path building and market segmentation routines with the goal of producing
more accurate results. Several methods are utilized that often borrow certain elements from a
regional travel model; this is because of the inherent complexity associated with accurately
predicting transit ridership. These methods incorporate data in off-model methodologies that go
beyond simple validation.
In support of ridership forecasting for New and Small Starts applications, the FTA has given
practitioners guidance at a series of presentations delivered at multiday workshops in
Minneapolis, Minnesota (June 2006); St. Louis, Missouri (September 2007); and Tampa, Florida
(March 2009). The workshops, designed for practitioners and project sponsors, were developed
to communicate New Starts and Small Starts requirements, describe the current best practices
regarding the use of data and the selection of methods, and illustrate what constitutes good model
development and validation procedures. The reader should review the information on FTAs
Travel Forecasts web page for the latest from FTA about ridership forecasting for proposed New
Starts and Small Starts projects. As of this writing, sponsors can choose among three methods to
prepare ridership forecasts: Pivot-Point and
1. Regional travel models. Incremental Models
2. Incremental data-driven methods.
Direct-Demand
3. FTAs Simplified Trips-on-Project Software (STOPS). Model
The FTA developed STOPS as a simplified ridership-forecasting
method for local agencies planning major transit projects. Local agencies can opt to use STOPS
to meet all the forecast-related requirements for transit projects proposed for federal funding.
STOPS is a region-wide travel model, similar to traditional trip-based models maintained by
MPOs in larger metropolitan areas. The package is simplified in two ways. First, its development
has already accomplished the specification and calibration of its component modelsin this
case, using data assembled nationally from transit systems with fixed guideways. Second, its
application relies primarily on already-available data: 1) the Census Transportation Planning
Package, for worker commuting patterns; 2) the General Transit Feed Specification data, for
detailed representation of local transit services; and 3) information from the local MPO travel
model to represent zone-level population, employment, and highway impedances. STOPS also
has an incremental option that grounds transit forecasts in user-provided transit passenger trip
tables derived from well-implemented transit rider surveys.
Like MPO-maintained travel models, the STOPS mode choice and transit-loading models predict
the number of zone-to-zone trips on transit, the distribution of those transit trips by access mode
(including park-ride and kiss-ride), and the volume of trips by access mode at each boarding
location (including designated park-ride facilities on fixed guideways or bus routes).
17

STOPS is intended for use by capable travel forecasting professionals. FTA provides detailed
information on STOPS, as well as downloads of the software and a contact name for technical
assistance, on the STOPS webpage that is accessible from FTAs Travel Forecasts page.
A TRB report by Coffel et al. (2012) includes guidelines for arranging and integrating various
station design elements to promote access to public transportation. As part of the study, the
authors assessed several evaluation tools that can support transit planning for access to transit
stations. Travel demand modeling was one of the primary tools identified. Travel demand
models are a familiar tool for estimating transit ridership, with 51% of transit agencies reporting
that they use 4-step travel demand models for forecasting ridership. The report observed:
Numerous travel demand models capable of assessing the impacts of at least some transit
access alternatives have been developed. However, these models are not generally available
to transit agencies for planning for access to transit stations, as the cost and data
requirements of developing such sophisticated demand modeling tools are prohibitive for
many MPOs and few transit agencies have resources to develop their own models. As a result,
many transit agencies use other methods to estimate ridership. Table 5 summarizes the
responses collected for TCRP Synthesis 66, which collected information on ridership
estimation methods currently used by transit agencies. This report found that just over half of
all transit agencies use their regional travel demand models for ridership estimating. Instead,
the majority of transit agencies rely on more qualitative methods of forecasting ridership,
such as judgment or rules of thumb. Relatively few transit agencies use econometric models
or regression analyses, with only one out of every five identifying them as a forecasting
technique. Coffel et al. (2012)
Freight and Goods Movement Models
Freight and goods movement models predict the amount, location, mode, and route of
commodity flows. These models parallel passenger models with trip generation, trip distribution,
mode choice, and trip assignment components. Commodity-based models segment goods
movement into commodity groups and apply parameters specific to an industry. Supply chain
models also predict business relationships between buyers and suppliers, along with the supply
chains that result from these business relationships. Tour-based truck models predict the pick-up
and delivery system of local goods movements. Microsimulation models predict individual
shipments and then convert these annual shipments to daily or weekly deliveries in each vehicle
(e.g., truck railcar).
TRB sponsored research as part of the National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP)
that presented an evaluation of possible improvements in freight-demand models and other
analysis tools, and provided a guidebook to assist model developers in implementing these
improvements (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and GeoStats, LLP, 2010). The report focused on
use of existing data to develop data inputs for the model, and found that existing and readily
available data could be used to develop the inputs required by freight models. The study team
also developed a proposed 10-step process to assist model developers in implementing freight
transportation planning, including these improvements. The report developed the guidance based
18

on the literature review and model framework, a survey of public decision-makers, and
additional research in support of this project. The report noted the following:
The approach to this study was driven by a desire to understand the needs of decision-makers
and planners and to assess the degree to which existing technical tools meet these needs. This
is a departure from the more traditional method of reviewing existing models and determining
the most feasible improvements. As a result, this approach relied heavily on information
collected from a series of interviews conducted concurrently with freight modelers, planners,
and decision-makers from state DOTs and MPOs.[M]ost of the tools are widely used in
practice and can be used to answer a number of freight related planning and policy questions.
(Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and GeoStats, LLP, 2010)
This report includes descriptions for several freight models, Commodity Flow
including time series, behavioral, commodity-based and input- Model
output, multimodal network, microsimulation and agent-based,

Supply Chain
supply chain and logistics, network design, routing and Model
scheduling, and other emerging topics. These descriptions
included an assessment of how widely used the methods were for model development, model
implementation, and public-sector applications.
Aggregate-level approaches to freight modeling focus on modeling the conglomeration of user
demand. The typical example of such an approach is the 4-step planning method that includes
trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and traffic assignment. Different measurement units
of freight demand used (e.g., commodities or vehicle trips) lead to commodity-based or vehicle-
trip-based models. Regardless of units used for measurement, these approaches result in
commercial vehicle trips.
Since the TRB-sponsored research, FHWA has supported the development of supply chain and
tour-based methods to support regional and statewide freight forecasting (Wies et al., 2013). The
complete framework comprises two parts: 1) a national part that focuses on applying supply
chain methods to model commodity shipments; and 2) a regional part that focuses on tour-based
methods to model truck movements. Shipments developed in the
Vehicle Types and
national part of the framework are tracked through the regional Tour Patterns
part of the framework as they are moved by trucks. Wang and
Holgun-Veras (2010) have also studied tour-based urban freight travel demand models, and
have developed a summary of types of urban freight models that segments urban freight travel
demand models into aggregate and disaggregate models; then by trip-based, tour-based, and AB;
and then by commodity-based and vehicle trip-based methods.
The broad category of commercial vehicles also includes a significant share of vehicles that do
not carry freight, including but not limited to business services, landscaping, other household
maintenance services, public safety, construction activity, vehicle
rentals, and paratransit services. In 2002, FHWA sponsored Freight and Services
research to account for all commercial vehicles in urban Tours and Stops
transportation models (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2004). The
19

research estimated the share of nonfreight truck traffic at approximately 5.6% of total vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) on the interstate system, and approximately 5% of VMT on principal
arterials. The report identifies three broad methods of estimating commercial vehicle demand: 1)
aggregate methods that apply national parameters to estimate commercial vehicle trips, like the
aggregate-level models; 2) network-based quick-response methods; and 3) locally estimated
models. These methods are still in use as of 2017. The report recommended tour-based and
supply chain models as avenues for future research, and much of this research has taken place in
the intervening years.
Stefan et al. (2005) describes just such an approach in a TRB paper. The paper describes an
agent-based microsimulation framework that uses a tour-based approach and emphasizes
important elements of urban commercial movement, including the role of service delivery, light-
commercial vehicles, and trip chaining. The microsimulation uses Monte Carlo techniques to
assign tour purpose, vehicle type, next-stop purpose, next-stop location, and next-stop duration.
Tours are grown from the sequential processing of decisions.
Assignment and Simulation Models

The current state-of-the-practice in the use of assignment and simulation models in travel
forecasting includes four types of models: 1) integrated and multiresolution models; 2) static
equilibrium assignment; 3) DTA; and 4) traffic microsimulation.
Integrated Multiresolution Models
Each domain scale (i.e., macro-, meso-, and micro-) of simulation has level-of-resolution and
spatial-scope limitations. Macroscopic models can analyze large networks and estimate mode
shift, but these models cannot provide detailed information about individual vehicles or
interactions between vehicles. Microscopic models can estimate individual vehicle movements,
but only on relatively small networks. Mesoscopic simulations attempt to strike a balance
between the two by modeling route choices of individual drivers with a limited level of detail
pertaining to driver behavior. In order to incorporate the benefits of each single resolution
simulation type, many practitioners have begun to utilize an
integrated approach to transportation modeling. This integrated (or Integrated
Multiresolution Models
Multiresolution Modeling [MRM]) utilizes each modeling domain
in the following manner (FHWA, 2013):
Macroscopic. Trip table manipulation for the discernment of overall trip patterns.
Mesoscopic. Analysis of the effect of driver behavior in reaction to mitigation strategies.
Microscopic. Analysis of the effect of traffic control strategies at roadway junctions.
FHWAs (2013) The Effective Integration of Analysis, Modeling and Simulation provides a
thorough evaluation of each domains practicality and applicability and establishes means by
which several domains are correlated. For example, many MPOs and transit agencies currently
utilize macroscopic travel demand models for transit network improvements; incorporating DTA
or microsimulation into an integrated modeling approach may better serve their objectives. The
research presents potential relationships between different analysis, modeling, and simulation
domains (land-use models, macroscopic travel demand models, AB models, mesoscopic DTA
20

models, microscopic simulation models, deterministic operation models, emissions models,

safety models, and sketch-planning tools). However, the tools to connect these areas may still be
in development, or only available through proprietary software.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2012) sponsored a study that evaluated
traffic simulation model use in the development of Corridor System Management Plans (CSMP).
The project sought to evaluate the effectiveness and value of using traffic simulation in the
development of CSMPs, and to determine whether the use of simulation models provided
benefits that exceeded their actual and apparent costs. The study reviewed traffic simulation
capabilities. Moreover, the study assessed experiences with traffic simulation for corridor
evaluations through a survey of simulation modelers and decision-makers, and a detailed review
of simulation modeling efforts.
Static User Equilibrium Assignment
Static User Equilibrium assignment methods are the prevailing state-of-the-practice at agencies
across the United States. The user equilibrium (UE) concept in traffic assignment is an attractive
modeling assumption because it reflects the volume dependence of roadway network
performance, the natural tendencies of users to seek their best
User Equilibrium Traffic
routes, and the need for consistency between the travel times used
Assignment
in modeling trip distribution and those generated by traffic
assignment (FHWA, 2013). Newer static assignment methods have emerged in recent years that
seek to improve the convergence of the UE problem. This report does not present literature on
this research since it is not germane to project objectives.
Traffic assignment models are used to assign the vehicular origin-destination table to the
highway network. These models employ some measure of impedance, combining travel times,
cost, and (sometimes) reliability to estimate which routes will be used by travelers. These
assignment (or route-choice) models may use a relatively simple model of traffic congestion to
predict travel times (e.g., the Bureau of Public Roads equation). Alternatively, the assignment
models may use a more elaborate multiresolution process, combining DTA with mesoscopic or
microscopic simulation models to estimate traveler route preferences and traffic congestion.
Dynamic Traffic Assignment
Use of DTA models has become more prevalent among MPOs and Dynamic Traffic
other transportation agencies in the United States that are tasked Assignment
with assessing the effects of potential transportation projects.
These time-variant traffic flow models provide valuable insights for practitioners toward the
macroscopic or mesoscopic effects of a change to the system through analysis of queuing, route
assignment, and travel time reliability on a link (or even network) level. Due to the popularity of
DTA models, their appropriate application in travel demand modeling has been the subject of
several detailed investigations.
One recent exploration into the state-of-the-practice of DTA comes through the FHWAs Traffic
Analysis Toolbox Volume XIV: Guidebook on the Utilization of Dynamic Traffic Assignment in
Modeling (Sloboden et al., 2012). The primary purpose of the guidebook is to provide engineers
21

and planners in various MPOs and state DOTs with direction on the appropriate applications of
DTA tools for transportation decision-making. Since DTA models can capture the interactions
between travelers and the network, they allow practitioners to test various network structures and
schemes, including alternative capacity, traffic control (e.g., signals or ramp meters), pricing, and
evacuation planning. Some of the recommended applications include the following:
Bottleneck removal studies.
Active transportation and demand management strategies.
Integrated corridor management strategies.
Operational strategies.
Incident response management scenarios.
Special events.
Work-zone effects and construction diversion.
The toolbox contains a complete list of applications; however, before applying DTA modeling to
any of these potential projects, practitioners must be aware of the basic requirements for the
proper utilization of DTA. Foremost, origin-destination (O-D) data, categorized into peak
periods/hours, is a fundamental input to any DTA; without this information, developing an
accurate DTA model is difficult. Additionally, extensive temporal data collection efforts are
required to calibrate the model. Additional requirements include access to software with DTA
capabilities, staff members with expertise in transportation modeling, and extensive temporal
data collection efforts to conduct the required model calibration (Sloboden, 2012).
TRBs (2011) Dynamic Traffic Assignment: A Primer supplements these findings by
recommending numerous additional potential applications; the document contains a full list of
such potential applications. Despite the documents observation that DTA requires extensive data
collection, model calibration, and expertise, these models can be useful for MPOs and state
DOTs conducting operational planning projects. DTA models are especially useful when these
planning projects involve changes to roadway configuration, freeway expansions, development
of a city bypass, the addition of high-occupancy toll (HOT)/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, integrated corridor improvements, and travel demand management strategies (e.g.,
congestion pricing). DTA models are also recommended for engineers working on large-scale,
real-time traffic management or information provision issues; this is due to their ability to
address these issues in a systematic manner because they provide capabilities to estimate future
network conditions (flow patterns) that will result from a particularstrategy (TRB, 2011).
Traffic Microsimulation Models
Although macroscopic and mesoscopic DTA models allow practitioners to simulate large
networks, they do not provide a detailed analysis into individual
motorists route choices. As a result, the use of traffic Traffic Microsimulation
microsimulation models has become the prevailing methodology Model
for modeling the response of individual drivers to changes within
the network. A microscopic model allows practitioners to evaluate the behavior of an individual
vehicle within the traffic stream, whether done with a car-following, lane-changing, or route-
choice model. A microscopic simulation requires detailed input; the calibration and validation of
22

model inputs can be arduous. When selecting a simulation type, practitioners must be cognizant
of the level of detail that their projects require.
FHWAs Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation
Modeling Software provides transportation professionals with a recommended process (seven
steps) for properly applying microsimulation software to transportation analyses (Dowling et al.,
2004). It recommends using microsimulation software to model the traffic performance of
highways, streets, transit, and pedestrian facilities where second-by-second (or subsecond-by-
subsecond) analysis is constructive. However, it is important to consider the scope of such
projects, where careful consideration must be paid to securing the proper expertise, allotting
sufficient time and financial resources, and fostering a detailed database for the development of a
base model (Dowling et al., 2004).
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2010
report, Best Practices in the Use of Micro Simulation Models (Sbayti and Roden, 2010),
identifies several instances where microsimulations were found to be warranted and cost
effective. The report defines worthwhile projects as endeavors where the following applies:
Detailed interactions of vehicle movements are the principal motivation for the study
(these include interactions of vehicles with pedestrians/bicyclists, HOVs and buses, and
congested traffic).
Alternative design considerations are needed related to lane changing.
The visual animation of traffic conditions will improve the credibility of potential
solutions.
Cervenka (1997) assessed the use of traffic microsimulation at the regional scale for use by
MPOs. Using the Dallas-Fort Worth region as a study area, Cervenka (1997) identified factors
that could hinder the successful application of the 4-step travel model toward simulating
individual activities and travel. Many of the same drawbacks identified in previous studies (i.e.,
extensive data and computational requirements) challenged Cervenkas (1997) study; however,
traffic microsimulation showed potential for significantly improving existing travel forecasting
procedures used by MPOs and state DOTs.
Summary
Travel demand forecasting models employ different, purpose-specific methods (i.e., specific
methods exist for transit and freight models, although traditional and advanced travel forecasting
models will also produce ridership forecasts for transit). Some freight models rely on methods
like passenger models, but freight-specific methods are also currently in use. Travel forecasting
methods also vary by the type of agency using them and the purpose (i.e., methods for statewide,
regional, local, or project-specific planning purposes or for transit or toll agencies):
Metropolitan-area models tend to be more complex, representing multiple modes, more-
complex policy needs, and congestion problems.
Statewide models range from sketch models to advanced models, depending on policy
needs.
23

Project-level forecasting ranges from site-specific approaches to full-scale travel models,

depending on project size and complexity.
Transit and toll agencies favor methods that are more detailed in their representation of transit or
tolling, but include much less or no detail on other types of travel. Many of these methods are
similar, but there are often specialized methods or tools identified in the literature. The brevity of
this literature review necessitated highlighting literature in each area without detailing individual
methods. Travel models are typically developed to meet specific policy needsas these needs
become more complex, so do the models needed to support them.
The following is a summary of model types and uses:
4-step models are useful for many transit and highway forecasting situations.
AB models are useful for evaluating pricing, greenhouse gas emissions, peak spreading,
and where non-home-based travel effects are significant.
Transit passenger models are an element of passenger models, or developed separately
using methods focused on transit demand.
Freight models are useful where trucks are an important component of travel and can be
scaled to match policy needs.
From the brief literature review, several key conclusions can be made about the state-of-the-
practice in analysis and simulation:
Static equilibrium assignment models are prevalent and used for macroscopic
applications.
DTA models are used more extensively on projects where the traffic operational effects of
alternative network and demand management schemes, such as pricing and work zones,
are evaluated at a network level. DTA models are often built for a subarea of a regional
travel demand model. The O-D table is a fundamental input to a DTA model. DTA
models are also useful for assessing the queuing, route assignment, and travel time
reliability of several alternatives. DTA models can be used for macroscopic or mesoscopic
applications.
Microscopic modeling should only be utilized when sufficient time and effort can be
applied toward model development and validation. Many MPOs and state DOTs have
found that microscopic simulation provides useful and detailed results regarding vehicle
interactions; however, the applications may become more limited due to time-consuming
procedures, and MPOs and other transportation agencies are continuing to assess whether
an increase in detailed output is worth the effort.
To date, the use of integrated, multiresolution models has not been prevalent within MPOs, state
DOTs, and other transportation agencies; however, these methods hold significant potential for
improving current industry practices.
2(B) SOFTWARE DESIGN

The software design focused on framing the questions a travel forecasting practitioner must
answer when considering which methods to apply for a specific planning activity. That said, the
24

software design accommodates schedule and budget constraints and other requirements for
defining the most appropriate methods to answer these planning questions. An agency seeking
guidance and recommendations for how best to analyze and evaluate a transportation program,
plan, or policy would be the target group for these questions. A spirited back-and-forth
discussion between a stakeholder and an expert is not possible since the flow of information
will be mostly in a single direction from the user to the guidance. With these considerations in
mind, the research teams conceptualized guidance asks the following five questions:
What planning program or plan do you need travel forecasts for?
The user identifies the program, plan, or policy for which she or he is seeking
guidance on technical methods and tools.
What are the requirements for the work?
The user identifies the level of detail, regulations, sensitivities, and markets needed
for the planning exercise. This defines the scope of the technical methods that are
needed.
What performance measures are important for evaluation?
The user identifies the performance measures that should be considered for the
evaluation of the plan, program, or policy under consideration.
What are the constraints for the work?
The user identifies the budget and schedule constraints for developing,
implementing, and validating the methods.
What current methods and resources are available?
The user identifies methods, expertise, hardware, software, and data that the agency
already has that can be used to support the work.
These questions frame the five types of inputs that the decision-support system uses to produce
recommendations. The software design also adopted the following assumptions:
Each user is only selecting a single planning program or plan to evaluate at one time.
(Multiple selection was considered as an enhancement, but this was found to add too
many complexities for the first draft.)
The requirements and constraints are used to tailor methods presented to those that best fit
the users situation.
The performance metrics of interest to the agency and necessary to evaluate the plan,
program, or policy under consideration provide additional requirements, allowing the
methods presented for consideration to be further refined.
The information about the agencys current analytical methods and resources is optional.
If the agency includes their current methods, then the recommended methods are
considered as enhancements over the current methods (and do not include any cost or
benefits for these current methods).
25

The recommended methods are presented as individual methods or packages of methods,

as appropriate and to meet the needs of the planning program or plan.
Data, hardware, software, and staff expertise required to support the recommended
methods are identified. If any of these resources are identified as available within the
current resources, then they are not included in this list.
Methods are prioritized according to how well they meet the requirements, constraints,
and performance measures.
The prioritization process includes an assessment of costs and benefits for each method. The
prioritization process is presented with a list of possible options for the user to choose from. The
user can identify the importance of various requirements, including budget and schedule, so the
recommendations can reflect these. Information on each method is available as background
material whenever a method is presented for consideration.
Method Selection Components

Step 1Planning Programs and Plans
In the first step, the user identifies the planning program or plan of interest to her or his agency
or organization. These transportation-related policies, programs, plans, or investment projects
address one or more planning issues or questions. Programs and plans include five major
categories. Table 2 presents the major categories with planning programs and plans within each
category.
TABLE 2: STEP 1PLANNING PROGRAMS AND PLANS
TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT
Bike/Pedestrian Capital Investments Air Quality Emissions Inventory for Conformity Analysis
Comprehensive Plans Energy Use Study
Highway Detailed Design Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Study
Highway Preliminary Engineering Sustainable Community Strategies
Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan Environmental Clearance and Preliminary Design for
Travel Demand Management Program Transportation Projects
Traffic Impact Study
Transit Operations Study ECONOMY
Transit-Oriented Development Study Economic Development Plan
Long-Range Transportation Plan Economic Impact Analysis
Transportation Improvement Program
Freight Plan SAFETY AND HEALTH
Major Highway Corridor Study Health and Physical Activity Plan
Major Transit Corridor Study Emergency Evacuation Plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Safety Program
Freeway Operations and Management Study
Arterial Operations and Management Study EQUITY
Congestion Management Plan Environmental Justice Plan
Pricing Study (Tolls, Fees, Fares, Gas, Parking)
Project Prioritization
Major categories list specific programs and plans and only one program or plan can be selected
at a time. These categories do not limit the performance metrics or alternatives that can be tested,
but identify the primary use of the results. For example, a Long-Range Transportation Plan is a
planning program in the Transportation category, but this program will have environmental,
26

land-use, economic, transportation, quality-of-life, and equity performance measures. The

mappings, equivalencies, and relationships between programs and plans and performance
measures are included in the guidance.
If an agency seeks to simultaneously evaluate methods for multiple planning programs or plans,
then it will need to evaluate each planning program or plan separately and then identify methods
that can support multiple purposes (and therefore provide additional benefit for the same cost).
The ability to evaluate multiple planning programs or plans together is considered as a future
enhancement in Chapter 4.
Step 2Planning Context
In the second step, the user will provide details regarding the overall planning context of the
program or plan for which they are seeking analytical method recommendations. The user will
also provide additional details about requirements, such as the level of detail, the agencys
planning area, regulations that may apply and the sensitivities and travel markets that the model
should represent.
To help the user fully understand the planning context, the software tool will evaluate the
requirements, analytical rigor, and sensitivities necessary to address the planning issue and
question. Table 3 presents the planning context categories and elements within each category,
along with one sample question associated with each element.
TABLE 3: STEP 2CATEGORIES AND ELEMENTS OF THE PLANNING CONTEXT
CATEGORY ELEMENT QUESTION
Regulation Are there regulatory or other requirements?
GENERAL Is this a feasibility study, a planning study, or an investment-

Analytical Rigor
grade analysis?
Demographics What is the desired level of demographic detail?
Geography What is the geographic area to be studied?
LEVEL OF DETAIL Networks What is the desired level of network detail?
Spatial Detail What is the desired level of spatial detail?
Temporal Detail What is the desired level of temporal detail?
Pricing How does pricing affect user choices?
SCOPE Sensitivities What factors must the analysis be sensitive to?
Traveler What travelers are affected?
The research team programmed the software tool with the universe of possible responses to each
question pertaining to these requirements. The user is required to input the population of the
region or state of interest to scale responses where appropriate.
27

Step 3Performance Measures

In the third step, the user chooses performance measures of interest to her or his agency. The
performance measures should be those limited to and associated with the planning program and
plan for which she or he is seeking analytical method recommendations.
Performance measures have increased considerably in the past 10 to 20 years, and there are now
hundreds of different performance measures in use across the United States. This discussion
provides an overview of the distinct types of performance measures and their relation to travel
demand modeling. Many performance measures are reported as part of a monitoring process
(Florida Department of Transportation, 2014; Washington State Department of Transportation,
2016); not all are amenable to forecasting. Hence, the discussion is limited to those performance
measures that would be or could be used in conjunction with forecasts from travel demand
models.
The guidance includes six categories of transportation planning performance measures. Table 4
presents the performance measure categories and measures, along with metrics for each measure.
TABLE 4: STEP 3PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND METRICS
CATEGORY MEASURES METRICS
Person miles traveled by mode

Number of person trips
Mode Shares Highway level-of-service
Demand VMT
PASSENGER Auto speeds
Traffic Measures
TRANSPORT
MEASURES Transit Measures Auto volumes
Mobility Transit Ridership
Auto Congestion Passenger flows
Person delay hours
Congested miles
Criteria pollutant emissions

Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL Greenhouse gas emissions
Energy Consumption
MEASURES Fuel consumption
Noise
Time above certain levels
Value of time saved

User Benefits
Fares
ECONOMIC Revenues
Tolls
MEASURES
Economic Development
Access to jobs in cluster employment
Accessibility
Access to jobs
28

CATEGORY MEASURES METRICS
Commodity flows
Mobility Number of commercial vehicle trips
Demand Freight miles traveled by mode
FREIGHT TRANSPORT
Mode Shares Freight travel times
MEASURES
Traffic Measures Truck volumes
Congestion Truck speeds
Truck delay hours
Access to services
Land Use
Access to schools
COMMUNITY Schools
Travel costs for minorities and low-
MEASURES
Environmental Justice
income populations
Social Equity
Travel costs by income group
Bike miles
HEALTH AND SAFETY Active Transportation
Nonmotorized volumes
MEASURES
Safety
Number of vehicle collisions
Step 4Constraints
Budget and schedule are two crucial factors that constrain the possibilities for developing any
new method. Budget and schedule are constraints in TFGuide and present opportunities for
information on the cost and timeline for implementing a method (or package of methods). The
software tool compares the estimated cost and timeline with the user inputs on budget and
schedule to include as part of the prioritization of the method recommendations. This comparison
assigns a higher rank to methods that fall within (or close to) the budget and schedule
constraints.
Step 5Current Agency Methods
In the fourth step of the software tool, the user can choose to provide background information
about the agency andmore importantlydetails regarding their current analytical capabilities
in the realm of transportation planning, modeling, and simulation. This portion of the software
tool is optional; this is to lessen the burden on users and to allow users to evaluate the
recommendations from a blank slate.
The assessment of current agency methods will help identify an agencys current analytical
capabilities; this will allow the software tool to provide two valuable services to the end user:
Present recommendations unique and specific to each individual agency given the tools
and methods currently at their disposal.
Present an improvement plan that would help the agency transition from older practices to
newer and improved methods in a targeted and stepwise manner.
29

Having an agency answer additional questions about their current methods allows the tool to
provide more-customized responses, which contrasts with developing an easier-to-use tool that
would provide more generic responses. Users may choose to run the software tool without any
background on their current methods and then refine it to produce a set of recommended
methods that are enhancements of current methods, without suggesting major model
development efforts that might not be appropriate in the context of an agencys existing methods.
Step 6Menu of Recommended Methods
Figure 5 presents the list of methods that are included in the guidance. These methods include
passenger travel demand model components, other travel demand model methods, commercial
vehicle travel demand model components, and assignment and simulation methods. The research
team considered a wider range of methods during the development of the software design. The
research team could add these additional methods (presented in Chapter 4) to future versions of
the guidance, but these were not the focus of this initial effort.
The guidance will include information on which method is appropriate for each program (Table
2), planning context (Table 3), and performance measure (Table 4) element. For example, traffic
assignment methods would be recommended for a traffic impact study, but would not be
appropriate for a health and physical activity plan. In the guidance, there may be a wide range of
methods that are possible for each program or plan; the software tool will narrow these down
using the information provided by the user in the requirements and selected performance metrics.
For example, in a transit corridor study, the user may choose to select highway network supply
as a sensitivity factor, in which traffic assignment methods would be listed as options, but if the
user chose transit network supply as a sensitivity factor, then transit assignment methods would
be listed as an option. Some of the methods may require data or other resources to implement.
The software tool will identify these resources and the cost of obtaining these resources.
30

F
Final Report Project No
o. 08-94
F
FIGURE 5: STEP 6LIST
6 OF METHO
ODS BY CATEGO
ORY
Passenger Trravel Demand Other Travel

T Demand Commmercial Vehicle TTravel
A
Assignment and Simulation
S
Compo onents M
Methods Demand Componeents
Aggregate Mod dels Direct Demand Aggregate Models Single-Class Equilibrium Traffic
Trip Productionn (Cross-Class) Origin-Desttination Matrix Trip Production
P (Cross-C Class) Assignment
Trip Productionn (Regression) Estimation Trip Attraction
A (Regresssion) Multi-Class
M Equilibriuum Traffic
Trip Attraction (Regression) Pivot-Point and Incremental Trip Distribution
D (Gravityy) Assignment
Trip Distributionn (Gravity) Model Modee Choice (Fixed Facctors) Stochastic User Equuilibrium
Assignment
Mode Choice (Fixed Factors ) Time of Day (Fixed Facttors)
Volume-Delay Functtions
Time of Day (Fixed Factors) Comm modity Flow Modelss
Route-Path
R Choice MModel
Disaggregate Models
M Disagg gregate Models
Inntersection Delay
Population Synnthesis Firm Synthesis
S
Frequency-based Trransit
Daily Activity Pattern Model Supplier Selection Modeel
Assignment
Tour Frequencyy Model Supply Chain Model
Schedule-based Traansit
Destination Choice Model Modee and Shipment Sizze Assignment
Mode Choice Model
M Vehiccle Type and Tour Dynamic Traffic Assignment
Time of Day Chhoice Model Patterns
Dynamic Capacity-C Constrained
Parking Locatioon Choice Freighht and Services Toours and Transit Assignment
Transit Pass Ownership Stopss
Traffic Microsimulation
Stop Sequence and Durration
Inntegrated, Multi-resolution
M
Model
Pedestrian/Bicycle S Simulation
31
The outcome of the guidance is a menu of methods recommendations. The word menu was
chosen as several individual enhancements to methods may be possible within an agencys
available budget or schedule. The menu presents users with methods advantages and
disadvantages to consider. Multiple methods may be employed in sequence or in parallel.
The guidance produces information on these costs and benefits for each method (or package of
methods). The software tool allows the user to adjust the requirements and performance measure
inputs to achieve a different menu of recommendations; specifically, this process redefines the
requirements and constraints that the menu or recommendations are based on.
The following items detail the potential benefits of a specific method:
Performance Measures. Specific performance metrics produced by an individual method
are provided, since not all methods can produce all required performance metrics.
Sensitivities. If the user has selected factors that the methods should be sensitive to, then
the software tool provides additional enhancement details for methods that are sensitive to
these factors.
Spatial Detail. The spatial detail is an important element that goes into selecting a
method, since more detailed methods often take longer to develop and cost more. Some
methods are focused and provide sufficient spatial detail without additional time or cost,
but with limited other benefits.
Temporal Detail. The temporal detail is important for certain programs or projects and
will be explicitly defined for each method.
The software tool suggests multiple enhancements; these can be customized by adding more
requirements or weighting the requirements to consider the priorities of these requirements.
The following items detail the costs of a specific method:
Data Needs. Many types of data can be obtained from available sources (secondary data
collection) or collected directly (primary data collection) to support the development,
calibration, validation, or forecasting aspects of analytical tools. This research focused on
the analytical methods, so this assessment was limited to required data needs.
Staff Training and Expertise. The software tool provides information on staff training
needs, which may include courses, seminars, webinars, or guidance for specific methods.
Industry Adoption. The guidance includes information on how well accepted and how
well validated a method is. Newer methods and tools may have new capabilities or
sensitivities, but older tools may have undergone more rigorous testing and use.
Cost and Time. Cost and time are approximated so that individual methods can be
combined into a model improvement plan. Costs and times will have ranges since these
depend on the details of the application of a specific method. The results should be useful
for order-of-magnitude decisions regarding the methods, but the results should not be used
without review as costs can vary.
The method selection guidance does not evaluate individual data needs for each method. This
could be a future enhancement to the method selection tool, but adding this function was not
possible within the scope and budget confines of this project. Instead, the guidance identifies
32

data needs in broad terms and includes a cost needed to acquire these data if the agency does not
currently have access to these data sources. Collecting, obtaining, or processing data for use in
travel forecasting is nuanced, so these cost and time requirements are solely for estimation
purposes. The data sources are scaled to the size of the region or state if the cost for these data
are dependent on the population.
Available budget and schedule are two primary constraints. In the software design, these
constraints are defined separately from the rest of the requirements so they can be adjusted in
real time to produce different recommendations. Individual methods are reported with ranges of
budget or schedule expected for each method and combined to produce a total range for budget
and schedule that can be compared to the specified cost and schedule.
The software tool applies a score to each element, with higher scores for higher benefits and
lower costs, as shown in Table 5. Costs and benefits are most useful when they can be combined
to produce a cumulative score. This requires quantifying the value of each cost or benefit via
subjective weighting provided by the user, allowing the user to determine if each benefit or cost
has the same value or if some benefits or costs are valued more or less than others. For example,
one agency may determine that budget and time are more important than performance measures
or sensitivities and weight these factors accordingly.
TABLE 5: COST AND BENEFIT SCORES
COSTS AND
SCORES
BENEFITS
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES One point for each performance metric that the method can produce.
SENSITIVITIES One point for each sensitivity factor that the method can address.
REQUIREMENTS One point for each requirement that the method can address.
INDUSTRY Two points if the method is proven and validated; one point if the method is somewhat
ADOPTION proven.
COST Ratio of budget to cost required (rounded). Cost based on the highest part of the range.
Ratio of schedule to timeframe required (rounded). Timeframe based on the highest part
TIMEFRAME
of the range.
Software Development
The software design included the primary elements and relationships among these elements for
the application architecture. In addition, the database schema and graphical user interface (GUI)
was established along with an identification of output results to complete the software tool
design.
Database Schema
Figure 6 presents the decision-engine entity relationship (ER) diagram for the software tool.
33

Project No. 08-94
34
avel Forecasting
FIGURE 6: DECISIION-ENGINE ER DIAGRAM

D
ection for Tra
Method Sele
F
This diagram represented in Figure 6 comprises four parts:

User Inputs. The User Inputs data tables store the dynamic data of individual travel
forecasting practitioners using the software tool: their login credentials and the inputs that
they provide to specify the specific planning needs for which the software tool will
provide method selection options. These inputs are chosen by the user from selection sets
of enumerated options stored in the Domain Taxonomy database.
Domain Taxonomy. The Domain Taxonomy data tables codify a preenumerated set of
input parameters that allow the user to specify the problem domain for which the method
selection tool will find solutions. Specifically, the set of Planning Programs and Plans the
system recognizes, the characteristics of the Planning Context, and the various
Performance Measures of interest to the user or planning agency. Although the domain
knowledge codified in these tables is static with respect to a user analysis, the Domain
Taxonomy is data driven and extensible over the life cycle of the system. The Domain
Taxonomy is associated with Requirements and Constraints via several association tables
that identify which specific detailed Requirements and Constraints are driven by the users
Program, Metrics, and Contexts. The end users set of inputs creates a list of
Requirements and Constraints derived from the domain knowledge codified in the
Domain Taxonomy and its association driver tables.
Methods and Parameters. The Methods and Parameters data tables codify the
preenumerated characteristics of the solution set of Methods and their parameters. These
parameters are associated with Requirements and Constraints via association tables that
identify the set of requirements that can be satisfied by those parameters, and the
constraints that may be influenced by them.
Requirements and Constraints. Requirements and Constraints are the common currency
that permits linking of the user-specified problem domain to the set of Methods chosen
from the range of known methods to be proposed as possible solutions by the method
selection tool. Although represented in the schema as simple atomic entities for simplicity
of presentation, the Requirement and Constraint entities may be annotated to support
weighting and costing of proposed solution sets.
The beginning of this chapter describes the four user inputs in the decision-engine ER diagram
and the attributes in each of these user inputs:
UserScenario_PlanningProgram, detailed in Table 2 on page 26.
UserScenario_PlanningContextResponse, detailed in Table 3 on page 27.
UserScenario_PerformanceMetric, detailed in Table 4 on page 28.
UserScenario_Method, detailed in Figure 5 on page 31.
The method that is an output of the decision-engine ER diagram has the same list of methods
(Figure 5) as the UserScenario_Method that is input; the difference between the user method and
the output method is that users have the option to input the methods they are already using. The
research team used these details from the software design to build the database schema.
35

Application Architecture
The research team implemented the software tool as a browser-based web application that runs
on modern web browsers (e.g., Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari) with cookies and
JavaScript enabled. The research team implemented the web application using a customizable
web application framework with a relational database back-end store. The application can run on
a standard Linux distribution server, with the target production platform being a full-service,
cloud-based service provider with streamlined maintenance and system administration.
The web user interface for tool configuration (specification of Program, Requirements,
Performance Metrics, and Constraints) and result set display and evaluation (Recommendations)
uses JavaScript to provide interactive and graphical features. The research team used JQuery, a
client-side framework, to support JavaScript coding. The provisional web application framework
is Django/Python with a PostgreSQL database. PostgreSQL is a robust, scalable relational
database management system. The standard Django Object-Relational Mapping (ORM) tool was
used to mediate access to the database for a substantial portion of the application interface, and
raw PostgreSQL queries were used when the complexity of the logic exceeded Djangos ORM.
Graphical User Interface
The research team discussed the GUI as part of the software tool design to highlight some
aspects of the tool that could be beneficial for users. One option includes separating mutually
exclusive options in the menu of recommendations. The research team envisions a combination
of other travel demand methods that are mutually exclusive from a combination of travel demand
model component methods, or assignment methods that could be mutually exclusive or
combined with other assignment methods.
Another concept for the GUI involves setting a real-time adjustment for the constraints (i.e.,
budget and time/schedule) in the resource needs. These are buttons on the interface to
demonstrate that users can increase or decrease the available budget and schedule, resulting in a
different menu of recommendations that best fit these resource constraints.
The user interface also includes a presentation of data needs and a breakdown of the cost for
each element. The guidance in this research does not discuss data needs in detail, but does
identify data needs for various methods and includes costs for data collection if the agency does
not already have these data. The costs include data collection, model development, calibration
and validation, and training.
Reporting Results
The software tool reports results for each method selection recommendation. This report will
contain all the assumptions for a specific method selection and the menu of options, with scoring
included. This is described earlier in this chapter for the method selection components. The
reporting function allows users to compare different sets of assumptions and outputs. The report
also includes the weights provided by the user and the scores developed for each cost or benefit
included in the method selection process. The weights provide a transparent consideration of
priorities for agencies to consider when reviewing the scores of each method.
36

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
Final Us
ser Functio
onality of TFGuide
T
Wirefram
mes
The best description for the type of web appllication needded was deteermined to reesemble a
wizardan online tool where useers are sequeentially guidded through tthe input steeps to reach a
menu of options or outputs at thee end. The baasic functionnality of thiss wizard concept was buiilt
into this early prototy
ype web app plication andd several iteraations establlished the onn-screen
functionaality. Follow
wing this initiial prototypiing, the projeect team entered a phasee of site
wireframming. Wirefraaming often precedes pro ototyping, buut this tool ppresented unnique design
challengees. As a resuult, the researrch team deccided to prottotype first tto become coomfortable w with
the rangee of content and
a back-end data structtures. Wirefrraming is a sspecific stepp in many
software developmen nt projects where
w a team
m designs a siite blueprint or schematiic, with attenntion
paid to th
he what (con ntent), the whhere (layout)), and the hoow (interactioon/behavior) for each paage.
Page elemments and in nteractionssuch as mou use-hover behhavior, accoordion tabless, and
breadcrum mb navigatio onand loccation are typ pically speciified at this sstage. Final cchanges likee
color, fonnt, and butto
on design can n be made laater, but the wwireframe shhould reflect the pages
ultimate behavior thrrough annotaation. A simp plified exammple of wirefframing the
recomm mendations page
p is captu
ured in Figuure 7.
FIGURE 7: EXAMPLE WIREFRAME
W AND
A NOTES FO
OR THE MENU
U OR RECOMM
MENDATIONS
S PAGE
Wirefram ming was com mpleted for each page off the agencyy selection siite; this requuired several
iterationss. The team considered
c page
p function
nality and thhe user experrience during this designn
phase. Co onsideration
ns included th
he followingg:
37

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
1. How
H weightin ng should bee applied and
d adjusted byy users.
2. How
H high-lev vel navigatio
on could allo
ow users to eeasily see whhere in the m method selecttion
prrocess they were.
w
3. How
H a user co ould return to
t prior stepss and make iinput adjustm ments while seeing the
efffects on thee menu of reccommendatiions.
4. How
H the tool could provide feedback k if a user faiils to enter a required fieeld.
Compreh
hensive Lay
youts
A full, co
omprehensiv ve layoutw
with the correect colors annd logowaas achieved oonce the
wireframming process was compleeted (Figure 8). The softw ware engineering team tthen turned tthese
designs into a functio
onal web app
plication.
FIGURE 8: FINAL COMP
PREHENSIVE LAYOUT DES
SIGN OF MENU
U OF RECOMM
MENDATIONS
S PAGE
User Log
gin and Lan
nding Page
Users cann reach the TFGuide
T log
gin page via web
w browseer (Figure 9).. All users of the final
version of
o TFGuide will
w need an account; thiis can be creeated by a sitte administraator on requeest.
The administrator controls user permissions
p and can grannt several caapabilities, inncluding: fulll
administrrative contro
ol; the ability
y to create an
nd edit technnical contentt; the ability to use the toool
for plann
ning guidance.
38

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 9: USER LOGIN

N SCREEN
After sitee authenticattion, the agen ncy user arriives at the siites landingg page (Figurre 10) and caan
either beggin a new method
m selecttion session (scenario) orr edit/delete a preexistinng scenario.
Previous session worrk is automattically saved d and presennted in the tabable shown inn Figure 10.
FIGURE 10
0: LANDING PAGE
P AFTER USER
U AUTHENTICATION
The follo
owing section
ns assume a new scenariio has been sstarted and ddescribe funcctionality.
Profile
A user shhould set a profile
p for thee region of in
nterest beforre beginningg work on a scenario. Thhe
profile id
dentifies the population ofo the region n or state; thiis informatioon is used too adjust the ccost
of resourrces that are directly or inndirectly related to the ssize of the reegion or statee. Table 6
presents the cost adjuustment facto ors for each population rrange.
39

TABLE 6: REGION OR STATE POPULATION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
COST
REGION OR STATE POPULATION LOWER LIMIT UPPER LIMIT
ADJUSTMENT
Over 25,800,000 Population 25,800,000 30,900,000 2.7
18,900,000 to 25,800,000 Population 18,900,000 25,800,000 2.6
15,800,000 to 18,900,000 Population 15,800,000 19,800,000 2.5
10,900,000 to 15,800,000 Population 10,900,000 15,800,000 2.4
9,800,000 to 10,900,000 Population 9,800,000 10,900,000 2.3
6,900,000 to 9,800,000 Population 6,900,000 9,800,000 2.2
5,800,000 to 6,900,000 Population 5,800,000 6,900,000 2.1
4,900,000 to 5,800,000 Population 4,900,000 5,800,000 2.0
4,000,000 to 4,900,000 Population 4,000,000 4,900,000 1.9
3,300,000 to 4,000,000 Population 3,300,000 4,000,000 1.8
2,600,000 to 3,300,000 Population 2,600,000 3,300,000 1.7
2,100,000 to 2,600,000 Population 2,100,000 2,600,000 1.6
1,600,000 to 2,100,000 Population 1,600,000 2,100,000 1.5
1,300,000 to 1,600,000 Population 1,300,000 1,600,000 1.4
1,000,000 to 1,300,000 Population 1,000,000 1,300,000 1.3
900,000 to 1,000,000 Population 900,000 1,000,000 1.2
800,000 to 900,000 Population 800,000 900,000 1.1
700,000 to 800,000 Population 700,000 800,000 1.0
600,000 to 700,000 Population 600,000 700,000 0.9
500,000 to 600,000 Population 500,000 600,000 0.8
400,000 to 500,000 Population 400,000 500,000 0.7
300,000 to 400,000 Population 300,000 400,000 0.6
200,000 to 300,000 Population 200,000 300,000 0.5
100,000 to 200,000 Population 100,000 200,000 0.4
50,000 to 100,000 Population 50,000 100,000 0.3
Less than 50,000 Population 10,000 50,000 0.2
40

CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS AND APPLICATIONS

3(A) TRAVEL FORECASTING GUIDE SOFTWARE TOOL
The development of the Travel Forecasting Guide (TFGuide) has followed a typical software
development process and included several steps:
1. Gathering initial requirements and enumerating a typical users needs.
2. Constructing a prototype web application to represent all necessary elements, establishing
intuitive interpretations of the technical content, and ensuring that the user/administrative
aspects of the tool function properly.
3. Designing and building a GUI to provide a user-friendly presentation (including helpful
tips for users) of the technical content.
4. Developing the technical content (since the tool is data driven) for each method and
displaying background materials and sources for each method; developing the process to
evaluate and weight costs and benefits for the method selection tool.
5. Pilot testing the software with selected transportation agencies.
TFGuide is documented in detail in NCHRP Research Report 852: Method Selection for Travel
Forecasting: User Guide, which includes a user guide and reference guides (included as
appendices) for the technical content in TFGuide. This Web-Only Document provides details on
the development of the software tool (Chapter 2), the administrative functionality (B), and the
pilot tests completed during the project (3(C)).
3(B) ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONALITY OF TFGUIDE

TFGuide was developed to allow administrator-initiated enhancement and refinement. The
software can improve over time with additional input from other experts and users with
specialized expertise. The administrator can take feedback directly from users or can review user
scenarios to evaluate the recommendations for these specific circumstances. The administrative
functionality of the method selection software tool comprises eight sections:
1. Methods
2. Method Package Relationships
3. Performance Metrics
4. Programs
5. Requirements
6. Regions
7. Resources
8. Site Users
The research team added definitions for methods, programs, requirements, and metrics in the
administrative homepage to orient the administrator, as shown in Figure 11. This homepage lists
each area, with categories and elements entered separately where necessary.
41

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 11
1: TFGUIDE
ADMINISTRA
ATIVE HOME PAGE
P
Methods
The first page withinn the Method ds portion off the adminisstrative site iis a list of the current
methods and a summ mary of the bu udget, scheddule, program ms, requirem ments, metriccs, and resouurces
needed too implementt each metho od (Figure 12 2 shows a paartial list as aan example)). More detaiils
are reveaaled within each
e row on click (shown n in Figure 113). This listt allows the aadministratoor to
quickly confirm
c that the details of
o each meth hod are consiistent and coomprehensivve.
42

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 08-94
FIGURE 12
2: PARTIAL ADMINISTRATI
A IVE LIST OF METHODS
M
FIGURE 13
3: PARTIAL ADMINISTRATI
A IVE LIST OF METHODS
M WIT
TH DETAILS
43

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
The administrative fo orm for addiing a new meethod is parttially presentted in Figuree 14; the webb
page lenggth is too lon
ng to includee in its entireety here. Thiis form incluudes namingg and describbing
the methood, assignmeent of relevaant programss for which iit may be useeful, setting a range for tthe
budget annd schedule,, identifying the requirem ments and m metrics satisfi
fied by that m
method,
identifyin
ng the indiviidual resourcces needed to o implementt the methodd, and assignnment of low wer
class metthods (shown n in Figure 15).
1 The incllusion of thee lower classs methods feature allow ws
administrrators to ensure users wh ho specify su upporting onne method att their agenccy will not bee
presentedd with less-ccapable recommmendation ns in the mennu.
FIGURE 14
4: PARTIAL SCREENSHOT OF ADMINIST
TRATIVE FOR
RM FOR NEW M
METHOD
Some of the methodss listed in thee Figure 15 are

a specifiedd separately for passengeer and freighht
travel, su
uch as mode choice (fixeed factors) an
nd time-of-dday (fixed facctors). Thesee can be
identified
d more clearrly by the adm
ministrator by
b hovering over the meethod so thatt a descriptioon
appears.
44

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 15
5: LOWER CLASS METHO
ODS ELEMEN
NT ON THE AD
DMINISTRATIV
VE FORM FOR
R A NEW METH
HOD
Each metthod is relateed to other methods

m to foorm method packages thhat are presennted to the uuser.
These meethod packag ge relationsh
hips were neecessary sincce most plannning problemms rely on m
more
than one method to successfully complete a project
p and mmeet certain requiremennts and
performaance metrics. A tiered rellationship sttructure was architected to support thhis functionaality
and the nuances
n of ho
ow various methods
m pairr with otherss. For exampple, assume ffor
demonstrration purposes that two methods (M Method #1 annd Method ##2) can be prresented togeether
for a userr; the possible ways thesse two methoods can be c ombined incclude the following:
1. Method
M 1 can
n pair with Method
M 2.
2. Method
M 1 is best
b if paired
d with Metho
od 2.
3. Method
M 1 req
quires Metho
od 2.
The administrator defines and maanages the method
m packkage relationsships based on the type oof
relationsh
hip pairing that
t is most appropriate.
a Figure 16 shhows the adm
ministrative form for
defining new method d package relationships.
45

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 16
6: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW ME
ETHOD PACK
KAGE RELATIO
ONSHIP
Program
ms
The administrator maanages the categories an nd list of plannning prograams or planss of interest tto
users. Thhese transporrtation-relateed policies, programs,
p pllans, or inveestment projeects address one
or more planning
p issu
ues or questiions. Curren ntly, programms and plans include fivee major
categoriees. The admiinistrator cann add or chan nge program m categories and elementts (Figure 177);
this inclu
udes the abiliity to add a description
d for
f the progrram and the ability to ideentify whichh
methods can add valu ue.
46

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 17
7: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW PR
ROGRAM CAT
TEGORY
The administrative siite also inclu

udes an overv
view of the pprograms (bby category aand method)) to
demonstrrate how adm ministrators can review the
t technicall content (byy program). TThe
administrrative function to add prrograms is sh
hown in Figuure 18.
47

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 18
8: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW PL
LANNING PRO
OGRAM OR PL
LAN
Require
ements
The administrator pro ovides detaills regarding the requiremments or scoope of the plaanning progrram
and can add
a or refinee the categorries of requirrements. Figugure 19 preseents the adm
ministrative foorm
for addin
ng a new requ uirement cattegory. This form includdes naming tthe category,, adding a
on, identifyiing the included elementts, and identiifying what pplanning question this
descriptio
requirem
ment category y is addressinng. This formm also includdes a checkbbox to determ mine whetheer the
user mayy select multiiple requiremment elemen nts. This flexxibility allow
ws the adminnistrator to deecide
whether requirement
r s can be lim
mited to a sing
gle responsee or can acceept multiple rresponses.
Results can
c be saved d in one of th
hree ways: 1)) save, and thhen add another categorry; 2) save, aand
then conttinue editing
g; and 3) save, and then close.
c Thesee options are included at the bottom oof
the adminnistrative forrm for a new
w requiremen nt category.
48

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 19
9: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW RE
EQUIREMENT
T CATEGORY
The requuirements aree listed for th

he administrator by elem
ment, allowinng changes too be manageed at
the individual level. Requiremen
R nt elements can
c also be ddeleted usingg the action m menu. The
administrrator can addd requiremen nt elements by
b identifyinng the plannning questionn that a
requirem
ment is design ned to address and the methods
m that are relevant to a requireement elemennt, as
shown inn Figure 20. The
T adminisstrator can reeview the lisst of requirem
ments with aassociated
methods once the req quirements are
a programm med into the method seleection tool. T The
administrrator can also add new reequirementss by naming and describiing the requiirement and
identifyin
ng the relevaant associateed methods (Figure
( 21).
49

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 20
0: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW RE
EQUIREMENT
T ELEMENT
FIGURE 21
1: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW RE
EQUIREMENT
T
Resourc
ces
The administrator develops technnical contentt for the resoource categoories and resoources in a
comparab ble manner to
t what has been
b presentted for methhods, programms, and requuirements. Fiigure
22 showss the form ussed by adminnistrators to create a neww resource category; the label section
shown prrovides space for an optiional descripption. The addministrator can also revview the list of
resource categories and
a the resouurces that belong in eachh category. F Figure 23 shoows the
administrrator form to
o add a new resource. Th he administrrator also hass an availablle list of
resourcesswith cateegories and budgetsto
b verify and ccompare withh other resouurces.
50

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 22
2: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW RE
ESOURCE CA
ATEGORY
FIGURE 23
3: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW RE
ESOURCE
Perform
mance Measures
TFGuidee currently in ncludes six major
m categoories of transsportation plaanning perfoormance
measuress. Administrators can add or refine th he performanance measuree categories and metrics in a
comparab ble manner to t what was presented fo or methods, pprograms, reequirements, and resourcces.
Figure 244 shows the form used by administraators to creatte a new perrformance m measure categgory;
this inclu
udes identifyying relevantt parameters for each perrformance m measure categgory and
selecting
g whether mu ultiple responnses are allo
owed. The addministrator can review the list of
performaance measuree categories and metrics that belong in each cateegory. Figuree 25 shows tthe
form used by administrators to ad dd a new perrformance m measure elem ment. Each element is
connected to a metho od as either a direct or in
ndirect produuct of the meethod. The aadministratorr can
review thhe list of performance metrics,
m classiified by perfformance eleement and caategory.
Figure 266 shows the form used by administraators to creatte a new perrformance m
metric. Metriccs are
currently
y included ass examples of
o performan
nce measure elements, buut not individually conneected
51

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
to methods or parameeters, since there

t are hunndreds of diffferent metriics that couldd be includeed.
The administrator can
n also revieww the list of performancee measure ellementswiith metrics aand
methodsto verify and
a comparee with other metrics.
m
FIGURE 24
4: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW PE
ERFORMANCE
E CATEGORY
Y
52

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 25
5: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW PE
ERFORMANCE
E ELEMENT
Special Note:
N Contentt for demonstrration purposes only.
53

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 26
6: ADMINISTR
RATIVE FORM
M FOR NEW PE
ERFORMANCE
E METRIC
3(C) PILOT
P TES
STS
Pilot testts were cond
ducted with four
f agenciess and organiizations in O
October 20166:
Asssociation off Monterey Bay
B Area Go overnments (AMBAG)
Reegional Trannsportation Commission
C (RTC)
Viirginia Depaartment of Trransportation
n (VDOT)
Duunbar Transp portation Co
onsulting (DTTC)
The feedback receiveed as part off these pilot tests
t helped improve thee clarity and usefulness oof the
software tool. Origin nally, four ag
gencies weree contacted too participatee in the pilot tests; three
agencies agreed to co omplete the pilot
p tests, but
b FDOT, D District 5 in OOrlando wass unable to
participatte due to woorkload conccerns. Instead d of identifyying an alternnative agenccy, RSG askeed
Julie Dun nbar to particcipate on behalf of the TFResource
T iinitiative and provide a nnonagency
perspectiive on how the tool may be used. RS SG also condducted indiviidual webinaars with eachh
pilot test participant and
a provided d backgroun nd materials on the devellopment of tthe tool.
ation of Mo
Associa onterey Ba
ay Area Go
overnments
s
AMBAG G tested eightt scenarios, as shown in Figure 27.
Overall, AMBAG
A staaff thought the
t software tool
W
We think the toool looks
worked well
w and wass intuitive.
grreat and perfo
orms well
FIGURE 27
7: AMBAG SC
CENARIOS FOR PILOT TEST
TING wh
hile being eassy to use.
TFGUIDE
54

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
AMBAG G staff provid

ded feedback k after testin
ng. AMBAG G staff recommmended addding an area for
notes or comments
c on the home screen
s to allow internal communicattion among m managers annd
staff memmbers about the significaant details off each scenaario. Based oon this feedback, the reseearch
team add ded this addittional elemeent on the hoome screen, aas shown in Figure 27. T The
environm mental justicee scenario th
hat AMBAG G tested did nnot return anny recommenndations durring
the test due
d to limitattions on whiich methods could suppoort the enviroonmental jusstice program m.
This has been correctted in the too ol to reflect the fact that most passennger-oriented methods ccan
be used to
t support ev valuation of environmenttal justice prrograms (Figgure 28). Thhis scenario aalso
selected most
m of the performance
p e metrics and d a high leveel of spatial ddetail (microozones), whiich
prompted d many meth hod recomm mendations fo or advanced and more deetailed simullation-basedd
methods..
55

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
FIGURE 28
8: RECOMMENDATIONS FO
OR ENVIRONM
MENTAL JUST
TICE SCENAR
RIO FOR AMBA
AG
Regiona
al Transpo
ortation Co
ommission
RTC testted two scenarios using TFGuide.
T RTTC staff provvided feedbaack on the GGUI, articulaating
that several itemized lists could be
b made cleaarer if they w were orderedd logically innstead of
alphabetiically. For ex
xample, the desired leveel of temporaal detail was originally liisted
alphabetiically (Figurre 29), but RTC
R thought this informaation would bbe easier to interpret if iit
were orddered startingg with the lonngest time period
p (annuaal) and endinng with the sshortest timee
period (15 minutes or less). All liists that are currently preesented in reequirements,, current
methods,, and resourcces are now ordered logiically rather than alphabetically. Thee administrattor is
required to identify thhe sort orderr for any new
w elements aadded to the system overr time.
FIGURE 29
9: ORIGINAL AND
A NEW TEM
MPORAL DET
TAIL ORDER
RTC stafff also providded input moodification suggestions.

s Originally, w
when an ageency was
evaluatin
ng several scenarios, it was
w necessary y to re-inputt current metthods and resources for eeach
scenario. Based on thhis feedbackk, the researcch team revissed TFGuidee to populatee each new
scenario with the currrent methodds and resourrces from thee prior scenaario so userss only need tto
input these details on
nce. These caan then be ch hanged or addapted as needed for thee current
scenario.
56

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
RTC stafff also identiified that thee current metthods and re sources mayy address som me or all thee
requiremments and perrformance metrics
m identiified for a prrogram. As a comparativve measure, iit is
useful to evaluate thee current methods and reesources usinng the same scoring conssidered for tthe
new meth hods. This iddentifies the sufficiency of the currennt methods tto address thhe program aand
identifiess the addition
nal benefits obtained froom implemennting the new w method. F Figure 30
presents a snapshot ofo the RTC current
c methoods and resoources scoredd for compaarison to the
recommeendations.
FIGURE 30
0: RTC CURRENT METHOD
DS AND RESOURCES SCOR
RING EXAMPL
LE
Virginia
a Departme
ent of Tran
nsportation
n
VDOT teested four sccenarios and provided sev veral helpfuul
commentts on the GU UI and the tecchnical conttent of the Generally,, the design
system. VDOT
V reporrted that the layout and definitions
d of tool iss great.
providedd were helpfuul, but that not
n all data ittems had
definition
ns. Since VDDOTs testin ng, the researrch team hass
populatedd the remainning data itemms with defiinitions in thhe tool.
VDOT co ommented ono the tools categorizations. Two off the scenarioos that VDO OT tested weere
for bicyccle and pedesstrian capitall investmentts. VDOT staaff questioneed why this program waas
listed as a safety and health progrram rather thhan a transpoortation proggram. Bicyccle and pedesstrian
capital in
nvestments may
m occasion nally fall und
der both proogram categoories, but thee research teaam
agreed with
w VDOTss assessmentt that it should be identiffied as a trannsportation pprogram and
changed the tool.
VDOT allso observed d some issuees with naviggation. The rrecommendaations page oof the softwaare
tool has a feature to display
d moree details abo
out each methhod (Figure 31) by clickking on the
method name
n in the method
m breaakdown tablee. This featurre presents iinformation on each metthod;
57

Final Re
eport Pro
oject No. 0
08-94
details th
he relationships of each method
m to reequirements, metrics, andd resources; and presentts
referencees for additio
onal informaation. VDOT T staff noted that this infformation is useful, but sstaff
were not sure how to o access this information n in the tool. The researchh team incluuded the softtware
tools refference guide, with detaiils about all features in T
TFGuide, so that methodds can be
reviewed d at any timee.
FIGURE 31
1: TFGUIDE REFERENCE
R GUIDEEXAM
G MPLE PARTIAL
L METHOD DE
ESCRIPTION
VDOT sttaff also reco ommended allowing

a weiights on indiividual perfoormance meaasures, ratheer
than a sin
ngle weight on the categ gory of measu ures. For ex ample, bike miles and nnonmotorizedd
volumes were selecteed as perform mance metriccs under thee health and ssafety measuures categoryy.
The weig ghts on thesee measures iss set for all measures
m in the health annd safety meeasures categgory
rather thaan setting bik
ke miles hig
gher or lowerr than nonmootorized voluumes. The research team m
agrees with VDOT th hat this may be useful loong term, butt the level off effort is higgh relative too the
added capability, so this
t change wasw not mad de; however,, it can be coonsidered forr future verssions
of the sofftware tool.
VDOT sttaff also noteed that it wo
ould be usefu ul to identifyy which recoommended m methods otheer
users havve adopted or
o are currenttly using. Thhe research tteam agrees tthat this infoormation woould
be usefull. However, obtaining thhese data wou uld require ccollecting foollow-up infoormation froom
users on which recom mmendationss they have implemented
i d or obtaininng permissioon to share thhe
current methods
m and resources ussers identify
y in the systeem. The curreent system is not designned
for this ty
ype of user feedback,
f bu
ut it could bee adapted in tthe future too provide this informatioon.
58

Finally, VDOT staff also requested an option to save scenario results to a PDF. The current
system allows printing to any valid printer, including a PDF option. The user guide highlights
how to export content to PDF.
Dunbar Transportation Consulting

DTC tested two scenarios: one for a large metropolitan agency and one for a statewide agency.
DTC thought the selection options were straightforward, but indicated that some options may be
too detailed for some users. The research team considered this feedback and thinks that the
parallel User Guide can provide additional background for less experienced users and that this
will help to bridge any knowledge gaps.
DTC also thought that the deselect option on the performance metrics page was confusing.
Most performance metrics have the option to remove a selection by clicking on the selected item,
but a few were identified with a separate deselect choice button. To avoid confusion, these
deselect buttons have been removed in favor of deselecting an option by clicking on the selection
to remove it from the selection.
DTC also observed that some recommendations were outside the stated budget, but with higher
scores than those recommendations that were within the stated budget. This was an intentional
part of the overall design for TFGuide; it does not currently consider any relationship between
cost and budget. The research team has since revised how the cost affects the overall score by
calculating a ratio of budget to cost; rather than just scoring recommendations within the budget
higher than those outside the budget, this ratio is used in the score. The ratio concept helps to
identify recommendations that are closer to the stated budget versus recommendations that are
well beyond the stated budget.
In addition, DTC identified two elements on the recommendations page that did not have pop-up
explanations: industry adoption and contribution. DTC also suggested giving more prominence
to the weights on the recommendations page. Based on this feedback, the research team included
weights on the requirements and performance metrics pages so that these are considered before
any recommendations are produced; the weights can be adjusted when reviewing the
recommendations. This will allow a greater consideration of weights and refined
recommendations as part of the requirements, rather than after the initial recommendations are
produced.
DTC also commented on the need to provide background information and references for travel
forecasting practitioners who wish to pursue one or more of the recommendations. The User
Guide provides this additional information to educate practitioners, planners, and decision-
makers on the recommendations. The guidance is a starting point and is not intended to be a
tutorial on how to implement the recommendation. The information provided in the User Guide
is intended to provide enough background on a method to evaluate its appropriateness for a plan
or program.
59

CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
4(A) SUMMARY
The NCHRP 08-94 research study produced three products:
An online software product called TFGuide to assist travel forecasting practitioners in
selecting travel forecasting methods to support planning programs. This product is a
stand-alone product that includes an online reference guide and a full suite of help features
to assist the user.
A travel forecasting User Guide for TFGuide that includes reference guides for all
information contained in the software tool.
A Final Report that documents the research approach to develop TFGuide, the
administrative features, and the pilot testing of the software.
This Final Report was developed separately from the User Guide so that the Final Report could
include the background research, software design, and administrative functionality, whereas the
User Guide more directly supports the use of TFGuide.
The state-of-the-practice review was conducted to identify the most commonly used methods for
travel forecasting and to identify references that are useful for each of these methods. This
review focused on travel demand models (traditional passenger, advanced passenger, transit
passenger, and freight and goods movement models) and traffic assignment and simulation
models (integrated multiresolution, static UE assignment, DTA, and traffic microsimulation
models). The TMIP agency needs assessment was a source of useful information about
practitioners planning needs and methods.
The software design prioritized flexibility, providing users with ways to prioritize requirements
and metrics and constraints in selecting a method and in building the technical content and
relationships in the system. This flexibility is provided via the administrative functionality so that
the system can be updated and enhanced. This structure also easily accommodates additional
methods (and programs and requirements and metrics) so that future versions of the software
could include new technical content without any major structural changes to the software. This
administrative function allows technical experts to develop and review new content before
updating the software. The administrative functionality also provides flexibility in establishing
relationships for each method, program, requirement, and metric in the system.
4(B) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS

The scope for the NCHRP 08-94 project focused on travel forecasting methods directly, but
travel forecasting practitioners are faced with challenges that require additional methods to
support travel forecasting. These additional challenges called upon methods (Figure 32) for
economic, land-use and demographics, person and household characteristics, impacts and
performance metrics, project prioritization, and visualization. The research team worked with the
60

expert panel to suggest these additional methods for future versions of the software to focus the
development on the primary travel forecasting methods first.
TFGuide was designed for an administrator to maintain and update the software. Given the
dynamic nature of the travel forecasting industry, maintenance and updates will allow TFGuide
to be refined with user input, expanded to include newer methods, and updated so the technical
content can remain current. The administrator will manage user accounts, provide technical
support, and receive user feedback on the recommendations. The administrator could also review
user scenarios for credibility and reliability of the recommendations.
The state-of-the-practice review, pilot tests, and feedback from the expert panel also identified
new features that can be considered for future versions. The TMIP needs assessment survey
identified the three most important challenges facing travel forecasting practitioners:
Limited staff time for planning analysis.
Limited budgets for planning analysis and the high costs of planning analysis.
Lack of data or poor data quality.
Staff time could be added as a current resource under Expertise, but the staff time required for
these planning analyses could vary significantly depending on whether the work is completed
with agency staff or consulting staff. If this feature is desired, then an additional user input could
be whether agency staff are managing or completing the work in-house. TFGuide can provide
information on budgets needed for planning analysis and suggest more cost-effective methods.
TFGuide currently identifiesin broad termsthe types of data (and capital) required to support
recommended methods, but does not provide any details on these data sources or an assessment
of data quality. If this were desired for a future version, then it would be a significant
enhancement to include necessary technical details and data quality assessments for each data
source.
61

Final Reporrt Project No. 08-94
F
FIGURE 32: FUTURE METHODS FO
OR CONSIDERATIO
ON IN THE METHO
OD SELECTION TO
OOL
Economic, Land Person and Im

mpacts and
Prooject
Use an
nd Household Peerformance Visualizaation
Priorittization
Demograpphic Characteristiccs Metrics
Input-Output Moddels Workplace/School
W Loccation Capacity and Intersection Scorecards (non-model) Spatial Data Mappping
Structural Equilibrium Tooll Transponder Safety (Reliability) Benefit-Costt Methods Statistical Chartinng
Models Drriver's License Benefitt-Cost Tabular Summaries

Evolutionary Partial- Phhysical Mobility Air Quaality Inforgraphics, Minndmaps,
Equilibrium Modeels Veehicle Availability Strateggic Planning Models And Data Schem matics
Evolution Models (pop and Veehicle Type Choice Econom mic Impact Multimedia & Inteeraction
firms) (which technicallyy overlaps
Bike Ownership Health Impact
Land Use Visioninng with each of the oothers)
Equity/Environmental
Land Use Forecaasting Justice Analysis Illustrations & Reenderings
Population Syntheesizer Sketch Planning Models
Firm Synthesizer Growthh Factoring/Trend
Household Classification Analysiis
Models Performmance Monitoring
Integrated Land Use
U and
Travel
Delphi Process (nnon-
model)
62
The expert panel and pilot test agencies also identified several features that would be useful to
consider for future versions of the software:
TFGuide is limited to considering one planning program at a time. Planning agencies
would like to consider methods that support multiple planning programs; expanding
TFGuide to consider multiple planning programs at once would be helpful.
TFGuide allows weights on a performance measure category, rather than on individual
performance metrics. Expanding the weights to include individual performance metrics
would be a useful enhancement.
TFGuide does not filter responses for performance metrics based on earlier choices for
planning programs. This feature would make selections for performance metrics easier,
but may limit users who are trying to include additional metrics for an individual program.
At this point, the software is designed with this flexibility in mind, but could be modified
to constrain some choices for performance metrics.
The research team has provided a user account for general purposes, but user accounts will need
to be created so that each user can develop and maintain her or his own scenarios, along with
current methods and resources. These user accounts will be managed by the administrator of the
software. The software can be distributed on TFResource or some other suitable website.
63

REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation. Evaluation of Traffic Simulation Model Use in the
Development of Corridor System Management Plans (CSMPs). Office of System Management
Planning, Sacramento, CA, 2012. http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/hq/tpp//corridor-
mobility/documents/library/CSMP_Simulation_Draft_Report_2012-10-04.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1,
2017.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Accounting for Commercial Vehicles in Urban Transportation
Models, prepared for Federal Highway Administration, March 2004.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and GeoStats, LLP. NCFRP Report 8: Freight-Demand Modeling
to Support Public-Sector Decision Making. TRB, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
DC, 2010.
Cervenka, K. Large-Scale Traffic Microsimulation from an MPO Perspective. Presented at 6th
TRB Conference on the Application of Transportation Planning Methods, Dearborn, MI, 1997.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/7000/7400/7484/789782.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Coffel, K., Parks, J, Semler, C., Sampson, D., Kachadoorian, C., Levinson, H. S. and J. L.
Schofer. TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations.
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2012.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_153.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Donnelly, R., Erhardt, G. D., Moeckel, R. and W. A. Davidson. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway
Practice 406: Advanced Practices in Travel Forecasting. TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, 2010. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_406.pdf. Accessed
Feb. 1, 2017.
Dowling, R. Skabardonis, A. and V. Alexiadis. Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guidelines
for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software. Pub. No. FHWA-HRT-04-040.
FHWA, US Department of Transportation, 2004.
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/trafficanalysistools/tat_vol3/vol3_guidelines.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Ferdous, F., Bhat, C., Vana, L., Schmitt, D., Bowman, J., Bradley, M. and R. Pendyala.
Comparison of Four-Step Versus Tour-Based Models in Predicting Travel Behavior Before and
After Transportation System ChangesResults Interpretation and Recommendations. Report No.
FHWA/OH-2011/4. FHWA, US Department of Transportation, 2011.
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/REPORTS/ODOTFinalReport_18Feb2011.pdf. Accessed
Feb. 1, 2017.
FHWA, US Department of Transportation. The Effective Integration of Analysis, Modeling and
Simulation. Pub. No. FHWA-HRT-13-036. Research, Development, and Technology Turner-
Fairbank Highway Research Center, 2013.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/operations/13036/13036.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1,
2017.
64

Florida Department of Transportation. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-
21) 2014 Performance Report. A report to the Florida Congressional Delegation. March 2014.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/performance/MAP-21/MAP-21PerformanceReport.pdf.
Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
FTA, US Department of Transportation. STOPS FTAs Simplified Trips-on-Project Software.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/stops-%E2%80%93-
fta%E2%80%99s-simplified-trips-project-software. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
FTA, US Department of Transportation. Travel Forecasting for New Starts.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/travel-forecasts.
Accessed Feb 2, 2017.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. and AECOM USA, Inc. The Florida Guidebook for Model Application in
FTA New Starts and Small Starts. Florida Department of Transportation, 2010.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/Pages/ModelNewStarts2010.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Horowitz, A. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 358: Statewide Travel Forecasting Models.
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2006.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_358.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Johnston, R.A. The Urban Transportation Planning Process. In The Geography of Urban
Transportation, 3rd ed. (S. Hanson and G. Giuliano, eds.), The Guilford Press, New York, NY,
2004, pp. 115140.
Khan, O. Modelling Passenger Mode Choice Behaviour Using Computer Aided Stated
Preference Data. PhD dissertation. School of Urban Development, Queensland University of
Technology, 2004. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4924/1/4924_1.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Lemp, J. D., McWethy, L. B., and K. M. Kockelman. From Aggregate Methods to
Microsimulation: Assessing the Benefits of Microscopic Activity-Based Models of Travel
Demand. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1994, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2007, pp. 8088.
McNally, M. G. The Four Step Model. In Handbook of Transport Modeling, 2nd ed. (D. A.
Hensher and K. J. Button, eds.), Pergamon, Irvine, CA, 2000, pp. 3552.
Mishra, S., Wang, Y., Zhu, X., Moeckel, R. and S. Mahapatra. Comparison Between Gravity and
Destination Choice Models for Trip Distribution in Maryland. In 92nd Annual TRB Conference
Proceedings, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2013.
NCHRP Report 187: Quick-Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable
Parameters. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1978.
NCHRP Report 365: Travel Estimation Techniques for Urban Planning. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, 1998.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_365.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
65

NCHRP Report 716: Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques. TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, DC, 2012.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_716.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., University of Texas, Northwestern University, University of
California Irvine, Resource Systems Group, and Mark Bradley Research & Consulting,
NCHRP Report 722: Assessing Highway Tolling and Pricing Options and Impacts, TRB,
Washington, DC, 2012.
Resource Systems Group, Inc. Interim Guidance on the Application of Travel and Land Use
Forecasting in NEPA. FHWA, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2010.
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/travel_landUse/travel_landUse_rpt.pdf. Accessed Feb.
1, 2017.
Sbayti, H. and D. Roden. Best Practices in the Use of Micro Simulation Models. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standing Committee on Planning,
March 2010. http://statewideplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/259_NCHRP-08-36-90.pdf.
Sloboden, J., Lewis, J., Alexiadis, V., Chiu, Y. and E. Nava. Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume
XIV: Guidebook on the Utilization of Dynamic Traffic Assignment in Modeling. Pub. No.
FHWA-HOP-13-015. FHWA, US Department of Transportation, 2012.
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop13015/fhwahop13015.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Special Report 288: Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction.
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2007.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr288.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Stefan, K.J., J.D.P. McMillan, and J.D. Hunt, Urban Commercial Vehicle Movement Model for
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1921, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, DC, 2005, pp. 110.
Transportation Research Circular E-C153: Dynamic Traffic Assignment: A Primer. TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, DC, 2011.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec153.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Resource Systems Group, Inc., Shapiro Transportation Consulting and
Urban Analytics. Advanced Travel Modeling Study, Final Report. Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, 2011.
Virginia Department of Transportation. Implementing Activity-Based Models in Virginia. VTM
Research Paper 09-01, 2009. http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/vtm/VTMRP09-
01_Final.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Wang, Q. and J. Holgun-Veras. A Tour-Based Urban Freight Demand Model Using Entropy
Maximization. Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at
Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo; Department of Civil and Environmental
66

Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, 2010.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/C20/015ATour-Based.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Washington State Department of Transportation. The Gray Notebook. WSDOTs Quarterly
Performance Report on Transportation Systems, Programs, and Department Management.
Quarter Ending September 30, 2016. Published November 2016.
http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/Sep16.pdf. Accessed Feb. 1, 2017.
Wies, K., Urban, M., and M. Outwater. Tour-Based & Supply Chain Freight Modeling in
Chicago. Presentation for TMIP Webinar, FHWA, US Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, 2013.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/tmip/publications/annual_reports/2012-2013/page12.cfm.
67

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS,

AND SYMBOLS
AB Activity-Based (Model)
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
AMPO Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
CRP Cooperative Research Program
CSMP Corridor System Management Plans
DOT Department of Transportation
DTA Dynamic Traffic Assignment
DTC Dunbar Transportation Consulting
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ER Entity Relationship
FDOT Florida Department of Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GUI Graphical User Interface
HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation
ORM Object-Relational Mapping
RTC Regional Transportation Commission
STOPS Simplified Trips-on-Project Software
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TMIP Travel Model Improvement Program
UE User Equilibrium
VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
68

NCHRP

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NCHRP

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24931 SHARE

Developing a Method Selection Tool for Travel Forecasting

76 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

FIND RELATED TITLES

Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientic reports

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Kittelson & Associate s, Inc.

This work was sponsored by the

The opinions and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................... V

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ VII

1(E) Deliverables ................................................................................................................................... 5

Assignment and Simulation Models ............................................................................................... 20

Method Selection Components ...................................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 3. FINDINGS AND APPLICATIONS .................................................................................. 41

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments .......................................................................... 54

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, INITIALISMS, AND SYMBOLS ........................................................... 68

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

Final Report Project No. 08-94

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

1(B) TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

1(C) PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

1(F) CONTENT OF THIS REPORT

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH APPROACH

Travel Model Improvement Program Agency Needs Assessment Survey

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 2: PLANNING PRIORITIES

The TMIIP survey alsso reported the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

TABLE 1: ROLE OF TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS IN DEVELOPING AGENCY'S TRAFFIC/TRANSIT/FREIGHT

TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ROLE COUNT PERCENT

Total 188 100.0%

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

FIGURE 3: SHARE OF AGENCY

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The TMIIP survey pro ovided a bro

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Final Report Project No. 08-94

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.