Transportation leadership you can trust.

presented to

RTP Modeling Guidelines Update Sub-Committee

presented by

Ron West

September 30, 2009

Proposed Changes to Modeling Guidelines

2

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section Agency Comment Response

1 9/22 General SANDAG

What happened to the state recommendations?

MPOs need support from statewide modeling initiatives...

May not need to be added to RTP Guidelines … instead, are recommendations to be brought to CTC Staff for consideration.

Caltrans needs to follow up on the item with CTC Staff.

3

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

2 9/22 General SANDAG

The requirement/ recommendation section that referencing statutes should transcribe the language of those statutes into this document.

This should be a one-stop shop for find information.

The style of the RTP Guidelines as a whole is only to reference the appropriate statute.

We may be able to create an appendix with detailed statue referencing.

3 9/22 General SANDAG

Will this document be turned into a HTML site with links to the applicable references?

PDFs can have web links embedded in them, we could also convert the document into a HTML version.

Check with CTC Staff.

4

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

4 9/22 General SANDAG Bullets are hard to read.Format will be changed to numbers.

5 9/22Page 1, 1st para

SANDAG

Models are used to assess the benefits of various transportation alternatives, not to support the conclusions of it.

Will change wording to focus on looking at alternatives.

6 9/22Page 1, 2nd para

SANDAGAlso mention the supply side - highway and transit networks too.

Will add text mentioning highway and transit networks.

5

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

7 9/22Page 1, 2nd para

SANDAG

Consider changing automobile to SOV & HOV – carpool would be considered part of the nest for auto.

Will modify automobile and carpool to specifically mention SOV & HOV.

8 9/22Page 1, 5th para

SANDAG

Disaggregate models, such as ABMs, are micro-simulation models, not statistical models.

Change language to read "travel modeling" instead of "statistical modeling"?

9/10 9/22Page 1,

3rd bulletSANDAG

Suggested changes to 3rd bullet on page 1

Substitute language to be provided by SANDAG.

6

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

11- 14

9/22Page 1, 2nd para

SANDAG

Suggested re-wordings

Last sentence can be added as recommendation.

Re-wordings - ok.

Last sentence will be deleted as it is referenced in 3.30.3.

15 9/22Page 2,1st para

SANDAGDiscussion of 4-step models, but none of ABMs.

Request that ABM discussion be added.

16 9/22Page 2,5th para

SANDAGTransit assignment should be mentioned

ok.

17 9/22Page 2-3,

1st-3rd bullets

SANDAG

Change to bullets.

“Should” statements attached here are not included in the recommendations below.

Ok on both items.

7

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

18 9/22

Page 3, Modeling

Perf. Measures

SANDAG

Why is there a separate recommendation from the bolded recs below? Is there a distinction?

We followed style of the 2007 RTP Guidelines. At the end of the section, all the legislation attached to the shoulds and shalls is listed. 2007 Guidelines includes a brief sentence attached to the legislation reference. Non-bold recommendations and requirements call outs can be removed.

19 9/22Page 3, last para

SANDAGTable needed to identify which category each MPO, RTPA, CMA falls into

Table will be created.

20 9/22Page 3, last para

SANDAG

Remove the cumulative nature and explicitly call out the recommendations and requirements at each level even if it repeats.

Disagree on need for this change.

8

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

21 9/22

Page 4, Category B, and in

other locations.

SANDAG

This subheading has two recommendation sections. The initial recommendations should be moved down into the “should” list.

This was following the style of the 2007 RTP Guidelines. The committee needs to decide on the formatting here and I will make the change.

22 9/22

Page 4, Category

B, 1st bullet

SANDAG

Land use characteristics can be incorporated into the model processes or by post-processing.

Text will be changed.

23 9/22

Page 4, Category

B, 1st bullet

SANDAGEach “should” should be it’s own bullet.

Tried to group topics together, but can undone if the committee decides that would be best.

9

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

24 9/22

Page 4, Category

B, 3rd bullet

SANDAG

Where does the focus on VMT come from? Many factors contribute to GHG reductions.

This was wording of 2007 addendum. It may be time to reword this item to focus on greenhouse gas reductions and not focus on surrogates like VMT, VHT, etc.

25 9/22

Page 5, Category

C, 1st bullet

SANDAG

Post processing should not be encouraged at any time. Post processing should be considered an intermediate step to full model integration.

Agree. But don’t see need to change language.

26 9/22

Page 5, Category

C, 4th bullet

SANDAG

Instead of employment type, segmentations based on income and time of day are more important. It is hard to implement employment segmentation in 4-step model anyway.

Discuss at next meeting.

10

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

27 9/22

Page 5, Category

C, 9th bullet

SANDAG“or”, in comparison to what? This clause seems incomplete.

That is the wording from the 2007 addendum. Will discuss at meeting.

28 9/22Page 6,

Category D

SANDAG

Consistency with federal DOT guidance. The actual conformity designations are serious, severe, and extreme.

Agreed. Will change "worse" to "above"

29 9/22

Page 6, Category

D, 1st bullet

SANDAGVarious wording changes to the first bullet.

Agreed. Will make the suggested changes.

11

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

30 9/22

Page 6, Category

D, 1st bullet

SANDAGIf they are requirements they are not should but shall.

For discussion at meeting.

31 9/22Page 6, Cat. D,

1st bulletSANDAG Repetitive. For discussion at meeting.

32 9/22

Page 6, Category

D, 3rd bullet

SANDAG

Is a big leap for most agencies, especially those that do not have large dedicated staffs.

For discussion at meeting.

33 9/22

Page 6, Category

D, 5th bullet

SANDAGWhat is a joint mode-destination choice model?

For discussion at meeting.

12

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

34 9/22Page 6, Cat. D,

7th bulletSANDAG

Is CTC encouraging smaller MPOs to consider moving to ABM and PECAS?

Will clarify with CTC.

35 9/22Page 6, Cat. D,

8th bulletSANDAG

Anything required should be put in the requirements section and specified with the governing law reference.

You are correct that the wording is not consistent. Committee to decide to call this out as a shall or a should.

36 9/22Page 6, Cat. D,

8th bulletSANDAG

What is the state policy justification for this? The local MPO boards already establish performance criteria.

Bullet is a recommendation, not a requirement.

37 9/22Page 6, Cat. D

SANDAGSANDAG has added 8 bulleted "shall" items to Category D.

For discussion at meeting.

13

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

38 9/22Page 7, Cat. E,

5th bulletSANDAG

Suggest rewrite to focus on PECAS development. PECAS seems like the statewide standard for advanced land use modeling, and it should be encouraged directly.

On agreement of sub-committee

39 9/22Page 8, 1st para

SANDAGChange word. Requirements are not guidance.

Will change to "requirements and recommendations"

40 9/22Page 8,

1st bulletSANDAG

Anything required should have the corresponding legal reference.

Agree. Legislative ties are listed at end of section (before sketch modeling section). Still need to document legislation tied to the shoulds and shalls. This was not done in the 2007 addendum.

14

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

41 9/22

Page 9, Inter-

regional Travel

and Modeling

SANDAG

This is setting precedence before the statewide model is updated for this use.

For this to occur, the model also needs to be fully validated and peer-reviewed.

MPOs statewide should agree that the model is capable of handling this important function. Until this occurs, the language needs to be softer.

Yes, good point. Language needs to be added to show that this is only the case after the updated STDM is updated and released to the public.

Its worth noting these guidelines are likely to be updated again – within the next 12 to 24 months.

15

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

42 9/22

Page 9, Inter-

regional Travel

and Modeling

SANDAG

For MPOs that do their own interregional HH surveys, the process may need to be more formal. Consider language similar to SB 375 +/- XX percent population disputes with DOF. (See comment resolution workbook for more details.)

The sub-committee should discuss this point. However, a key point of using the statewide model is to standardize inter-regional travel projections throughout the state. If one regional has information counter to the statewide model, it is suggested that all affect MPOs should be party to resolution of differences.

43 9/22Page 10, 1st bullet

SANDAGState the law.

The legislation is referenced below at the end of Section 3.30.2 of the document for which the shalls and shoulds appear.

16

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

44 9/22

Page 10, Require-

ment Listing of

State/ Federal Statutes

SANDAGWhich statements above do these correspond to?

The one bullet in the shall for Section 3.30.2. The legislation still needs to be identified for the shoulds.

45 9/22Page 11, 1st bullet

SANDAG

This ignores interaction of land use and transportation. Projected land use may be different if transportation infrastructure is not built due to travel times, congestion, economics of shipping, etc…

Will discuss with Sub-committee.

17

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

46 9/22

Page 11, Con-

sistency of RTP

Modeling

SANDAG

Post processing procedures should be reviewed and consistent across major MPOs in CA.

Sounds reasonable. Will ask committee for concurrence and if anyone has any preferred language.

47 9/22

Page 11, Model Peer

Review, 2nd bullet

SANDAG SANDAG votes here.

48 9/22Page 13, bullet "b"

SANDAG

Does this recommendation mean we should be providing a statistical error term?

That is the wording from the 2007 addendum. Perhaps someone who worked on the addendum can address.

18

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

49 9/22Page 2, Network Assign

CaltransCongestion is only one measure of performance.

Suggest change to "…such as congestion…"

50 9/22Page 3, 1st para

CaltransDelete, "to the extent that data and resources permit," in the first sentence.

Agreed.

51 9/22

Page 3, Modeling

Perf Measures

Caltrans

SB 375 and the RTAC report explicitly call for GHG emissions. Later versions of the RTAC report recognize that GHG emissions reduction is part of the RTP process and other issues can reinforce or impede actions that reduce GHG emissions.

Suggest to use consistent language and terminology in this report as used in the RTAC recommendations report.

19

RTP Modeling Guidelines – Comment Resolution

## DatePage # / Section

Agency Comment Response

52 9/22

Page 3, Federal

Leg/ Shalls

Caltrans

Sec. 450.322(f) “Develop-ment and content of the MTP” has 3 pages of regs. Requires projections, alternatives analysis & AQ, among other requirements. Should be consistent with this CFR paragraph.

Review has not yet been undertaken.

53 9/22Page 4, Cat. B,

3rd bulletCaltrans

Grams per mile vary with speed; Speed needs to be included in bullet

Agreed.

54 9/22Page 6, Cat. D,

7th bulletCaltrans

Households don’t know about business rents.

Two different topics. Split into two bullets.

559/22/2009

Page 12, Item 'c'

CaltransReplace "regional" with "local"

Agreed.