Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models (2025)
Chapter: Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs
Visit
NAP.edu/10766
to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to
download it as a free PDF.
Previous Chapter:
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire
Next Chapter: Appendix C: Typical Case Example Interview Questions
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
APPENDIX B
List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs
Table B-1. List of Departments of Transportation (DOTs) responding to the survey
| Responding DOT |
|---|
| Alabama Department of Transportation |
| Arizona Department of Transportation |
| Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department |
| California Department of Transportation |
| Colorado Department of Transportation |
| Connecticut Department of Transportation |
| Delaware Department of Transportation |
| District Department of Transportation |
| Florida Department of Transportation |
| Georgia Department of Transportation |
| Idaho Transportation Department |
| Illinois Department of Transportation |
| Indiana Department of Transportation |
| Iowa Department of Transportation |
| Kansas Department of Transportation |
| Kentucky Transportation Cabinet |
| Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development |
| Maine Department of Transportation |
| Maryland Department of Transportation |
| Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
| Michigan Department of Transportation |
| Minnesota Department of Transportation |
| Mississippi Department of Transportation |
| Missouri Department of Transportation |
| Montana Department of Transportation |
| Nebraska Department of Transportation |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Responding DOT |
|---|
| Nevada Department of Transportation |
| New Hampshire Department of Transportation |
| New Jersey Department of Transportation |
| New Mexico Department of Transportation |
| New York State Department of Transportation |
| North Carolina Department of Transportation |
| North Dakota Department of Transportation |
| Ohio Department of Transportation |
| Oklahoma Department of Transportation |
| Oregon Department of Transportation |
| Pennsylvania Department of Transportation |
| Rhode Island Department of Transportation |
| South Carolina Department of Transportation |
| South Dakota Department of Transportation |
| Tennessee Department of Transportation |
| Texas Department of Transportation |
| Utah Department of Transportation |
| Vermont Agency of Transportation |
| Virginia Department of Transportation |
| Washington State Department of Transportation |
| West Virginia Department of Transportation |
| Wisconsin Department of Transportation |
| Wyoming Department of Transportation |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-2. Individual DOT responses to Question 1 (use of operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Response Text | Respondent | Response Text |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Yes | Montana | Yes |
| Alaska | - | Nebraska | Yes |
| Arizona | Yes | Nevada | Yes |
| Arkansas | Yes | New Hampshire | Yes |
| California | Yes | New Jersey | Yes |
| Colorado | Yes | New Mexico | Yes |
| Connecticut | Yes | New York | Yes |
| Delaware | Yes | North Carolina | Yes |
| District of Columbia | Yes | North Dakota | Yes |
| Florida | Yes | Ohio | Yes |
| Georgia | Yes | Oklahoma | Yes |
| Hawaii | - | Oregon | Yes |
| Idaho | Yes | Pennsylvania | Yes |
| Illinois | Yes | Rhode Island | Yes |
| Indiana | Yes | South Carolina | Yes |
| Iowa | Yes | South Dakota | Yes |
| Kansas | Yes | Tennessee | Yes |
| Kentucky | Yes | Texas | Yes |
| Louisiana | Yes | Utah | Yes |
| Maine | Yes | Vermont | Yes |
| Maryland | Yes | Virginia | Yes |
| Massachusetts | Yes | Washington | Yes |
| Michigan | Yes | West Virginia | Yes |
| Minnesota | Yes | Wisconsin | Yes |
| Mississippi | Yes | Wyoming | Yes |
| Missouri | Yes | - | - |
NOTE: Summary of results – Yes = 49, No = 0, Total responses = 49.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-3. Individual DOT responses to Question 2 (number of projects per year that use operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Response Text | Respondent | Response Text |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 26 to 50 | Montana | 11 to 25 |
| Alaska | - | Nebraska | 0 to 10 |
| Arizona | 11 to 25 | Nevada | 11 to 25 |
| Arkansas | 11 to 25 | New Hampshire | 0 to 10 |
| California | 26 to 50 | New Jersey | 26 to 50 |
| Colorado | More than 100 | New Mexico | 0 to 10 |
| Connecticut | More than 100 | New York | 51 to 100 |
| Delaware | 0 to 10 | North Carolina | 51 to 100 |
| District of Columbia | 11 to 25 | North Dakota | 0 to 10 |
| Florida | 26 to 50 | Ohio | More than 100 |
| Georgia | More than 100 | Oklahoma | 26 to 50 |
| Hawaii | - | Oregon | More than 100 |
| Idaho | 0 to 10 | Pennsylvania | - |
| Illinois | 26 to 50 | Rhode Island | 0 to 10 |
| Indiana | 26 to 50 | South Carolina | 11 to 25 |
| Iowa | 11 to 25 | South Dakota | 0 to 10 |
| Kansas | 11 to 25 | Tennessee | 26 to 50 |
| Kentucky | 11 to 25 | Texas | 11 to 25 |
| Louisiana | 11 to 25 | Utah | 51 to 100 |
| Maine | More than 100 | Vermont | 0 to 10 |
| Maryland | More than 100 | Virginia | 51 to 100 |
| Massachusetts | 11 to 25 | Washington | 26 to 50 |
| Michigan | More than 100 | West Virginia | 11 to 25 |
| Minnesota | 11 to 25 | Wisconsin | 0 to 10 |
| Mississippi | 0 to 10 | Wyoming | 0 to 10 |
| Missouri | 11 to 25 | - | - |
NOTE: Summary of results – 0 to 10 = 12, 11 to 25 = 15, 26 to 50 = 9, 51 to 100 = 4, More than 100 = 8, Total responses = 48.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-4. Individual DOT responses to Question 3 (percentage of projects that use operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Response Text | Respondent | Response Text |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 15 | Montana | 10 |
| Alaska | - | Nebraska | 5 |
| Arizona | 20 | Nevada | 40 |
| Arkansas | 5 | New Hampshire | 10 |
| California | 70 | New Jersey | 35 |
| Colorado | 75 | New Mexico | 25 |
| Connecticut | 60 | New York | 50 |
| Delaware | 5 | North Carolina | 90 |
| District of Columbia | 15 | North Dakota | 5 |
| Florida | 50 | Ohio | 50 |
| Georgia | 85 | Oklahoma | 10 |
| Hawaii | - | Oregon | 65 |
| Idaho | 10 | Pennsylvania | - |
| Illinois | 10 | Rhode Island | 5 |
| Indiana | 70 | South Carolina | 35 |
| Iowa | 5 | South Dakota | 45 |
| Kansas | 10 | Tennessee | 75 |
| Kentucky | 25 | Texas | 5 |
| Louisiana | 15 | Utah | 75 |
| Maine | 85 | Vermont | 5 |
| Maryland | 40 | Virginia | 75 |
| Massachusetts | 5 | Washington | 10 |
| Michigan | 20 | West Virginia | 20 |
| Minnesota | 50 | Wisconsin | 10 |
| Mississippi | 15 | Wyoming | 5 |
| Missouri | 10 | - | - |
NOTE: Average = 31.875, Standard deviation = 27.707, Total responses = 48.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-5. Individual DOT responses to Question 4 (percentage of operational traffic simulation models that are developed by consultants).
| Respondent | Response Text |
|---|---|
| Alabama | 76% to 99% |
| Alaska | - |
| Arizona | 26% to 50% |
| Arkansas | 1% to 25% |
| California | 51% to 75% |
| Colorado | 76% to 99% |
| Connecticut | 26% to 50% |
| Delaware | 1% to 25% |
| District of Columbia | 76% to 99% |
| Florida | 100% (all operational traffic simulation models are developed by consultants) |
| Georgia | 51% to 75% |
| Hawaii | - |
| Idaho | 76% to 99% |
| Illinois | 76% to 99% |
| Indiana | 26% to 50% |
| Iowa | 76% to 99% |
| Kansas | 100% (all operational traffic simulation models are developed by consultants) |
| Kentucky | 100% (all operational traffic simulation models are developed by consultants) |
| Louisiana | 76% to 99% |
| Maine | 26% to 50% |
| Maryland | 51% to 75% |
| Massachusetts | 100% (all operational traffic simulation models are developed by consultants) |
| Michigan | 26% to 50% |
| Minnesota | 26% to 50% |
| Mississippi | 51% to 75% |
| Missouri | 51% to 75% |
| Montana | 26% to 50% |
| Nebraska | 76% to 99% |
| Nevada | 76% to 99% |
| New Hampshire | 76% to 99% |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Response Text |
|---|---|
| New Jersey | 51% to 75% |
| New Mexico | 100% (all operational traffic simulation models are developed by consultants) |
| New York | 51% to 75% |
| North Carolina | 76% to 99% |
| North Dakota | 76% to 99% |
| Ohio | 76% to 99% |
| Oklahoma | 51% to 75% |
| Oregon | 26% to 50% |
| Pennsylvania | 76% to 99% |
| Rhode Island | 76% to 99% |
| South Carolina | 51% to 75% |
| South Dakota | 1% to 25% |
| Tennessee | 26% to 50% |
| Texas | 76% to 99% |
| Utah | 76% to 99% |
| Vermont | 26% to 50% |
| Virginia | 76% to 99% |
| Washington | 76% to 99% |
| West Virginia | 76% to 99% |
| Wisconsin | 100% (all operational traffic simulation models are developed by consultants) |
| Wyoming | 76% to 99% |
NOTE: Summary of results – 0% = 0, 1% to 25% = 3, 26% to 50% = 10, 51% to 75% = 9, 76% to 99% = 21, 100% = 6, Total responses = 49.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-6. Individual DOT responses to Question 5 (applications for operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Freeway design alternative analyses | Arterial design alternative analyses | Mixed design alternative analyses | Signal retiming analyses | ITS implementation alternative analyses | Traffic Impact analyses (TIAs) | Evacuation route analyses | Work zone analyses | Design visualization and communication | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | X | - | - | - | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| Arkansas | - | X | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| California | X | - | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | - |
| Colorado | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Connecticut | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Delaware | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| District of Columbia | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Florida | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | X |
| Georgia | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | X | X | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Indiana | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | - |
| Iowa | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| Kansas | X | X | - | X | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Kentucky | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Louisiana | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | X | X | - |
| Maine | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | X | X | X |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Freeway design alternative analyses | Arterial design alternative analyses | Mixed design alternative analyses | Signal retiming analyses | ITS implementation alternative analyses | Traffic Impact analyses (TIAs) | Evacuation route analyses | Work zone analyses | Design visualization and communication | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | X | X | X |
| Massachusetts | X | X | X | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Michigan | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Minnesota | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| Mississippi | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Missouri | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | - |
| Montana | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | - |
| Nebraska | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Nevada | X | X | X | X | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| New Hampshire | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| New Jersey | - | X | - | X | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| New Mexico | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| New York | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| North Carolina | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| North Dakota | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| Ohio | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | X | X | - |
| Oklahoma | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Oregon | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| South Carolina | - | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| South Dakota | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | X | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Freeway design alternative analyses | Arterial design alternative analyses | Mixed design alternative analyses | Signal retiming analyses | ITS implementation alternative analyses | Traffic Impact analyses (TIAs) | Evacuation route analyses | Work zone analyses | Design visualization and communication | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tennessee | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| Texas | X | X | - | X | - | - | X | X | X | - |
| Utah | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Vermont | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Virginia | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | X | X |
| Washington | X | X | X | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| West Virginia | - | - | X | X | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| Wisconsin | X | X | X | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Wyoming | X | X | - | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Count | 38 | 37 | 32 | 40 | 14 | 37 | 7 | 25 | 36 | 5 |
Table B-7. Text responses for “Other” for Question 5 (applications for operational traffic simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Operational traffic simulation models may be used for the other project types listed above; however, it is much less frequent. |
| Modeling different intersection alternatives for mobility impacts |
| Incident Route Analyses |
| Traffic Forecasts for holidays and major events. |
| Signal justification reports, innovative intersection design |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-8. Individual DOT responses to Question 6 (frequency of use of applications for operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Freeway design alternative analyses | Arterial design alternative analyses | Mixed design alternative analyses | Signal retiming analyses | ITS implementation alternative | l Traffic impact analyses (TIAs) | Evacuation route analyses | Work zone analyses | Design visualization and communication | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | - | 2 | - | - | 1 | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 3 | - | - | - | 3 | 3 | - | 3 | - | - |
| Arkansas | - | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| California | 4 | - | - | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - | - |
| Colorado | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | - | 2 | - | 2 | 1 | - |
| Connecticut | - | - | - | 3 | - | 3 | - | - | 2 | - |
| Delaware | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - |
| District of Columbia | 3 | - | - | 2 | - | 2 | - | 3 | 2 | - |
| Florida | 3 | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 2 |
| Georgia | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | 3 | 3 | - | 3 | - | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | 4 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Indiana | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | - | - | 3 | - |
| Iowa | - | 2 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| Kansas | 3 | 3 | - | 4 | - | 4 | - | - | 3 | - |
| Kentucky | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | - |
| Louisiana | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | 2 | - | - | 2 | 2 | - |
| Maine | - | - | - | 4 | - | 4 | - | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Maryland | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | - | 3 | - | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Massachusetts | 2 | 3 | 2 | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| Michigan | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | - | 3 | 2 | - |
| Minnesota | 4 | - | - | 4 | - | 3 | - | 3 | - | - |
| Mississippi | 2 | 3 | 4 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
| Missouri | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | 2 | - |
| Montana | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - | - | 3 | - |
| Nebraska | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | - | 2 | - | - | 2 | - |
| Nevada | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | - | 3 | 3 | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Freeway design alternative analyses | Arterial design alternative analyses | Mixed design alternative analyses | Signal retiming analyses | ITS implementation alternative | l Traffic impact analyses (TIAs) | Evacuation route analyses | Work zone analyses | Design visualization and communication | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Hampshire | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - |
| New Jersey | - | 3 | - | 3 | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| New Mexico | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | - | - | - | - | 3 | - |
| New York | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - | 4 | - | 3 | 4 | - |
| North Carolina | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | - |
| North Dakota | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| Ohio | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - | - | - | 1 | 3 | - |
| Oklahoma | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | - | 2 | - | - | 3 | - |
| Oregon | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | - | 3 | 2 | - |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | 1 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | - |
| South Carolina | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | 3 | - | - | 2 | - |
| South Dakota | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| Tennessee | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | - | 4 | - | 2 | - | - |
| Texas | 2 | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | 1 | 2 | 2 | - |
| Utah | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Vermont | - | - | - | 3 | - | 3 | - | 2 | 2 | - |
| Virginia | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | - | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Washington | 3 | 3 | 3 | - | - | 3 | - | - | 2 | - |
| West Virginia | - | - | 3 | 4 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| Wisconsin | 2 | 1 | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - | 1 | - |
| Wyoming | 2 | 2 | - | 3 | - | 2 | - | 2 | 1 | - |
| Average | 3.1 | 2.7 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.6 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| Number of Responses | 38 | 37 | 32 | 40 | 14 | 37 | 7 | 25 | 36 | 5 |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-9. Individual DOT responses to Question 7 (use of specialized applications for operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Hybrid/Multi-resolution modeling | Dynamic traffic assignment | TSMO operational analysis (managed lanes, variable speed limits, etc.) | Signal optimization | Reliability analyses | Connected/automated vehicle analyses | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | - | X | - | X | - | - | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | X | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| Arkansas | - | - | - | X | X | - | - |
| California | - | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Colorado | - | X | X | X | X | - | - |
| Connecticut | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Delaware | - | - | - | - | - | - | X |
| District of Columbia | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Florida | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Georgia | - | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Indiana | - | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Iowa | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Kansas | - | - | X | X | X | - | - |
| Kentucky | - | X | X | X | - | X | - |
| Louisiana | X | X | - | - | X | - | - |
| Maine | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Maryland | X | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| Massachusetts | - | X | - | X | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Hybrid/Multi-resolution modeling | Dynamic traffic assignment | TSMO operational analysis (managed lanes, variable speed limits, etc.) | Signal optimization | Reliability analyses | Connected/automated vehicle analyses | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | X | X | X | X | - | X | - |
| Minnesota | - | X | X | X | X | - | - |
| Mississippi | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Missouri | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Montana | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Nebraska | X | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Nevada | X | X | - | X | X | - | X |
| New Hampshire | X | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| New Jersey | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| New Mexico | - | X | - | X | - | - | - |
| New York | X | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| North Carolina | - | X | - | X | X | - | - |
| North Dakota | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Ohio | - | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Oklahoma | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Oregon | - | X | - | X | X | - | X |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | X | X | - | - |
| Rhode Island | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| South Carolina | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| South Dakota | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Tennessee | X | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Texas | X | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Utah | - | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| Vermont | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Hybrid/Multi-resolution modeling | Dynamic traffic assignment | TSMO operational analysis (managed lanes, variable speed limits, etc.) | Signal optimization | Reliability analyses | Connected/automated vehicle analyses | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | X | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Washington | X | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| West Virginia | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Wisconsin | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wyoming | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Count | 13 | 19 | 17 | 38 | 11 | 3 | 3 |
Table B-10. Text responses for “Other” for Question 7 (use of specialized applications for operational traffic simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Validation of existing and future scenario Synchro networks (queue lengths and other measures of effectiveness) |
| Alternatives analysis |
| Tolling analysis |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-11. Individual DOT responses to Question 8 (frequency of use of simulation modeling resolutions).
| Respondent | Macroscopic | Mesoscopic | Microscopic | Multi-resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 2 | 3 | 1 | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Arkansas | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| California | 2 | - | 1 | - |
| Colorado | 1 | 3 | 2 | - |
| Connecticut | - | - | - | - |
| Delaware | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| District of Columbia | 2 | - | 1 | - |
| Florida | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Georgia | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | 1 | - | 2 | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | - |
| Indiana | 2 | - | 1 | - |
| Iowa | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Kansas | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Kentucky | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Louisiana | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Maine | 2 | 3 | 1 | - |
| Maryland | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Massachusetts | 1 | 3 | 2 | - |
| Michigan | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Minnesota | 1 | - | 2 | - |
| Mississippi | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Missouri | - | 2 | 1 | - |
| Montana | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Nebraska | - | - | - | - |
| Nevada | 2 | - | 1 | 1 |
| New Hampshire | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Macroscopic | Mesoscopic | Microscopic | Multi-resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Jersey | 1 | - | 2 | - |
| New Mexico | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| New York | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| North Carolina | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| North Dakota | - | - | 1 | - |
| Ohio | - | - | - | - |
| Oklahoma | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Oregon | - | 2 | 1 | - |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | - | - | 1 | - |
| South Carolina | - | - | 1 | - |
| South Dakota | 2 | 3 | 1 | - |
| Tennessee | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Texas | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| Utah | 2 | - | 1 | 3 |
| Vermont | 2 | - | 1 | - |
| Virginia | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
| Washington | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| West Virginia | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Wisconsin | - | - | 1 | - |
| Wyoming | 1 | - | 2 | - |
| Average | 1.9 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 3.4 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Number of Responses | 38 | 30 | 44 | 25 |
NOTE: 1 = Most frequently used, 4 = Least frequently used.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-12. Individual DOT responses to Question 9 (types of software used for operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Aimsun | CORSIM | DTALite | DYNASMART-P | OPT/FREQ | Quadstone Paramics | SimTraffic | SUMO | TransModeler | VISSIM | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | X |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | X | - |
| Arkansas | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| California | X | - | - | - | X | X | X | - | - | X | - |
| Colorado | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Connecticut | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Delaware | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| District of Columbia | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Florida | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | X |
| Georgia | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | X |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Indiana | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Iowa | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Kansas | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Kentucky | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Louisiana | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | X |
| Maine | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Maryland | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | X |
| Massachusetts | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Michigan | - | - | X | X | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Minnesota | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | X | - |
| Mississippi | - | X | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Missouri | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Aimsun | CORSIM | DTALite | DYNASMART-P | OPT/FREQ | Quadstone Paramics | SimTraffic | SUMO | TransModeler | VISSIM | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Montana | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Nebraska | - | X | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Nevada | X | X | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| New Hampshire | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| New Jersey | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| New Mexico | - | X | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| New York | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| North Carolina | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| North Dakota | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Ohio | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| Oklahoma | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Oregon | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Rhode Island | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| South Carolina | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | X |
| South Dakota | - | X | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Tennessee | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Texas | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Utah | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Vermont | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Virginia | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Washington | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| West Virginia | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | X | - |
| Wisconsin | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Wyoming | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | X |
| Count | 6 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 45 | 0 | 18 | 42 | 7 |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-13. Text responses for “Other” for Question 9 (types of software used for operational traffic simulation).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| HCS |
| CORSIM has been used in the past but is being phased out as the software doesn’t meet the needs analysis required. |
| SIDRA |
| Dynameq Bentley |
| Sidra |
| SIDRA |
| Synchro (which might also fall under SimTraffic) |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-14. Individual DOT responses to Question 10 (ranking of factors related to operational traffic simulation modeling).
| Respondent | Justifying Need for Simulation Analysis | Data Availability | Level of Modeling Effort | Budget Constraints | Scheduling Constraints | Model Size (Simulation Geographic Extent) | Simulation Duration (Simulation Temporal Extent) | Multimodal Considerations | Calibrating to Travel Conditions | Future Year Analyses | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | 1 | - |
| Arkansas | - | - | 1 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | 3 | - |
| California | - | - | 1 | 2 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Colorado | - | 1 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 |
| Connecticut | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | 1 | - |
| Delaware | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | 2 | 1 | - |
| District of Columbia | 1 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | - |
| Florida | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Georgia | 1 | - | 2 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - |
| Illinois | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | 3 | - | 2 | - | - |
| Indiana | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | 3 | - |
| Iowa | 3 | - | 1 | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Kansas | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| Kentucky | 1 | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| Louisiana | - | 3 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Justifying Need for Simulation Analysis | Data Availability | Level of Modeling Effort | Budget Constraints | Scheduling Constraints | Model Size (Simulation Geographic Extent) | Simulation Duration (Simulation Temporal Extent) | Multimodal Considerations | Calibrating to Travel Conditions | Future Year Analyses | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maine | 1 | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| Maryland | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 3 | - |
| Massachusetts | - | 1 | 2 | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Michigan | 1 | - | 2 | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Minnesota | 1 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
| Mississippi | - | - | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| Missouri | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | - |
| Montana | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | - |
| Nebraska | 1 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| Nevada | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | - |
| New Hampshire | 1 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| New Jersey | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | 3 | - |
| New Mexico | 1 | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
| New York | - | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| North Carolina | 1 | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| North Dakota | - | 2 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - |
| Ohio | 2 | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| Oklahoma | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | - |
| Oregon | - | - | - | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - |
| Pennsylvania | 2 | - | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Justifying Need for Simulation Analysis | Data Availability | Level of Modeling Effort | Budget Constraints | Scheduling Constraints | Model Size (Simulation Geographic Extent) | Simulation Duration (Simulation Temporal Extent) | Multimodal Considerations | Calibrating to Travel Conditions | Future Year Analyses | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhode Island | - | 1 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | 2 | - | - |
| South Carolina | - | - | 3 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| South Dakota | 3 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| Tennessee | - | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - |
| Texas | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
| Utah | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | - |
| Vermont | 1 | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | 3 | - | - | - |
| Virginia | - | - | - | 3 | 1 | - | - | - | 2 | - | - |
| Washington | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | 3 | - |
| West Virginia | 2 | 1 | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wisconsin | - | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | - |
| Wyoming | 3 | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | - | 2 | - |
| Average | 1.5 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.7 | - |
| Number of Responses | 24 | 17 | 27 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 27 | 20 | 1 |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-15. Individual DOT responses to Question 11 (frequency of use of data sources for operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Aerial Imagery | As-Built Plans | GIS Data (e.g., speed limits) | Online Map (e.g., Google Maps) | Drone Footage | Field Observations | Bluetooth Speed Data | Manual Travel Time Runs | Probe Travel Time or Speed Data | Queuing Data | Speed Studies | Traffic Counts | Output from Regional Travel Demand Forecasting Models | Probe O-D Data | Transit Data | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | - |
| Arkansas | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | - |
| California | 5 | 5 | - | - | - | - | - | 5 | - | - | - | 5 | - | - | - | - |
| Colorado | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Connecticut | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | - |
| Delaware | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | - |
| District of Columbia | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Florida | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | - | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Georgia | 4 | - | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | - |
| Illinois | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Indiana | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | - |
| Iowa | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | - |
| Kansas | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Kentucky | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Louisiana | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | - | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Maine | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | - | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | - |
| Maryland | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Massachusetts | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Michigan | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Aerial Imagery | As-Built Plans | GIS Data (e.g., speed limits) | Online Map (e.g., Google Maps) | Drone Footage | Field Observations | Bluetooth Speed Data | Manual Travel Time Runs | Probe Travel Time or Speed Data | Queuing Data | Speed Studies | Traffic Counts | Output from Regional Travel Demand Forecasting Models | Probe O-D Data | Transit Data | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | - |
| Mississippi | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | - |
| Missouri | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | - |
| Montana | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | - |
| Nebraska | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | - |
| Nevada | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | - |
| New Hampshire | 5 | 2 | - | 5 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - |
| New Jersey | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | - |
| New Mexico | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | - |
| New York | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | - |
| North Carolina | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | - |
| North Dakota | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | - |
| Oklahoma | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | - |
| Oregon | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Pennsylvania | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | - |
| South Carolina | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| South Dakota | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Tennessee | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | - |
| Texas | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | - |
| Utah | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Vermont | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Virginia | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Aerial Imagery | As-Built Plans | GIS Data (e.g., speed limits) | Online Map (e.g., Google Maps) | Drone Footage | Field Observations | Bluetooth Speed Data | Manual Travel Time Runs | Probe Travel Time or Speed Data | Queuing Data | Speed Studies | Traffic Counts | Output from Regional Travel Demand Forecasting Models | Probe O-D Data | Transit Data | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Washington | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | - | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | - |
| West Virginia | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | - |
| Wisconsin | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Wyoming | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Average | 4.2 | 3.0 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 1.8 | 4.0 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 4.8 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.8 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.6 |
| Number of Responses | 49 | 48 | 47 | 48 | 46 | 48 | 47 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 47 | 49 | 48 | 48 | 48 | 6 |
Table B-16. Text responses for “Other” for Question 11 (frequency of use of data sources for operational traffic simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Incident data, weather data, work zone data |
| Probe speeds and travel times |
| Lane utilization and truck percentages |
| Work zone data, incident data |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-17. Individual DOT responses to Question 12 (guidelines used to calibrate simulation models).
| Respondent | Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guideline for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Software (FHWA 2004) | TAT Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software 2019 Update to the 2004 Version (FHWA 2019) | State-specific guidance | Ad hoc project-based decisions as there is no state-specific guidance | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | - | - | - | - | X |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | - | - | X | - | - |
| Arkansas | - | - | X | - | - |
| California | - | - | X | - | - |
| Colorado | - | - | X | - | - |
| Connecticut | - | - | - | X | - |
| Delaware | - | - | X | - | - |
| District of Columbia | X | - | - | - | - |
| Florida | - | - | X | - | - |
| Georgia | - | - | X | - | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | - | - | - | X | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | X | - |
| Indiana | - | X | - | - | - |
| Iowa | - | - | - | X | - |
| Kansas | X | - | - | - | - |
| Kentucky | - | - | X | - | - |
| Louisiana | - | X | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guideline for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Software (FHWA 2004) | TAT Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software 2019 Update to the 2004 Version (FHWA 2019) | State-specific guidance | Ad hoc project-based decisions as there is no state-specific guidance | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maine | - | - | - | X | - |
| Maryland | - | - | - | - | X |
| Massachusetts | - | - | - | X | - |
| Michigan | - | - | X | - | - |
| Minnesota | - | - | X | - | - |
| Mississippi | - | - | - | X | - |
| Missouri | - | - | X | - | - |
| Montana | X | - | - | - | - |
| Nebraska | X | - | - | - | - |
| Nevada | - | - | X | - | - |
| New Hampshire | - | X | - | - | - |
| New Jersey | - | - | X | - | - |
| New Mexico | - | - | - | X | - |
| New York | - | - | - | - | X |
| North Carolina | - | - | X | - | - |
| North Dakota | - | - | - | X | - |
| Ohio | - | - | - | X | - |
| Oklahoma | - | - | - | - | X |
| Oregon | - | - | X | - | - |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | X | - |
| Rhode Island | - | - | - | X | - |
| South Carolina | - | - | - | X | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III: Guideline for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Software (FHWA 2004) | TAT Volume III: Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software 2019 Update to the 2004 Version (FHWA 2019) | State-specific guidance | Ad hoc project-based decisions as there is no state-specific guidance | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota | X | - | - | - | - |
| Tennessee | - | - | - | - | X |
| Texas | - | X | - | - | - |
| Utah | - | - | X | - | - |
| Vermont | - | - | - | X | - |
| Virginia | - | - | X | - | - |
| Washington | - | - | X | - | - |
| West Virginia | X | - | - | - | - |
| Wisconsin | - | - | X | - | - |
| Wyoming | - | - | - | X | - |
| Count | 6 | 4 | 19 | 15 | 5 |
Table B-18. Text responses for “Other” for Question 12 (guidelines used to calibrate simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Primarily ad hoc with general guidance borrowed from our neighboring States |
| Project dependent |
| We are converting from 2004 to 2019 currently. |
| Oregon Vissim Protocol |
| We are currently working on a research project with the University of Memphis (RES2023-10) focused on the identification of Vissim simulation calibration parameters using urban freeway data. |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-19. Individual DOT responses to Question 13 (process for documenting deviations from modeling guidance on specific projects).
| Respondent | Response |
|---|---|
| Alabama | No |
| Alaska | - |
| Arizona | No |
| Arkansas | Not applicable, models developed by my DOT do not typically deviate from modeling guidance |
| California | No |
| Colorado | No |
| Connecticut | No |
| Delaware | Not applicable, models developed by my DOT do not typically deviate from modeling guidance |
| District of Columbia | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Florida | Yes |
| Georgia | Yes |
| Hawaii | - |
| Idaho | No |
| Illinois | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Indiana | Yes |
| Iowa | No |
| Kansas | No |
| Kentucky | Yes |
| Louisiana | Yes |
| Maine | No |
| Maryland | Not applicable, models developed by my DOT do not typically deviate from modeling guidance |
| Massachusetts | Yes |
| Michigan | Yes |
| Minnesota | Yes |
| Mississippi | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Missouri | Yes |
| Montana | Yes |
| Nebraska | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Nevada | Yes |
| New Hampshire | Yes |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Response |
|---|---|
| New Jersey | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| New Mexico | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| New York | Yes |
| North Carolina | Yes |
| North Dakota | No |
| Ohio | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Oklahoma | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Oregon | Yes |
| Pennsylvania | No |
| Rhode Island | No |
| South Carolina | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| South Dakota | No |
| Tennessee | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Texas | Yes |
| Utah | Yes |
| Vermont | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Virginia | Yes |
| Washington | Yes |
| West Virginia | Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations |
| Wisconsin | Yes |
| Wyoming | No |
NOTE: Summary of results – Yes = 20; No = 14; Not applicable, models developed by my DOT do not typically deviate from modeling guidance = 3; Not applicable, there is no state-specific guidance regarding thresholds and acceptance of deviations = 12; Total responses = 49.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-20. Individual DOT responses to Question 14 (frequency of use of calibration metrics).
| Respondent | Travel Times | Volumes | Queue Length | Freeway Density | Intersection LOS | Visual Inspection | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Arkansas | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | - |
| California | 5 | 5 | 5 | - | - | - | - |
| Colorado | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Connecticut | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | - |
| Delaware | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | - |
| District of Columbia | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | - |
| Florida | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | - |
| Georgia | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | - |
| Illinois | 4 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Indiana | 4 | 4 | - | - | - | 4 | 4 |
| Iowa | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | - |
| Kansas | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | - |
| Kentucky | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Louisiana | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | - | 4 | - |
| Maine | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Maryland | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | - |
| Massachusetts | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | - |
| Michigan | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Minnesota | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Mississippi | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Travel Times | Volumes | Queue Length | Freeway Density | Intersection LOS | Visual Inspection | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | - |
| Montana | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Nebraska | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Nevada | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| New Hampshire | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | - |
| New Jersey | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | - |
| New Mexico | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | - |
| New York | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| North Carolina | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | - |
| North Dakota | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | - |
| Ohio | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Oklahoma | 4 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | - |
| Oregon | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Pennsylvania | 3 | 3 | 3 | - | 3 | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | - |
| South Carolina | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | - |
| South Dakota | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Tennessee | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Texas | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Utah | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Vermont | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Virginia | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | - |
| Washington | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | - |
| West Virginia | 4 | 4 | 5 | - | 4 | - | - |
| Wisconsin | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Wyoming | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Travel Times | Volumes | Queue Length | Freeway Density | Intersection LOS | Visual Inspection | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | 3.8 | 4.4 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 4.1 | 3.9 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 1.3 |
| Number of Responses | 49 | 49 | 48 | 44 | 46 | 46 | 7 |
Table B-21. DOT responses for “Other” for Question 14 (frequency of use of calibration metrics).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Vehicle speed |
| Speed |
| Speed |
| Spot speeds |
| Lane utilization, driver behavior, percent served, freeway capacity |
| Speed profiles |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-22. Individual DOT responses to Question 15 (frequency of use of processes for review of operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Completion of Model Review Checklist | Use of Independent Reviewer | Review of Animation | Review of Model Error Log | Review of Model Input Data | Review of Performance Measures Reported from Model | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 5 | 3 | - | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Arkansas | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | - |
| California | 5 | - | - | - | 5 | 5 | - |
| Colorado | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Connecticut | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Delaware | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | - |
| District of Columbia | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | - |
| Florida | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Georgia | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | - |
| Illinois | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | - |
| Indiana | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Iowa | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Kansas | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Kentucky | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Louisiana | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Maine | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Maryland | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Massachusetts | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | - |
| Michigan | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Completion of Model Review Checklist | Use of Independent Reviewer | Review of Animation | Review of Model Error Log | Review of Model Input Data | Review of Performance Measures Reported from Model | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Mississippi | - | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Missouri | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Montana | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Nebraska | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Nevada | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| New Hampshire | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | - |
| New Jersey | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - |
| New Mexico | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
| New York | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | - |
| North Carolina | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| North Dakota | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Ohio | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Oklahoma | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Oregon | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Pennsylvania | - | 3 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | - |
| South Carolina | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | - |
| South Dakota | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Tennessee | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Texas | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Utah | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Vermont | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Virginia | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Completion of Model Review Checklist | Use of Independent Reviewer | Review of Animation | Review of Model Error Log | Review of Model Input Data | Review of Performance Measures Reported from Model | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Washington | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
| West Virginia | - | - | - | - | 5 | 4 | - |
| Wisconsin | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Wyoming | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Average | 3.3 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 3.7 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.6 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.3 |
| Number of Responses | 46 | 47 | 45 | 46 | 48 | 48 | 3 |
Table B-23. DOT responses for “Other” for Question 15 (frequency of use of processes for review of operational traffic simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Assumptions and Methodology Memorandum |
| Model reviews are extensive including RBC coding and all model coding. |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-24. Individual DOT responses to Question 16 (frequency of use of MOEs as output for operational traffic simulation models for uninterrupted flow).
| Respondent | Delay/Level of Service (LOS) | Density/LOS | Duration of Congestion | Queue Length | Speed | Travel Time | Visualization of Results/Animation | Volume Throughput | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Arkansas | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | - |
| California | - | - | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | - | - |
| Colorado | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Connecticut | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Delaware | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - |
| District of Columbia | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Florida | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Georgia | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Indiana | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Iowa | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Kansas | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Kentucky | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Louisiana | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Maine | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Maryland | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Massachusetts | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Delay/Level of Service (LOS) | Density/LOS | Duration of Congestion | Queue Length | Speed | Travel Time | Visualization of Results/Animation | Volume Throughput | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Minnesota | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | - |
| Mississippi | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Missouri | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Montana | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Nebraska | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Nevada | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| New Hampshire | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| New Jersey | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| New Mexico | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | - |
| New York | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| North Carolina | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | - |
| North Dakota | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Ohio | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Oklahoma | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Oregon | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Pennsylvania | 3 | - | 3 | 3 | - | 3 | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | - |
| South Carolina | 4 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | - |
| South Dakota | - | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Tennessee | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | - |
| Texas | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Utah | 3 | 5 | - | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Vermont | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Delay/Level of Service (LOS) | Density/LOS | Duration of Congestion | Queue Length | Speed | Travel Time | Visualization of Results/Animation | Volume Throughput | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virginia | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | - |
| Washington | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| West Virginia | 5 | 5 | - | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | - |
| Wisconsin | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Wyoming | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Average | 3.7 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 2.7 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.5 |
| Number of Responses | 46 | 46 | 46 | 48 | 47 | 48 | 46 | 45 | 3 |
Table B-25. DOT responses for “Other” for Question 16 (frequency of use of MOEs as output for operational traffic simulation models for uninterrupted flow).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Lane utilization |
| Truck percentages and lane utilization |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-26. Individual DOT responses to Question 17 (frequency of use of MOEs as output for operational traffic simulation models for interrupted flow).
| Respondent | Delay/Level of Service (LOS) | Density/LOS | Duration of Congestion | Queue Length | Speed | Travel Time | Visualization of Results/Animation | Volume Throughout | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Arkansas | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | - |
| California | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - | 4 | - |
| Colorado | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Connecticut | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Delaware | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | - |
| District of Columbia | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | - |
| Florida | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Georgia | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | - |
| Illinois | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Indiana | 5 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | - |
| Iowa | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | - |
| Kansas | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Kentucky | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Louisiana | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | - | 5 | - |
| Maine | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | - | 3 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Maryland | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Massachusetts | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Delay/Level of Service (LOS) | Density/LOS | Duration of Congestion | Queue Length | Speed | Travel Time | Visualization of Results/Animation | Volume Throughout | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Minnesota | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Mississippi | 5 | - | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | - |
| Missouri | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Montana | 5 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Nebraska | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Nevada | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| New Hampshire | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | - |
| New Jersey | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | - |
| New Mexico | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | - |
| New York | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | - |
| North Carolina | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | - |
| North Dakota | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | - |
| Ohio | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - |
| Oklahoma | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Oregon | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | - |
| South Carolina | 5 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | - |
| South Dakota | 5 | - | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | - |
| Tennessee | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | - |
| Texas | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | - |
| Utah | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Delay/Level of Service (LOS) | Density/LOS | Duration of Congestion | Queue Length | Speed | Travel Time | Visualization of Results/Animation | Volume Throughout | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vermont | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | - |
| Virginia | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Washington | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | - |
| West Virginia | - | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | - | - | - |
| Wisconsin | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | - |
| Wyoming | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | - |
| Average | 4.7 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 3.7 | 3.5 |
| Standard Deviation | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.7 |
| Number of Responses | 47 | 46 | 48 | 48 | 47 | 48 | 45 | 47 | 4 |
Table B-27. DOT responses for “Other” for Question 17 (frequency of use of MOEs as output for operational traffic simulation models for interrupted flow).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Number of stops |
| Percent served |
| Number of stops |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-28. Individual DOT responses to Question 18 (frequency of reuse or adaptation of previously developed operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Response | Respondent | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Rarely | Montana | Sometimes |
| Alaska | - | Nebraska | Rarely |
| Arizona | Never | Nevada | Usually |
| Arkansas | Sometimes | New Hampshire | Sometimes |
| California | Usually | New Jersey | Sometimes |
| Colorado | Sometimes | New Mexico | Rarely |
| Connecticut | Sometimes | New York | Usually |
| Delaware | Usually | North Carolina | Always |
| District of Columbia | Usually | North Dakota | Sometimes |
| Florida | Usually | Ohio | Usually |
| Georgia | Usually | Oklahoma | Usually |
| Hawaii | - | Oregon | Rarely |
| Idaho | Rarely | Pennsylvania | Sometimes |
| Illinois | Sometimes | Rhode Island | Sometimes |
| Indiana | Rarely | South Carolina | Never |
| Iowa | Sometimes | South Dakota | Rarely |
| Kansas | Sometimes | Tennessee | Sometimes |
| Kentucky | Sometimes | Texas | Rarely |
| Louisiana | Rarely | Utah | Usually |
| Maine | Rarely | Vermont | Never |
| Maryland | Usually | Virginia | Sometimes |
| Massachusetts | Usually | Washington | Sometimes |
| Michigan | Sometimes | West Virginia | Rarely |
| Minnesota | Sometimes | Wisconsin | Rarely |
| Mississippi | Rarely | Wyoming | Sometimes |
| Missouri | Rarely | - | - |
NOTE: Summary of results – Never = 3, Rarely = 14, Sometimes = 19, Usually = 12, Always = 1, Total responses = 49.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-29. Individual DOT responses to Question 19 (frequency of adoption of new versions of operational traffic simulation software).
| Respondent | Response |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Other |
| Alaska | - |
| Arizona | Other |
| Arkansas | Every year |
| California | Every two years |
| Colorado | My DOT does not adopt new versions of simulation software |
| Connecticut | Every three to five years |
| Delaware | Every three to five years |
| District of Columbia | Every three to five years |
| Florida | Every year |
| Georgia | Other |
| Hawaii | - |
| Idaho | Every three to five years |
| Illinois | Every three to five years |
| Indiana | Other |
| Iowa | Every three to five years |
| Kansas | Every two years |
| Kentucky | Other |
| Louisiana | Every two years |
| Maine | Every two years |
| Maryland | Other |
| Massachusetts | Every three to five years |
| Michigan | Every year |
| Minnesota | Every six to ten years |
| Mississippi | Every two years |
| Missouri | Every two years |
| Montana | Other |
| Nebraska | Every three to five years |
| Nevada | Every year |
| New Hampshire | Every two years |
| New Jersey | Every three to five years |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Response |
|---|---|
| New Mexico | Other |
| New York | Every two years |
| North Carolina | Other |
| North Dakota | Every two years |
| Ohio | Every three to five years |
| Oklahoma | Every three to five years |
| Oregon | Every two years |
| Pennsylvania | Every six to ten years |
| Rhode Island | My DOT does not adopt new versions of simulation software |
| South Carolina | Every two years |
| South Dakota | Every three to five years |
| Tennessee | Every year |
| Texas | Every year |
| Utah | Every year |
| Vermont | My DOT does not adopt new versions of simulation software |
| Virginia | Other |
| Washington | Every year |
| West Virginia | Every three to five years |
| Wisconsin | Every two years |
| Wyoming | Every year |
NOTE: Summary of results – Every year = 9, Every two years = 12, Every three to five years = 13, Every six to ten years = 2, Every ten years or more = 0, My DOT does not adopt new versions of simulation software = 3, Other = 10, Total responses = 49.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-30. Text responses for “Other” for Question 19 (frequency of adoption of new versions of operational traffic simulation software).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Vissim/Vistro is kept up to date, Synchro/SimTraffic is every 2-3 years. |
| As part of the license agreement with the software developer, we get the new version as it becomes available. |
| I would say every 2 or 3 years. |
| Depends on the software. |
| We download the most recent versions every time its released. |
| Depends on when software gets updated and length of procurement. |
| Depends on update schedule, costs, etc. |
| There is not really a policy for changing software with NMDOT. Usually, the choice of software is made by a consultant and is based on their expertise. |
| Depends on the software (average 2-4 years). |
| We evaluate the software and then decide to change version, it varies from software to software. |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-31. Individual DOT responses to Question 20 (deliverables required for operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Animation files | Simulation model files | Data archiving plan | Calibration tables or memo | Methods and assumptions document | Summary of MOEs | Quality control (QC) checklist | Technical memorandum of results | Volume diagrams | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | - | X | - | - | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | X | X | X | - | - | X | - | X | X | X |
| Arkansas | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| California | X | X | - | X | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Colorado | - | - | - | X | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| Connecticut | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Delaware | - | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| District of Columbia | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Florida | - | X | - | - | X | X | X | X | - | - |
| Georgia | X | X | - | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Illinois | - | X | - | - | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Indiana | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Iowa | - | - | - | - | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Kansas | - | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Kentucky | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| Louisiana | - | X | - | X | X | X | X | - | X | - |
| Maine | - | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Maryland | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Animation files | Simulation model files | Data archiving plan | Calibration tables or memo | Methods and assumptions document | Summary of MOEs | Quality control (QC) checklist | Technical memorandum of results | Volume diagrams | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | X | X | - | - | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Michigan | - | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Minnesota | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Mississippi | - | X | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Missouri | - | X | - | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Montana | X | X | - | - | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Nebraska | X | X | - | X | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| Nevada | - | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| New Hampshire | - | X | - | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| New Jersey | X | X | - | - | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| New Mexico | X | X | - | - | X | X | - | - | X | - |
| New York | X | X | - | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| North Carolina | - | X | - | - | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| North Dakota | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Ohio | X | X | - | - | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Oklahoma | - | X | - | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Oregon | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | - |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| South Carolina | - | X | - | - | X | - | - | - | X | - |
| South Dakota | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Tennessee | X | X | - | - | - | X | - | X | X | X |
| Texas | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Animation files | Simulation model files | Data archiving plan | Calibration tables or memo | Methods and assumptions document | Summary of MOEs | Quality control (QC) checklist | Technical memorandum of results | Volume diagrams | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utah | - | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Vermont | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X |
| Virginia | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Washington | - | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | - |
| West Virginia | X | X | - | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| Wisconsin | - | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | - |
| Wyoming | - | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | X | - |
| Count | 18 | 40 | 8 | 26 | 34 | 41 | 17 | 38 | 36 | 5 |
Table B-32. DOT responses for “Other” for Question 20 (deliverables required for operational traffic simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Time/space diagrams with real time automation, same as Waysync |
| Traffic volumes forecasting memo |
| Queue length and/or LOS diagrams |
| Area of Influence maps, field observations and notes for deviations from base file |
| Case by case basis |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-33. Individual DOT responses to Question 21 (resources developed for operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Checklists | Guidance documents | Policies | Procedures for maintenance and archiving of data | Procedures for model development and review | Procedures for model scoping | Standards | Suggested calibration parameters | Thresholds for calibration acceptance | Training materials | Studies on benefits and/or return on investment | My DOT uses resources from other state DOTs | My DOT primarily uses resources from FHWA | Other | None of the above |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arkansas | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| California | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Colorado | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Connecticut | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Delaware | - | X | - | - | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| District of Columbia | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Florida | X | X | - | - | - | - | X | X | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Georgia | X | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Indiana | X | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Iowa | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Checklists | Guidance documents | Policies | Procedures for maintenance and archiving of data | Procedures for model development and review | Procedures for model scoping | Standards | Suggested calibration parameters | Thresholds for calibration acceptance | Training materials | Studies on benefits and/or return on investment | My DOT uses resources from other state DOTs | My DOT primarily uses resources from FHWA | Other | None of the above |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Kentucky | - | X | - | X | X | X | - | X | X | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Louisiana | - | X | - | - | X | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Maine | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Maryland | X | X | - | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Massachusetts | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Michigan | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Minnesota | - | X | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Mississippi | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Missouri | - | X | - | - | X | X | - | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | - |
| Montana | - | X | - | X | X | - | - | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Nebraska | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| Nevada | X | X | - | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | X | - | X | - |
| New Hampshire | X | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| New Jersey | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| New Mexico | - | - | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| New York | - | X | X | - | X | - | - | X | X | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| North Carolina | X | X | X | - | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Checklists | Guidance documents | Policies | Procedures for maintenance and archiving of data | Procedures for model development and review | Procedures for model scoping | Standards | Suggested calibration parameters | Thresholds for calibration acceptance | Training materials | Studies on benefits and/or return on investment | My DOT uses resources from other state DOTs | My DOT primarily uses resources from FHWA | Other | None of the above |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North Dakota | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Ohio | X | X | X | - | X | X | X | - | - | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Oklahoma | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Oregon | X | X | - | - | X | X | - | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| South Carolina | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| South Dakota | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Tennessee | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Texas | - | X | - | - | X | X | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Utah | X | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Vermont | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Virginia | X | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Washington | - | X | X | - | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| West Virginia | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wisconsin | X | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wyoming | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Count | 14 | 26 | 10 | 3 | 18 | 13 | 8 | 19 | 15 | 11 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 3 | 0 |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-34. DOT responses for “Other States” for Question 21 (resources developed for operational traffic simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other States” |
|---|
| Washington, Wisconsin, Florida |
| We borrow material from other states where we do not have Nevada specific guidelines. |
| https://virginiadot.org/business/resources/traffic_engineering/VDOT_Traffic_Operations_Analysis_Tool_GuidebookV1.1-August2013.pdf |
| NMDOT has used guidance from Utah and Florida to help make simulation decisions. |
| Oregon |
Table B-35. DOT responses for “Other” for Question 21 (resources developed for operational traffic simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Suggested Model Defaults |
| We also use FHWA resources in addition to our state specific guidelines. |
| https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/TrafficOps-VISSIM-Protocol.pdf |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-36. DOT resources submitted for Question 21 (resources developed for operational traffic simulation models).
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-37. Individual DOT responses to Question 22 (placement of internal staff for the development and/or review of operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | Design | Operations | Planning | Program Delivery | Other | My DOT does not have internal staff for the development and/or review of operational traffic simulation models |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| Arkansas | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| California | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Colorado | - | X | - | - | X | - |
| Connecticut | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Delaware | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| District of Columbia | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Florida | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Georgia | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Illinois | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Indiana | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| Iowa | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Kansas | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Kentucky | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Louisiana | X | X | - | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Design | Operations | Planning | Program Delivery | Other | My DOT does not have internal staff for the development and/or review of operational traffic simulation models |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maine | - | - | - | - | X | - |
| Maryland | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| Massachusetts | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Michigan | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Minnesota | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Mississippi | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Missouri | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| Montana | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Nebraska | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| Nevada | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| New Hampshire | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| New Jersey | X | - | X | - | - | - |
| New Mexico | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| New York | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| North Carolina | - | - | X | - | - | - |
| North Dakota | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Ohio | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| Oklahoma | X | - | X | - | X | - |
| Oregon | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Pennsylvania | X | - | - | X | - | - |
| Rhode Island | X | - | - | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | Design | Operations | Planning | Program Delivery | Other | My DOT does not have internal staff for the development and/or review of operational traffic simulation models |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Carolina | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| South Dakota | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Tennessee | X | - | X | - | - | - |
| Texas | X | - | - | X | - | - |
| Utah | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Vermont | X | - | X | - | - | - |
| Virginia | X | X | X | - | - | - |
| Washington | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| West Virginia | - | - | - | - | X | X |
| Wisconsin | - | X | X | - | - | - |
| Wyoming | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Count | 24 | 27 | 19 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
Table B-38. DOT responses for “Other” for Question 22 (placement of internal staff for the development and/or review of operational traffic simulation models).
| Text Responses for “Other” |
|---|
| Traffic Engineering |
| TSMO |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-39. Individual DOT responses to Question 23 (general statements regarding operational traffic simulation models).
| Respondent | My DOT requires approval for the use of operational traffic simulation models on each project | My DOT most frequently uses operational traffic simulation models for freeways | My DOT fuses data from different sources for operational traffic simulation models | My DOT updates data inputs for operational traffic simulation models on a regular basis | My DOT requires all simulation results to be reported with a minimum of 10 simulation seeds | My agency places emphasis on different model parameters based on the modeling software being used or type of application | My DOT sometimes performs post-construction verification of operational traffic simulation models | My DOT provides training on the use of operational traffic simulation models | My DOT spends a lot of resources on researching and updating our state-specific guidance | None of the above |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | - | X | X | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Alaska | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Arizona | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Arkansas | - | - | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| California | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Colorado | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Connecticut | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Delaware | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| District of Columbia | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Florida | - | X | X | - | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Georgia | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| Hawaii | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Idaho | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Illinois | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Indiana | - | X | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Iowa | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Kansas | - | X | X | - | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| Kentucky | - | X | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | My DOT requires approval for the use of operational traffic simulation models on each project | My DOT most frequently uses operational traffic simulation models for freeways | My DOT fuses data from different sources for operational traffic simulation models | My DOT updates data inputs for operational traffic simulation models on a regular basis | My DOT requires all simulation results to be reported with a minimum of 10 simulation seeds | My agency places emphasis on different model parameters based on the modeling software being used or type of application | My DOT sometimes performs post-construction verification of operational traffic simulation models | My DOT provides training on the use of operational traffic simulation models | My DOT spends a lot of resources on researching and updating our state-specific guidance | None of the above |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louisiana | X | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Maine | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Maryland | X | X | X | X | - | X | X | X | X | - |
| Massachusetts | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Michigan | - | X | - | X | X | - | - | X | X | - |
| Minnesota | X | X | X | - | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Mississippi | - | - | X | X | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Missouri | - | X | X | - | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Montana | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Nebraska | - | - | - | - | X | X | - | - | - | - |
| Nevada | - | X | - | X | - | X | - | X | X | - |
| New Hampshire | X | - | X | - | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| New Jersey | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| New Mexico | X | X | X | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| New York | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| North Carolina | X | X | - | - | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| North Dakota | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
| Ohio | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Oklahoma | X | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | - | - |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
| Respondent | My DOT requires approval for the use of operational traffic simulation models on each project | My DOT most frequently uses operational traffic simulation models for freeways | My DOT fuses data from different sources for operational traffic simulation models | My DOT updates data inputs for operational traffic simulation models on a regular basis | My DOT requires all simulation results to be reported with a minimum of 10 simulation seeds | My agency places emphasis on different model parameters based on the modeling software being used or type of application | My DOT sometimes performs post-construction verification of operational traffic simulation models | My DOT provides training on the use of operational traffic simulation models | My DOT spends a lot of resources on researching and updating our state-specific guidance | None of the above |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | - | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Pennsylvania | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rhode Island | - | X | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| South Carolina | - | - | - | - | X | - | - | X | - | - |
| South Dakota | - | - | X | - | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Tennessee | X | X | X | - | - | - | - | X | X | - |
| Texas | - | X | - | X | - | X | - | - | - | - |
| Utah | X | X | X | X | X | - | X | - | X | - |
| Vermont | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Virginia | X | X | X | - | X | X | - | X | X | - |
| Washington | X | X | X | - | X | X | - | X | - | - |
| West Virginia | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Wisconsin | X | X | X | - | - | X | - | X | - | - |
| Wyoming | - | - | - | X | - | - | - | X | - | - |
| Count | 18 | 23 | 22 | 12 | 22 | 17 | 2 | 19 | 7 | 0 |
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Table B-40. Individual DOT responses to Question 24 (participation in a case example).
| Respondent | Response | Respondent | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No | Montana | No |
| Alaska | - | Nebraska | No |
| Arizona | Yes | Nevada | Yes |
| Arkansas | No | New Hampshire | No |
| California | No | New Jersey | No |
| Colorado | Yes | New Mexico | Yes |
| Connecticut | No | New York | - |
| Delaware | No | North Carolina | No |
| District of Columbia | No | North Dakota | No |
| Florida | No | Ohio | No |
| Georgia | No | Oklahoma | No |
| Hawaii | - | Oregon | Yes |
| Idaho | No | Pennsylvania | No |
| Illinois | No | Rhode Island | No |
| Indiana | Yes | South Carolina | Yes |
| Iowa | Yes | South Dakota | No |
| Kansas | No | Tennessee | Yes |
| Kentucky | Yes | Texas | Yes |
| Louisiana | Yes | Utah | Yes |
| Maine | No | Vermont | No |
| Maryland | No | Virginia | Yes |
| Massachusetts | No | Washington | Yes |
| Michigan | Yes | West Virginia | No |
| Minnesota | No | Wisconsin | No |
| Mississippi | No | Wyoming | No |
| Missouri | No | - | - |
NOTE: Summary of results – Yes = 16, No = 32, Total responses = 48.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Suggested Citation:
"Appendix B: List of Responding DOTs and Individual Survey Responses from DOTs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Practices for Operational Traffic Simulation Models. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
doi: 10.17226/29076.
Subscribe to Emails from the National Academies
Stay up to date on activities, publications, and events by subscribing to email updates.