Project Meeting 2023.04.18

Agenda

• ActivitySimple - Possible add-on project via Consortium/AMPORF (OregonDOT)
• Road Map Update - Stakeholder Feedback (WSP)

Meeting Notes

ActivitySimple - Possible add-on project via Consortium/AMPORF (OregonDOT)

A simpler version of ActivitySim for small to mid-sized MPOs • For example, one-zone and simplified transit representation • BYU (Greg McFarlane) is also interested in this through research and smaller MPOs in Utah • Oregon has some funds but it would not be possible under current contracts outside of consortium but may be able to do work through AMPO bench consultants. • General support but how does this relate to the work we have now o How does it fit into the road map exercise? Seems like something like this should be on of the examples that we maintain. • Similar to the Ohio request from a few months ago, any instances where an agency has funds that they would like to utilize for consortium-related activities should be brought to the consortium. • Nothing is a done deal and just exploring options at this point. Alex will continue to provide updates.

Road Map Update - Stakeholder Feedback (WSP)

Presentation: activitysim-roadmap-interim-wip-stakeholder-18-april-2023.pptx

• Stakeholder Interviews to date
  • No more planned interviews, other than those presented today
  • Consensus-ish Views
    • Agreement on all the views presented under the consensus-ish group
  • Provocations
    • Maintain examples for same region
      • General agreement that this seems like a good idea
    • Focus on making ActivitySim portable to software vendors
      • See previous meeting notes, under Objective 10, there is a discussion about the portable objective and integration with vendor products.
      • General agreement that this is not a good idea
    • Different membership levels with different benefits
      • A lower entry point to increase participation
      • In a related idea, there could be a higher cost for opt-in additional funds for special extensions or other efforts (similar to previous proposal by ODOT to add funds for development of ActivitySimple)
    • Refactoring of behavioral representations
      • Never planned to be the best software/model but good for our application purposes
      • Especially when we are talking about ActivitySimple, the users would be more interested in user-friendliness of the software/implementation, easy of developing inputs, etc., and less about the behavioral representations
    • More revenue to be successful
      • Would be nice but not priority
• Objectives feedback
  • The objectives may be too high level, too close to principles. Do we need objectives if the key results could be tied to principles?
  • Three step process for developing objectives
    1. Feedback on what are good ideas or not – this has been done
    2. Revisit these when they are more specific. The objectives may be better evaluated when paired with key results.
    3. Make them a living document and revisit occasionally, potentially every quarter.