Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Peer Review Report

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Disclaimer

The views expressed in this document do not represent the opinions of the Federal Highway Administration (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 the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the peer review panelists.

2.2 Acknowledgements

The FHWA wishes to acknowledge and thank the peer review panel members for volunteering their time to participate in the peer review to inform the prospective development of a Washington-state travel demand forecast model (WTDFM) and for sharing their valuable experience.

The peer review panel members were:

• Alan Horowitz, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM);
• Keith Killough, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT);
• Becky Knudson, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT);
• Doug MacIvor, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
• Subrat Mahapatra, Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA);
• Ken Cervenka, Federal Transit Administration (FTA); and
• Vidya Mysore, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Brief biographies for each of the peer review panel members appear in Appendix C.

2.3 Peer Review Purpose

The peer review was supported by the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) sponsored by FHWA. Model peer reviews can serve multiple purposes, including identification of model deficiencies, recommendations for model enhancements, guidance on model applications, and model development recommendations. Given the increasing complexities of travel demand forecasting practice and the growing demands by decision-makers for information about policy alternatives, it is essential that travel forecasting practitioners have the opportunity to share experiences and insights. The TMIP-supported peer review provides a forum for this knowledge exchange.

The objective of the WSDOT TMIP peer review was to seek background information and recommendations on how WSDOT should approach developing a state-wide Washington travel demand forecast model. WSDOT does not have a statewide model at this time. WSDOT supplied a list of questions to the panelists which are detailed later in this document, but in broad terms the information sought included:

• The purposes to which statewide travel models have been or could be applied;
• Key challenges in developing and applying statewide models;
• Resources required to develop a statewide model;
• Strategies for model development work planning;
• How economic data is used in the travel model or could be produced by components of the overall model framework (the question of economic data and potential economic forecasts is listed here because it was a key differentiator between the example statewide models presented by the panelists and constitutes an important model architecture question).

The peer review panel spent one day-July 1, 2014-presenting background on panelists' statewide model experiences and responding to specific questions from WSDOT. A general audience of representatives from stakeholder agencies across the state was also invited; the audience had the opportunity to ask questions and offer comments. This report documents the results of the peer review discussions and the resultant panel recommendations.

2.4 Report Organization

This report is organized into the following sections:

• Executive Summary - a succinct overview of the panel's discussion and recommendations.
• Background -an overview of the state of Washington, WSDOT, and WSDOT's broad goals for developing a statewide model.
• Example Models - summaries of the state or large-scale models developed or used by the panelists, with relevant background on the states or regions treated.
• Peer Review Discussion - panel discussion structured around the questions posed by WSDOT.
• Peer Review Panel Recommendations - the panel's recommendations to WSDOT.

In addition, the report includes three Appendices:

• Appendix A - list of peer review participants
• Appendix B - peer review meeting agenda
• Appendix C - biographies for each of the peer review panel members

This report structure resembles the peer review agenda (see Appendix B) but some regrouping of material was done for clarity. As is typical in peer reviews, audience questions and panel responses lead the panel discussion in many directions so this written representation of that discussion arranges material by topic, not necessarily in the order in which the points were made in the course of the review session.