Author
Listed:
- Robert Lempert
- James Syme
- George Mazur
- Debra Knopman
- Garett Ballard-Rosa
- Kacey Lizon
- Ifeanyi Edochie
Abstract
Problem, research strategy, and findings: Prediction-based approaches, the heart of current transportation planning practice, are inadequate for informing transportation decisions in today’s rapidly changing conditions. In this study we offer an initial demonstration of how robust decision making (RDM) might enhance current long-range planning by applying the approach to selected components of Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG’s) 2016 regional transportation plan. RDM, a quantitative, exploratory, scenario-based method, informs decisions under deep uncertainty by stress-testing proposed plans over thousands of plausible futures, identifying scenarios that best distinguish futures in which plans meet and miss planning goals, and using these scenarios to identify more robust plans. Our analysis suggests that SACOG’s ability to meet critical mobility and climate goals depends on socioeconomic growth, fuel price, and fuel efficiency assumptions. This study explores potential responses to these vulnerabilities and suggests a path toward wider RDM usage in transportation planning. Our study is limited by the use of a simple cohort model, calibrated to a single predictive scenario run of SACOG’s Sacramento Regional Activity-Based Simulation Model (SACSIM) travel demand model. A more complete RDM analysis would require multiple runs of a model with more explicit treatments of feedbacks and spatial representations.Takeaway for practice: RDM offers a promising complement and possibly future alternative to current prediction-based and scenario approaches that could help planners better manage in today’s conditions of fast-paced change.
Suggested Citation
Robert Lempert & James Syme & George Mazur & Debra Knopman & Garett Ballard-Rosa & Kacey Lizon & Ifeanyi Edochie, 2020.
"Meeting Climate, Mobility, and Equity Goals in Transportation Planning Under Wide-Ranging Scenarios,"
Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 86(3), pages 311-323, July.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:86:y:2020:i:3:p:311-323
DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2020.1727766
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:86:y:2020:i:3:p:311-323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjpa20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.