Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 76


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 75
CLOSING PLENARY SESSION Next Steps Institutional Issues Ken Cervenka, North Central Texas Council of Governments Larry Blain, Puget Sound Regional Council Ronald Milone, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Chuck Purvis, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Aichong Sun, Pima Association of Governments Richard Walker, Portland Metro Kermit Wies, Chicago Area Transportation Study Ken Cervenka step after understanding these issues is to better anticipate and respond to resulting changes in travel needs. I t is a pleasure to moderate this closing session. We have an excellent group of speakers, who were asked to address the following four questions in their remarks. I was pleased to learn about the increasing prevalence of tools, such as the population synthesizer and the tour analysis tools that are now available for use. I wish there What did you learn from this conference that you had been more discussion about the transferability of did not previously know? models from one area to another. I would also have liked What were you hoping to learn that is still not fully to have heard more on the use of dynamic traffic assign- answered? ment at the regional level and risk analysis, including the What do you see as the obstacles that most agen- multiple uses of stochastic runs to obtain a better idea of cies will need to overcome to move forward with more the range of possible outcomes. advanced land use and travel modeling procedures? I was not able to attend the education session, but it What are the expectations of your agencies for seemed to focus on educating modelers. I think we also moving forward with more advanced land use and travel need to educate policy makers about travel modeling modeling procedures? tools and techniques, especially the appropriate use of the results from these models. It is important to build a Larry Blain better understanding among policy makers about the benefits of travel models. M y comments focus on the four questions outlined by Ken Cervenka, which I thought about as I listened to speakers during the different sessions. While I did not The lack of funding and limited staff resources were two major obstacles discussed in many of the sessions. Data analysis needs were also noted as obstacles by learn anything brand new at the conference, a number of many speakers. Data on day-to-day individual travel things that I have been thinking about were reaffirmed by behavior are critical with the use of disaggregate models. speakers and by the discussion in the different sessions. Multiday individual travel diaries and other related data The impact of changing demographics, including the baby collection techniques are needed with disaggregate boomers moving into retirement and the impact of their models. retirement on travel behavior, was one of those elements. Another obstacle is the fragmented development of Other points that were reaffirmed by speakers included models and analysis techniques, with work under way in the globalization of issues, the resettlement of central busi- many urban areas. While there is communication among ness districts (CBDs) by higher-income groups, and the different groups, a central focus for sharing information increasing number of one-person households. The next and consolidating results is lacking. I would suggest that 63