Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram
Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)
Planning Environment Real Estate
HEP Events Guidance Publications Glossary Awards Contacts

TMIP Peer Review Program Assessment and Evaluation Report

Image Source Text

Figure 1: TMIP Peer Reviews by Calendar Year
Year # of Meetings
2003 3
2004 10
2005 4
2006 3
2007 1
2008 5
2009 2
2010 1
2011 4
TOTAL 33
AVG 3.7

Return

Figure 2: MPOs and State DOTs list

Agency

State

AMATS

Alaska

AMBAG

California

ARC

Georgia

BMC

Maryland

BRC

Iowa - Illinois

CAMPO

Texas

CCMPO

Vermont

CHCNGA-TPO

Tennessee

CMPO

Utah

COMPASS

Idaho

DMPO

Utah

DRCOG

Colorado

DVRPC

Pennsylvania

ECIA

Iowa

EWGCG

Missouri

IaDOT

Iowa

MAPA

Nebraska

MATA

Tennessee

MTC

California

NCDOT

North Carolina

NJTPA

New Jersey

NYMTC

New York

OKI

Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana

PPACG

Colorado

SACOG

California

SANDAG

California

SCAG

California

SEMCOG

Michigan

Return

Figure 5: TMIP Peer Reviews by Agency Size
City Population SIZE
New York (NYMTC) 22,800,000 large
Los Angeles (SCAG) 16,000,000 large
North Carolina (NCDOT) 9,380,000 large
San Francisco (MTC) 7,000,000 large
Newark (NJTPA) 6,500,000 large
Philadelphia (DVRPC) 5,500,000 large
Detroit (SEMCOG) 4,830,000 large
Atlanta (ARC) 3,500,000 large
Iowa (IaDOT) 3,000,000 large
San Diego (SANDAG) 3,000,000 large
Denver (DRCOG) 2,500,000 medium
St. Louis (EWGCG) 2,428,730 medium
Baltimore (BMC) 2,400,000 medium
Sacramento (SACOG) 2,000,000 medium
Austin (CAMPO) 1,458,641 medium
Louisville (OKI) 1,000,000 medium
Memphis (MATA) 1,000,000 medium
Omaha (MAPA) 750,000 medium
Monterey (AMBAG) 740,000 medium
Colorado Springs (PPACG) 560,000 small
Boise (COMPASS) 481,235 small
Chattanooga (CHCNGA-TPO) 425,724 small
Davenport (BRC) 292,577 small
Anchorage (AMATS) 250,000 small
Burlington (CCMPO) 155,000 small
St. George (DMPO) 137,000 small
Logan (CMPO) 82,453 small
Dubuque (ECIA) 77,018 small

Return

Figure 6: TMIP Peer Reviews by Agency Size Category (Large, Medium, Small)
City State Agency Number of Counties Population Area (sqmi)
New York New York NYMTC 28 22,800,000 10,500
Los Angeles California SCAG 6 16,000,000 38,000
North Carolina North Carolina NCDOT 25 9,000,000  
San Francisco California MTC 9 7,000,000 7,500
Newark New Jersey NJTPA 13 6,500,000 4,200
Philadelphia Pennsylvania DVRPC 9 5,500,000 3,800
Detroit Michigan SEMCOG 7 4,830,000 4,650
Atlanta Georgia ARC 13 3,500,000 2,981
San Diego California SANDAG 1 3,000,000 4,260
Iowa Iowa IaDOT   3,000,000  
Denver Colorado DRCOG 9 2,500,000 3,400
St. Louis Missouri EWGCG 8 2,428,730 4,590
Baltimore Maryland BMC 5 2,400,000 2,260
Sacramento California SACOG 6 2,000,000 6,200
Austin Texas CAMPO 5 1,458,641 4,282
Louisville Kentucky OKI 5 1,000,000 1,400
Memphis Tennessee MATA 2 1,000,000 1,132
Omaha Nebraska MAPA 5 750,000 772
Monterey California AMBAG 3 740,000 5,151
Colorado Springs Colorado PPACG 2 560,000 794
Boise Idaho COMPASS 2 481,235 1,664
Chattanooga Tennessee CHCNGA-TPO 4 425,724 700
Davenport Iowa BRC 5 292,577 2,763
Anchorage Alaska AMATS 1 250,000 250
Burlington Vermont CCMPO 1 155,000 620
St. George Utah DMPO 1 137,000 2,429
Logan Utah CMPO 1 82,453 1,173
Dubuque Iowa ECIA 3* 77,018 100

Return

Figure 8: Share of Recommendations by Topic Area
Topic Area Total
ADMINISTRATIVE 13%
ASSIGNMENT 11%
ZONES & NETWORKS 9%
FREIGHT MODELING 8%
TRIP GENERATION 8%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 7%
LAND-USE INPUTS 7%
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 5%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 5%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 5%
DISTRIBUTION 4%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 4%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 3%
NON-MOTORIZED MODELING 3%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 2%
BEST PRACTICE 2%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 2%
MODE CHOICE 2%

Return

Figure 9: Share of Recommendations by Topic Area
Topic Area Large Medium Small
ADMINISTRATIVE 15% 8% 17%
ASSIGNMENT 9% 12% 14%
ZONES & NETWORKS 9% 4% 14%
FREIGHT MODELING 8% 8% 7%
TRIP GENERATION 5% 8% 12%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 8% 8% 2%
LAND-USE INPUTS 5% 8% 7%
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 5% 6% 5%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 7% 6% 2%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 4% 6% 5%
DISTRIBUTION 7% 2% 2%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 4% 4% 5%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 1% 8% 0%
NON-MOTORIZED MODELING 3% 6% 0%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 1% 4% 2%
BEST PRACTICE 4% 0% 0%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 1% 2% 2%
MODE CHOICE 3% 0% 2%

Return

Figure 10: Technical Questions by Topic Area by Calendar Year
Category 2004-2005 2008-2010 2011
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 17% 9% 6%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 9% 9% 10%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 4% 6% 11%
ADMINISTRATIVE 13% 3% 4%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 3% 3% 1%
ASSIGNMENT 7% 9% 2%
DISTRIBUTION 7% 3% 5%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 4% 0% 9%
ZONES & NETWORKS 6% 6% 5%
FREIGHT MODELING 4% 9% 6%
MODE CHOICE 3% 6% 5%
TRIP GENERATION 9% 3% 0%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 1% 6% 5%
NETWORK INPUTS 7% 3% 0%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 1% 6% 5%
NON-MOTORIZED MODELING 0% 0% 5%
FUEL PRICING 0% 3% 5%
BEST PRACTICE 1% 0% 2%
LAND-USE INPUTS 3% 12% 7%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 0% 0% 4%
VISUALIZATION 0% 6% 2%

Return

Figure 11: Share of Recommendations by Topic Area
  TOTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE 13%
ASSIGNMENT 11%
ZONES & NETWORKS 9%
FREIGHT MODELING 8%
TRIP GENERATION 8%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 7%
LAND-USE INPUTS 7%
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 5%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 5%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 5%
DISTRIBUTION 4%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 4%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 3%
NON-MOTORIZED MODELING 3%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 2%
BEST PRACTICE 2%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 2%
MODE CHOICE 2%

Return

Figure 12: Share of Recommendations by Topic Area by Agency Size
  LARGE MEDIUM SMALL
ADMINISTRATIVE 15% 8% 17%
ASSIGNMENT 9% 12% 14%
ZONES & NETWORKS 9% 4% 14%
FREIGHT MODELING 8% 8% 7%
TRIP GENERATION 5% 8% 12%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 8% 8% 2%
LAND-USE INPUTS 5% 8% 7%
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 5% 6% 5%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 7% 6% 2%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 4% 6% 5%
DISTRIBUTION 7% 2% 2%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 4% 4% 5%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 1% 8% 0%
NON-MOTORIZED MODELING 3% 6% 0%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 1% 4% 2%
BEST PRACTICE 4% 0% 0%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 1% 2% 2%
MODE CHOICE 3% 0% 2%

Return

Figure 13 Panel Recommendations by Topic Area by Calendar Year
  2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011
ADMINISTRATIVE 18% 9% 9%
ASSIGNMENT 10% 15% 11%
ZONES & NETWORKS 10% 9% 8%
FREIGHT MODELING 8% 9% 8%
TRIP GENERATION 6% 12% 8%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 8% 3% 8%
LAND-USE INPUTS 5% 3% 11%
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 6% 6% 4%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 3% 3% 11%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 6% 6% 2%
DISTRIBUTION 6% 3% 2%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 1% 9% 6%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 5% 3% 0%
NON-MOTORIZED MODELING 4% 3% 2%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 0% 6% 4%
BEST PRACTICE 4% 0% 0%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 0% 3% 4%
MODE CHOICE 1% 0% 4%

Return

Figure 14 Panel Recommendations by Topic Area by Priority
  LONG SHORT
ADMINISTRATIVE 6% 17%
ASSIGNMENT 0% 17%
ZONES & NETWORKS 4% 11%
FREIGHT MODELING 14% 4%
TRIP GENERATION 4% 10%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 18% 1%
LAND-USE INPUTS 4% 8%
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 2% 7%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 16% 1%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 4% 5%
DISTRIBUTION 4% 4%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 10% 2%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 2% 3%
NON-MOTORIZED MODELING 4% 3%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 0% 4%
BEST PRACTICE 4% 1%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 4% 1%
MODE CHOICE 0% 3%

Return

Figure 15: Share of Questions and Recommendations by Topic Area
  Grand Total
ADMINISTRATIVE 10%
ASSIGNMENT 8%
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 8%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 7%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 7%
ZONES & NETWORKS 7%
FREIGHT MODELING 7%
TRIP GENERATION 6%
DISTRIBUTION 5%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 5%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 5%
LAND-USE INPUTS 4%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 4%
MODE CHOICE 3%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 3%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 3%
NON-MOTORIZED 3%
BEST PRACTICE 2%
NETWORK INPUTS 2%
FUEL PRICING 1%
VISUALIZATION 1%

Return

Figure 16: Share of Questions and Recommendations by Topic Area by Agency Size
  LARGE MEDIUM SMALL
ADMINISTRATIVE 13% 5% 11%
ASSIGNMENT 7% 9% 9%
CALIBRATION / VALIDATION 10% 7% 6%
ACTIVITY-BASED MODELING 9% 6% 4%
SPECIAL MARKETS / GENERATORS 8% 8% 3%
ZONES & NETWORKS 8% 4% 10%
FREIGHT MODELING 6% 7% 7%
TRIP GENERATION 6% 5% 7%
DISTRIBUTION 6% 6% 1%
LAND-USE FORECASTS 2% 9% 4%
MULTI-SCALE MODELING 5% 6% 3%
LAND-USE INPUTS 3% 6% 4%
LU / TRANSPORTATION 2% 4% 9%
MODE CHOICE 3% 2% 4%
ROAD PRICING / MANAGED LANES 2% 6% 3%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 2% 2% 6%
NON-MOTORIZED 2% 3% 3%
BEST PRACTICE 2% 1% 1%
NETWORK INPUTS 3% 1% 0%
FUEL PRICING 1% 2% 3%
VISUALIZATION 0% 3% 1%

Return

Figure 17: Share of Questions and Recommendations by Topic Area by Calendar Year
  2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011
ADMINISTRATIVE 15% 8% 5%
ASSIGNMENT 9% 16% 6%
CALIBRATION/VALIDATION 11% 5% 6%
ABM 6% 5% 9%
SPECIAL MARKETS/GENERATORS 7% 5% 7%
ZONES & NETWORKS 8% 8% 6%
FREIGHT 6% 8% 7%
TRIP GENERATION 7% 11% 3%
DISTRIBUTION 7% 5% 3%
LU FORECASTS 4% 3% 6%
MULTI-RESOLUTION 2% 3% 7%
LAND-USE INPUTS 4% 3% 5%
LU/TRANS 2% 3% 5%
MODE CHOICE 2% 0% 5%
ROAD PRICING/MANAGED LANES 1% 8% 4%
OTHER POLICY ANALYSIS 1% 8% 4%
NON-MOTORIZED 2% 3% 3%
BEST PRACTICE 3% 0% 1%
NETWORK INPUTS 3% 0% 1%
FUEL PRICING 0% 0% 3%
VISUALIZATION 0% 0% 2%

Return

Updated: 5/23/2017
HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate
Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse
U.S. DOT Home | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000