Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) 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 during the peer review sessions and supporting technical documentation provided by Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC).

1.2 Acknowledgments

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

• Aaron Breakstone—Portland Metro;
• Alan Horowitz— University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee;
• Jeremy Raw— Federal Highway Administration (FHWA);
• Aichong Sun—Pima Association of Governments (PAG);
• Ken Cervenka (Peer Review Advisor)—Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

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

1.3 Report Purpose

This peer review was supported by the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP), sponsored by FHWA. TMIP sponsors peer reviews so 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 primary objective of the SRTC peer review was for SRTC to better understand the capabilities and limitations of the current model and help SRTC decide how to proceed with model improvements.

The peer review panel convened for one day (November 2, 2015). During that time, SRTC presented background information and asked for guidance in all areas of their modeling practices, and the panel discussed these items and offered a series of formal recommendations to SRTC.

1.4 Report Organization

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

• Overview of the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC)—Thissection highlights the responsibilities of the council as well as some key characteristics of the Spokane region.
• Development of the SRTC Model—This section discusses SRTC’s existing model, future model updates, and the agency’s goals for the current peer review.
• Peer Review Discussion—This section details the key discussions of the peer review panel with SRTC over the course of the one-day peer review meeting.
• Peer Review Recommendations—This section highlights the official recommendations made by the peer review panel. Some of the key discussion points are revisited here, but some new details also are added.

Four appendices also are included:

• Appendix A—List of Peer Review Panel Participants;
• Appendix B—Peer Review Panel Meeting Agenda;
• Appendix C—Peer Review Panel Member Biographies; and
• Appendix D—Documentation Provided to Panel Members by SRTC and Documents referenced in this report.