Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
In contrast, SACOGâs operators only dealt with a sin- gle software package. The PLACE3S land use program was modified to display and manipulate the Cube/Voyager networks and to prepare the files for Cube/Voyager runs. Cube/Voyager was then run within the PLACE3S shell and the runâs outputs were displayed using PLACE3Sâ GIS functionality. This was a smoother arrangement than SLOCOGâs and, by reducing the time needed for shuffling data, it enabled SACOG to devote nearly all of its 15 min to model run time. WORKSHOP RESULTS Participants who were not familiar with regional plan- ning were surprised by traffic forecasts in the SLOCOG workshops, with most not realizing the importance of location. Prior to the workshop most of the dialogue on development in San Luis Obispo County centered on the number of units being proposed and their compati- bility to the immediately adjacent land uses. People were surprised to find that the same number of jobs and dwelling units produced different levels of traffic con- gestion depending on where they were located in the county. Specifically, there was a tendency to concentrate residential developments in certain towns while turning other towns into employment centers. The traffic fore- casts for groups that followed this pattern had much higher levels of congestion on the connecting highways than the groups that had a diversity of land uses within each town. This led to a consensus on the need for bet- ter land use. In addition, participants wanted compact mixed- use development of a kind that is not even an allowable land use category under most general plans in the county. The SACOG workshops revealed a disconnect between agency and public opinion. Specifically, public works agencies were pursuing projects that did not inter- est the public, while participants wanted certain projects (toll roads, major urban bridges) that the agencies thought were politically impossible. Both workshops attracted a lot of participants includ- ing many elected officials who got a new perspective on what the electorate wants. LESSONS LEARNED The most obvious lesson is that it is possible to forecast traffic in a visioning workshop and that doing so will influence the results in important ways. Performing complex technical tasks in a hurry in front of an audience is inherently risky. It is inadvisable unless there is time for testing and practice beforehand and backups for all hardware components. Modelers must accept that a workshop model has a different purpose than a conventional model and that some functionality will have to be sacrificed for speed. When deciding on how to modify a model it is best to start with the few key indicators that you plan to show participants, then work backwards to determine the nec- essary model components. In the SLOCOG workshops much of the time was spent inputting similar data at different tables. This can be avoided by allowing participants to select from a menu of âstarter setsâ that allocate about half of the new development. Each starter set should represent a theme such as (for networks) âfacilitate long- distance auto travelâ or (for land uses) âinfill within existing urban boundariesâ and contain the most prominent proposals consistent with that theme. Participants are expected to delete unwanted projects and add new ones, but giving them something to work from helps groups to reach con- sensus faster. The final lesson is that visioning workshops are mean- ingless unless the agencies approach them with an open mind and a willingness to act. Both sets of workshops revealed public preferences that were in conflict with proj - ects that agencies considered âdone deals.â The work- shops were a success in that they brought such conflicts to light; it remains to be seen how much influence they will have on the projects that are actually implemented. 126 INNOVATIONS IN TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING, VOLUME 2