Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) Peer Review

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Disclaimer

The views expressed in this document do not represent the opinions of FHWA and do not constitute an endorsement, recommendation or specification by FHWA. The document is based solely on the discussions that took place before and during the peer review sessions and supporting technical documentation provided by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC).

1.2 Acknowledgements

The FHWA would like to acknowledge the peer review members for volunteering their time to participate in this peer review. Panel members include:

• Ken Cervenka (Peer Review Advisor) - Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
• Ram Pendyala - Georgia Institute of Technology
• Erik Sabina - Colorado Department of Transportation
• Peter Vovsha - WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
• Kermit Wies (Panel Chair) - Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (retired)
• Lei Zhang - University of Maryland, College Park

Additional biographical information of each peer review panel member is located in Appendix C.

1.3 Report Purpose

This peer review was supported by the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP), sponsored by FHWA. TMIP sponsors peer reviews in order that planning agencies can receive guidance from and ask questions of officials from other planning agencies across the nation. The peer review process is specifically aimed at providing feedback to agencies on travel modeling endeavors.

The peer review described in this report was a follow up to a peer review^[1] conducted on December 6, 2013. The purpose of the prior review was to seek guidance and recommendations on the Baltimore Metropolitan Council's (BMC) activity-based travel demand model framework, structure and methodology as well as the model validation criteria, targets and sensitivity testing. The primary objective of the peer review described in this report was to review the implemented BMC activity-based regional travel model structure, assess the model validation progress, and offer guidance on the remaining validation tasks.

The peer review panel convened for one full-day session (3/3/16). During that time, BMC presented background information on their region, an overview of their activity-based model structure that is currently in validation, and the validation status. The panel discussed these items and offered a series of formal recommendations to BMC.

1.4 Report Organization

The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections.

• Overview of the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) - This section highlights the responsibilities of the MPO as well as some key characteristics of the greater Baltimore region.
• Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) InSITE Model Overview and Validation Status - This section discusses BMC's InSITE activity-based model, the validation process, and current status.
• Peer Review Recommendations - This section lays out the official recommendations made by the peer review panel.

Four appendices are also included.

• Appendix A - List of Peer Review Attendees
• Appendix B - Peer Review Meeting Agenda
• Appendix C - Peer Review Panel Member Biographies
• Appendix D - List of Documentation Provided to Panel Members by BMC

^[1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/tmip/resources/peer_review_program/bmc/report_3/