Click for next page ( 242


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 241
APPENDIX C SURVEY QUESTIONS AND SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

OCR for page 241

OCR for page 241
TCRP H-12 Final Report Table C.! Summary of Intervie`` Questions and Responses . . : Question Reason for the Question - Responses 1. ISTEA requires that Determine the overall context for the ISTEA s statement is rather vague: it can be interpreted transportation planning consider the transportation - interaction. different!! by different people; different s can has e interaction between transportation different impacts on transportation; changes in and in a consistent fashion. How . transportation can affect different s in different ~ ales. do respondents interpret this? ISTEA s statement is seen as a political statement: politicians had to se!' something. but at the same time had to be careful not to imply that He Federal government might have an interest in planning. l | The 1991 statement Chic a straiohl-for`` ard statement (i.e it meant ``hat it said): transportation planning must be developed in consideration of He adopted plan. Hot revert this reactive role for transportation planning has been ~ replaced by a more open two-wax interaction; for example. in the desire in some plans lo promote compact ersus unconstrained forms as one means of reducing air quality impacts. VMT etc. Some respondents see this requirement as a reactive approach (i.e.. loo}; at the Froth and then assess the appropriateness of the transportation system). Others see it as open or encompassing all the possible transportation scenarios (i.e.. many transportation - combinations fixed transportation plan - mam plans or. fixed plan - many transportation plans). Land use generates transportation (travel) which generates emissions. Therefore. ``hen considering the interaction between transportation and air quality impacts also must be assessed. 1 C-1

OCR for page 241
TCRP H-19 Final Report - Table C.! Summar~r of Interview Questions and Responses : Question ~ Reason for the Question ~ Responses 2. How do respondents implement IdentiF how this requirement is met in lmprovements/chanoes such as collecting and using the ISTEA's requirement regarding day-to-day operations. origin-destination data introducing air quality the interaction between management techniques. implementing on-bus models. transportation and ? developing reoion-~`ide transportation - plans. - What techniques do you use Models such as DRAMIEhiPAL and TRANUSIMEPLAN (models. data analysis. other)? have been used. How ever. these models don t seem to - How is this interaction treated in address the transportation - interaction full`. For lon~-terrn planning? In corridor or example. they don't include economic information such as facility planning? In site land rents. development? Is the interaction formal or informal (e.g required by This requirement isn t easy to implement because the local or state last. etc.)? techniques and tools for assessing the impacts of - What improvements / changes are transportation and are not well integrated. necessary to promote this . implementation? (Especially technical changes i.e.. methods. tools, data) ~ 3. What are the l;ey policy issues What questions must be answered be - Lono-ran~e plans that must be addressed by models and other tools? - Whether TIPs conform tO air quality requirements respondents? - Economic development including tar; policies - Spra`` l - Air quality requirements - Transit - interaction - Integration between transportation - and economic factors - Linl; between regional. corridor and site-specific scales - Lon~-ranoe strategic ~ ersus short-range site-specific levels - Political decision making (buyers. developers) Current models are not really able to capture most of the };e~ policy issues. C-2

OCR for page 241
TCRP H-17 Final Report Table C.! Summary of Interview Questions and Responses -Question ~ Reason for the Question 4. What transit issues must the What types of questions. specific tO transit respondent'sjurisdiction address? investments must beans``ered? Capital improvements Operational improvements Joint development 5. How are development decisions Determine how decisions are made. and tO made in the respondent's ``hat extent models and other anals tical community? tools drip e the decision-maliin~ process. 6. What is the interaction between Is there a recognized connection between transit accessibilit~and transitin~estment end development? How development? does this compare ` ith the linkage. if ens. between investment in roads and How does this interaction compare development? with that between road aCcessibilit!? and development? How is it expressed (edge.. in terms of economic development impact environmental impact. air quality impact. etc.)? Is this interaction quantified? 7. What is the impact of transit Does the aforementioned transit accessibility on development connection have any impact on decisions? How important is transit development decisions? If so. in `` hat accessibility among development and? Ho`` does this compare ``ith the issues? road connection? Responses -LRT - Express train service into COD - Combination of express and local service - lIi~her frequency bus service - Transit accessibility (pedestrians) - Zonal system (i.e., level of detail) - Ridership versus declining population - Forecasting issues such as changes in travel patterns (i.e.. modal share changes. route choice changes. induced travel etc.3 - Based on transit accessibility (i.ebased on location) - In some cases. decisions are made by private developers irrespective of planning - Decisions can also depend on the market (i.efinancial community) - Some respondents use a more cooperative and comprehensive process which involves the technical community. politicians and the public. l - Thea are strongly linked: good transit accessibility increases attractiveness for development - Developers are interested in developing commercial areas near LRTs - Put density where transit is and put transit where density IS - Transit can add a certain market value tO a propem, . However. this is rather difficult tO model and measure. - Road accessibility would seem to play a more important role than transit accessibility u hen developing new suburbs. - Rather negligible - Developers must be encouraged through incentives to consider transit accessibility (i.e.. public sector must encourage private sector)

OCR for page 241
TCRP H-19 Final Report Table C.1 Summary of Interview Questions and Responses ~ Question l Reason for the Question | Responses 8. What experience do respondents Direct familiarity u ith models. Main issues: have with integrated models? Experience' can be described in terms of - How to combine road and transit accessibilities into one actual use (or iac}; thereof). or as a critique overall concept of accessibility | of existing methods. tools. models. ate | - The forecasting models do not capture temporal-based etc. dynamics - Current data especially employment. are poor - Comple.xitv of process - Robustness of model - Need to take into account economic (i.e.. land market) data - Need new Generation of models (finer level of detail) - The anals sis conducted is verse coarse and broad ~ hereas | | the issues are much more detailed 9. What experience do respondents Hot are transit demand and accessibility Main issues: have u ith travel demand forecasting simulated? Are respondents satisfied w ith - Not responsive to current policy issues (air quality . ITS. models (in particular ~ ith the results? demandlorourth management) forecasting and simulating of transit - Tend to as erase results and impacts demand)? - Do not handle trip chaining well - Models are food for addressing net supply requirements. but not for fine tuning - Not able to represent `all;ino. bike trips well - 1 hese models do not capture land markets well - Should consider time-of-day travel ~ ariations in more detail - More disaaoreaation required (for example. at the household level) 10. Do respondents have the | Requirements for modeling tools. i Main needs: necessar! "tools' to properly assess - Accessibility. especially walk versus drive accessibility the transit - interaction? - Site/station specific boarding dynamics - Weal; lin}; appears to be modeling (its accuracy) - Technical algorithms should be improved - Not sensitive enough to measure impacts of transit corridor ins estments - Need more finely-tuned networl;s 11. Do respondents see integrated Potential use of integrated nnodels t ~Disaggregation of data (household level) rather than models as one of these tools? Why address issues; satisfaction ~ ith the results. integration. i.e.. this respondent felt that greater or why not? understanding of household dynamics ~ as more important than the need for better integration of transportation models. C-4

OCR for page 241
TCAP H-l ~ Final Report Table C.1 Summar>' of Interview Questions and Responses ~ Question T Reason for the Question ~ Responses ~ : 12. Do models address the In practical terms. ``hat should a model be models should be: respondents needs currently? capable of doing? - sensitive to policies How? What needs do tines not - credible (data quality is an issue) meet? - more robust - more activit`;-based - more disaOoregated (micro-simulation) models should be able to: - show different choices - cons ince developers of the benefits of transit investments to them. and the need to readjust accordingly - explore possibilities. not yield decisions (i.e.. provide better information to decision mal;ers, but do not simulate political decision-maliin~ process) 13. What role do respondents see Relationship of Trac}; E (integrated urban - Fe`` of the respondents ~ Ore familiar zenith TMIP for the emerging TMIP activities models) ~ ith remainder of TRIP tracks. - Those ``ho were familiar noted that their definition of the (em. TR9NSIMS) in Fulfilling the role depended upon the conclusions and results of TMIP. integrated transportation - which is not yet far enough along. requirement? - Hope that it will raise the profile of needs for better quantitative information How should models relate to - Hope it ``ill translate into a usable, implementable. lono TRANTSIMS (and vice-`ersa)? term too} [4. What are the practical Adenoid possible impediments to i- Cost (resources. staff time to calibrate and use in obstacles. if any to the use of introducing or broadening the use of practical situations) models in planning decisions? integrated models in the planning decision- - Manx decisions are political. subtle. not technical; making process. therefore models must be able to take these non-technical What are the practical obstacles. if factors into account any. to the use of travel demand - Data quality and accuracy models (including TRANSIMS) in - Level of detail/comple>;in. planning decisions? - Credibility and acceptance - Familiarity and ltno``ledge of models - Perception of models is that they 'tell local decision mal;ers and developers ho`` to allocate and therefore influence revenues (as opposed to being an aid to decision-ma};ing). - Data management (very time consuming) - GIS linl; (weal;)