Click for next page ( 18

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 17
18 design study for a 15-mi-long study area projected to double its To conduct AQ [air quality] regional emissions and conformity population and triple its employment by 2030. The DelDOT analysis for rural, isolated counties that do not have a MPO model was used to examine approximately 10 alignment options LRTP [Long-Range Transportation Plan] and TIP [Transporta- with various access scenarios and was used to assess travel im- tion Improvement Program]. pacts for a number of toll rate possibilities (M. DuRoss, personal communication, 2005). INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The development and maintenance of a statewide model is a ma- jor effort, involving costs for data, consultants, and in-house staff. States have found it important to define goals and objectives for their models before embarking on initial model develop- ment or performing major updates. Two examples are pro- Overall Costs vided here. There are no commonly accepted standards of statewide model design. Ideally, statewide models would be as detailed Oregon and accurate as the best of our urban models. This goal can Oregon set forth three goals and seven objectives for its sec- be achieved in some smaller states (e.g., New Jersey or Rhode ond generation model development. Island) either by expanding an urban model to encompass the whole state or by stitching together all of their urban models. Goal #1: Develop a set of integrated land use and transporta- For most states, however, compromises on quality must tion models that will enable ODOT and the MPOs to do [the] be made to stay within cost and time constraints. Some states analysis needed to support land use and transportation deci- find it difficult to estimate the full cost of their models be- sion making. cause the development occurs over a long period of time or Goal #2: Develop and maintain databases needed to make pe- riodic long-term economic, demographic, passenger, and com- because the costs of certain related activities cannot be wholly modity flow forecasts for statewide and substate regions. attributable to the model development process. Given this Goal #3: Develop the expertise, guidelines, and institutional caveat, there is an extremely wide range of costs. At the low support necessary to sustain the models and databases needed end of the scale, South Carolina paid just $25,000; whereas at for integrated land use and transportation facility analysis. Objective #1: Provide training on the integrated transportation the upper end of the scale, Ohio paid $8 million, of which $5.5 and land use models. million covered the cost of data collection. Approximately Objective #2: Connect the statewide and substate models with half of Ohio's data collection costs were for data that could be the metropolitan area models. shared with MPOs. Both the Ohio and South Carolina mod- Objective #3: Transfer the statewide and substate model to a platform that is extensible and can be modified by ODOT in els would be classified as being unconventional. (See chapter the future. three for a more complete discussion of the Ohio model.) For Objective #4: Integrate rail transportation into the statewide more conventional modeling approaches, costs range be- and substate model. Objective #5: Develop a working metropolitan model that in- tween approximately $300,000 in less populated states (e.g., tegrates transportation and land use components. Delaware and Iowa) to approximately $1.5 million in popu- Objective #6: Establish data linkages between the statewide, lous states (e.g., Florida and Texas). substate, and metropolitan models and analytical software for assessing highway system performance. Objective #7: Establish university research linkages. Most states were able to pay for their models exclusively with State Planning and Research funds, although a few states needed supplementary funds from either general pur- Wisconsin pose revenues or transportation-dedicated revenues. Other revenue sources were rare. Maine received funds from a toll Wisconsin listed six practical objectives for its model. road authority and New Hampshire used Congestion Mitiga- tion and Air Quality funds. Having the capability to analyze modal diversion impacts along major backbone and connecting corridors. Having the capability to analyze route diversion impacts once corridor-level improvements are made, such as adding lanes Data Costs and changing design from expressway to freeway, thus in- creasing the operating speed and lowering the travel time. Data collection can be a large component of the development Analyzing the capacity (LOS) and safety impacts associated with of a statewide model. For example, Ohio's devoted almost increased truck travel on key Wisconsin interstates owing to the 70% of its budget to data acquisition. Big ticket data items in introduction of major new intermodal facilities such as Rochelle in northcentral Illinois and with the ever-expanding regional Oregon included: commercial distribution centers like Wal-Mart, Lowe's, etc. Developing a planning and modeling process that integrates Continuous Survey for Modeling in Oregon Pilot Project the on-going development of fourteen (14) MPO models and two (2) urban area models with our statewide model. ($250,000). The statewide model has two components: a passenger model Freight commodity flow data collection ($390,000). and a freight model. Freight shipper and carrier survey ($300,000).