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.
time differences, and hardware needs. Providing training to staff in the use of new software is also critical. We are actually taking a step backwards at Metro. We have an activity- based model that has been used on a number of studies. We are working with the Oregon Department of Transportation and other MPOs in the state to conduct a new travel survey over the next few years. At Metro, we plan to use the results in a number of different ways. First, we will use the results to check the parameters of our four- step model and update the model as needed. We will continue to use this model. Second, we will use the survey data to help develop our new activity model. We will then be able to compare the results from the two models and help advance the dis- cussion related to activity models. Kermit Wies The previous speakers did an excellent job of high-lighting many of the key issues discussed by speak- ers and summarizing the critical challenges that we face in advancing the state of the practice. Because the title of this session includes institutional issues, my com- ments focus on what a cultural anthropologist attending the conference might observe related to what the mod- eling community is trying to do about what we think is the problem. A number of comments have been made at the con- ference that modelers focus on the modeling process and the model results and that we do not become actively involved in the decision- making process. Suggestions were made that we let others make decisions on issues in which we have expertise and that we are not proactive in participating in the decision- making process. Frank Koppelman suggested in the opening session that we may be talking at each other rather than talking with each other. Speakers in a number of sessions further suggested that the largest obstacle we face may be that the product we are selling is not exactly what our cus- tomers want to buy. This situation places modelers in a reactive position and makes our jobs more difficult. As planners, we want to look ahead and have a proactive role in shaping the future direction of the transportation system. We need to be sure that travel demand models help address key questions and enhance the discussion of future transportation needs. Regional planning reform is moving forward in Chicago. One of my favorite icons for Chicago, New York City, or any other large metropolitan area with a significant financial market is the picture of the floor of the stock exchange with people shouting and waving their arms. There seems to be a blind faith that whatever the situation is when the closing bell rings, it is the best thing that could have happened. This same situation may exist with travel models. I think we are doing a better job of listening to each other. I think we hear what relates to our agency and situation. What I have been most inspired by is that the biggest success stories seem to be tied to a person or a team of people, rather than an agency, who really want to implement a new model or a new approach. I think significant advances in the model- ing practice will be made by committed individuals. I would like to see the modeling profession continue to focus on moving beyond reacting to issues and to become more proactive in policy discussions. Ken Cervenka moderated this session. 67NEXT STEPS
