Regional visioning and scenario analysis projects are becoming an increasingly important focus in the modeling of regional travel demand. This report summarizes model enhancements that have proved useful in these types of projects from experience in the regions of Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; and Austin, Texas. The enhancements focus on key goals in regional visioning and scenario analysis projects, including increasing sensitivity to microscale effects on land use, that affect a response by choice riders to high-quality transit service and that account for induced travel from increased roadway capacity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Deakin, Harvey, Skabardonis, Inc., Manual of Regional Transportation Modeling Practice for Air Quality Analysis.National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, D.C., July 1993, p. 1–1–1–2.
VellingaM. L.Blueprint for a Valley. Planning, May 2004, pp. 13–17.
6.
Four Scenarios for the Future. Presented at Choices for Our Future: Regional Forum 2004. Sacramento Area Council of Governments and Valley Vision, Sacramento, Calif., 2004. www.sacog.org/forum2004/home.cfm.
7.
Southern California Compass Growth Vision Report.Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, Calif., June 2004.
8.
Executive Summary. In Destination 2030.Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, April 2004.
DittmarH., and PotichaS.. Defining Transit-Oriented Development: The New Regional Building Block. In The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (DittmarH., and OhlandG., eds.). Island Press, Washington D.C.,2004, pp. 19–40.
11.
EwingR., and CerveroR. B.. Travel and the Built Environment: Synthesis. Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
12.
The Location Efficient Mortgage Project: Summary of Results of Location and Auto Cost Correlation Study.Center for Neighborhood Technologies, Chicago, Ill., 1998.
KillingsworthR. E., De NazelleA., and BellR. H.. Building a New Paradigm: Improving Public Health Through Transportation.ITE Journal, June 2003, pp. 28–32.
15.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc.New York Best Practice Model (NYBPM): Transportation Models and Data Initiative General Final Report, Draft.New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, June 22, 2004.
16.
CooganM.Why Care About Walking? A Celebration of the NHTS. nhts.ornl.gov/2001/presentations/walking/index.shtml.
17.
MucsiK., and KhanA. M.. Effectiveness of Additional Lanes at Signalized Intersections.ITE Journal, Jan. 2003, pp. 26–30.
18.
HorowitzA. J.Delay-Volume Relations for Travel Forecasting: Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1991. tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/general/dvrt/dvrt.pdf.
19.
Highway Capacity Manual.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
20.
DeCorla-SouzaP., and CohenH.. Accounting for Induced Travel in Metropolitan Highway Expansion. Presented at 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 1998.
21.
OrtúzarJ. de D., and WillumsenL. G.. Modeling Transport, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York,2001.
