Highway Planning, Surveys and Feasibility

Introduction

A highway is not merely a pavement connecting two points. It is a long-term public investment that influences accessibility, land development, safety, economic productivity, social inclusion, environmental quality and regional form. Highway planning therefore begins well before geometric design or construction. It requires the systematic identification of transport needs, investigation of alternative corridors, estimation of future traffic, assessment of engineering constraints and comparison of expected benefits with financial, social and environmental costs.

The planning process must answer five fundamental questions:

1. What movement problem or development need exists?
2. Which route or transport alternative can address it most effectively?
3. What traffic and engineering conditions will exist during the project life?
4. What will the project cost, and what benefits will it generate?
5. Is the proposal feasible, sustainable, safe and acceptable to affected communities?

A sound planning study combines reconnaissance, traffic surveys, engineering surveys, demand forecasting and feasibility assessment. The quality of later design and construction depends heavily on the reliability of these early investigations.

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, students should be able to:

• explain the stages of highway planning and project development;
• conduct and interpret reconnaissance, traffic and engineering surveys;
• define route corridors and compare route alternatives;
• forecast traffic demand using appropriate methods and assumptions;
• apply economic, financial, social, environmental and multicriteria appraisal;
• identify uncertainty, bias, ethical risks and limitations in feasibility studies; and
• prepare a defensible preliminary recommendation for a highway project.

1. The Highway Planning Process

Highway planning is an iterative process rather than a single linear calculation. A typical sequence is:

Figure: Highway planning is iterative, with feedback from appraisal and monitoring to earlier stages.

1.1 Problem definition and objectives

The initial problem may involve congestion, unreliable travel, high crash rates, poor access to markets, inadequate freight connectivity, seasonal isolation or the need to support planned development. Objectives should be stated in measurable terms, such as reducing journey time, improving network resilience, increasing access to health services or lowering fatal and serious injury risk.

A project objective must not be confused with a predetermined solution. “Construct a four-lane highway” is a solution; “improve reliable access between the production region and the port” is an objective. Keeping the objective separate from the solution permits comparison with public transport, demand management, upgrading an existing road or staged construction.

1.2 Planning scales

Planning occurs at several scales:

• National and regional planning identifies strategic corridors and links between economic centres.
• Network planning evaluates interactions among roads, railways, ports, public transport and land use.
• Project planning selects and appraises a specific corridor and design concept.
• Operational planning addresses intersections, traffic management, maintenance and safety treatments.

A project that appears attractive in isolation may perform poorly if it duplicates another corridor, induces unsuitable development or shifts congestion to adjoining roads.

2. Reconnaissance and Route Location

Reconnaissance is the first field-based investigation of possible corridors. It is less detailed than a final location survey but sufficiently systematic to eliminate clearly unsuitable alternatives and identify issues requiring detailed study.

2.1 Desk study

Before visiting the field, the investigation team assembles available information:

• topographic maps, satellite imagery and digital elevation models;
• geological, soil, hydrological and flood-risk maps;
• existing road, rail, utility and drainage networks;
• cadastral boundaries, protected areas and heritage sites;
• demographic, land-use and economic data;
• accident records and existing traffic counts; and
• planning policies, right-of-way standards and environmental regulations.

Geographic information systems (GIS) allow layers to be overlaid. However, a map is not a substitute for verification. Map scale, date, positional accuracy and classification errors must be recorded.

2.2 Field reconnaissance

Field reconnaissance examines terrain, drainage, settlements, land use, construction materials, visible geological conditions, existing access and likely environmental or social constraints. The team should record photographs with locations, GPS tracks, observations and uncertainties.

Important route-location principles include:

• connect the required origins and destinations with a reasonable directness;
• avoid unstable slopes, active faults, flood-prone areas and excessive crossings where practical;
• use terrain to obtain balanced grades and safe sight distance;
• minimize disruption to homes, farms, businesses and community facilities;
• consider future expansion and maintenance access; and
• provide safe connections to the existing network.

A route should not be selected solely because it is shortest. A short alignment may require deep cuts, high embankments, expensive structures, severe environmental damage or unsafe grades.

2.3 Route alternatives and corridor screening

At the reconnaissance stage, alternatives are usually broad corridors rather than precise centre lines. Each corridor is described by length, terrain, major structures, settlements affected, environmental sensitivities, access opportunities, construction risks and likely cost range. A screening matrix can identify alternatives that should proceed to detailed study.

Screening criteria should be agreed before results are known. Otherwise, criteria may be adjusted to favour a preferred route. Both fatal constraints, such as a legally prohibited protected site, and trade-off criteria, such as length or cost, should be distinguished.

3. Traffic Surveys and Analysis

Traffic surveys provide evidence about current travel patterns and the basis for demand forecasting. They should be designed around the decision to be made, not conducted as data collection for its own sake.

3.1 Traffic volume and classification counts

A traffic count records the number and type of vehicles passing a point during specified time intervals. Counts may be manual, pneumatic-tube, inductive-loop, radar, video-based or obtained from electronic tolling or connected-vehicle systems.

Vehicle classification is important because cars, buses and heavy vehicles have different effects on capacity, pavement loading, emissions and operating cost. A count should state the direction, time period, weather, equipment, lane coverage and classification scheme.

The average daily traffic (ADT) for a counting period is:

where Q is the total observed traffic volume in vehicles during the counting period and d is the number of observation days. The result is vehicles per day. ADT is not necessarily annual average daily traffic (AADT), because seasonal and day-of-week effects may remain.

If a seasonal factor is defined as the ratio of annual average daily traffic to the observed-period daily average, then:

where F_s is dimensionless. The factor must be estimated from representative continuous or repeated counts; applying a factor from a dissimilar road can introduce substantial error.

3.2 Peak-hour analysis

Design is often influenced by the peak hour rather than the daily total. The peak-hour factor (PHF) is commonly defined as:

where V_h is the total volume during the peak hour and V₁5 is the highest volume during any 15-minute interval within that hour. PHF ranges theoretically from 0.25 to 1.00. A lower value indicates more concentrated flow and potentially more difficult operation. The equation assumes four consecutive 15-minute periods make up the peak hour.

3.3 Origin–destination surveys

An origin–destination (O–D) survey identifies where trips begin and end, their purpose, vehicle type, route and sometimes time of travel. Methods include roadside interviews, licence-plate matching, telephone or online surveys, GPS traces and intercept surveys at terminals.

Roadside interviews require safety controls and sampling procedures. Licence-plate matching can estimate movements without stopping vehicles, but privacy, plate readability and vehicle occupancy remain concerns. Digital traces offer large samples but may underrepresent people without smartphones or data-enabled services.

3.4 Speed, delay, parking and public transport surveys

Speed and delay studies measure journey time, stopped delay, queue length and reliability. Floating-car, GPS and probe-vehicle methods are useful for route comparison. Parking surveys assess demand and turnover near urban corridors. Public transport surveys record routes, headways, occupancy, boarding and alighting locations, and transfer patterns.

Survey results should include sampling error, missing observations, unusual events and quality-control procedures. Data should never be reported with false precision.

4. Engineering Surveys and Investigations

Engineering surveys progress from broad corridor information to detailed design data.

4.1 Topographic and control surveys

Topographic surveys establish horizontal and vertical positions of natural and built features. A control network provides reference points for subsequent work. Survey methods may include total stations, GNSS, digital levels, aerial photogrammetry and LiDAR.

Accuracy must match the survey stage. A reconnaissance map may support corridor comparison, while final design requires controlled, traceable and independently checked coordinates and elevations. Datum, coordinate system, benchmark descriptions and survey date must be documented.

4.2 Geotechnical and materials investigations

Geotechnical work identifies soil profile, groundwater, rock quality, compressibility, expansiveness, shear strength and slope stability. Typical investigations include trial pits, boreholes, sampling, standard penetration tests, laboratory classification and compaction tests. Borrow areas and sources of aggregate, cement, bitumen and water are assessed for quality, quantity, haul distance and environmental impacts.

Investigation density should increase where conditions are variable or consequences of failure are high. A limited number of boreholes cannot reliably characterize a long corridor without geological reasoning and risk-based sampling.

4.3 Hydrology and drainage

Drainage investigations identify catchments, streams, floodplains, groundwater, erosion potential and existing drainage performance. They support preliminary sizing of culverts, bridges, side drains and flood protection. Climate change may alter rainfall intensity, flood frequency and debris conditions, so historical records alone may not represent future design risk.

4.4 Utility, property and environmental surveys

Existing water, sewer, electricity, gas, telecommunications and irrigation assets must be located and verified. Utility records are often incomplete; test pits and consultation with owners may be necessary.

Property surveys identify parcels, ownership, occupancy, access rights and vulnerable occupants. Environmental baseline surveys address ecology, air quality, noise, water quality, cultural heritage and landscape. Social surveys examine livelihoods, travel needs, gendered mobility, disability access and potential displacement.

5. Traffic Demand Forecasting

Forecasting estimates future travel under specified land-use, economic, network and policy assumptions. It is not a prediction of an inevitable future. It is a conditional statement: if the assumptions occur, the estimated demand may occur.

5.1 Growth-factor method

For a simple corridor with stable travel patterns, a growth-factor estimate may be written as:

where V₀ is base traffic, g is the assumed annual proportional growth rate, and t is the number of years. If traffic grows by a constant absolute amount instead, the appropriate model is V_t = V₀ + at, where a is vehicles per year. The compound model should not be used when growth is clearly declining, capacity constrained or strongly affected by land-use change.

Worked example. A road carries 12,000 vehicles per day. If annual traffic growth is assumed to be 3% for 10 years:

V₁₀ = 12,000(1.03)¹⁰

Since 1.03¹⁰ ≈ 1.3439, forecast traffic is approximately 16,127 vehicles per day. This result is conditional on the 3% assumption and does not account for induced traffic, competing routes or capacity constraints.

5.2 Trip-generation and four-step modelling

For larger networks, the conventional four-step model consists of:

1. Trip generation: estimate trips produced by and attracted to zones.
2. Trip distribution: connect productions and attractions between zones.
3. Mode choice: allocate trips among car, bus, rail, walking and cycling.
4. Traffic assignment: load trips onto network links according to route choice and congestion.

These steps may be integrated in activity-based or dynamic models. Inputs include population, employment, income, vehicle ownership, land use, travel costs, network capacity and policy variables.

A model must be calibrated against observed traffic counts, travel times and, where available, O–D patterns. Validation should use data not used for calibration. A model that reproduces one count year but performs poorly elsewhere is not reliable for investment decisions.

5.3 Induced demand and uncertainty

New capacity can reduce travel time and change route, departure time, mode, trip frequency and land-use decisions. Consequently, the traffic added to a new highway may exceed traffic diverted from existing roads. Forecasts should test induced demand and alternative policies.

Useful scenarios include low, central and high economic growth; different fuel prices; alternative land-use patterns; climate hazards; toll levels; public transport investment; and delayed construction. Sensitivity analysis changes one assumption at a time, while scenario analysis changes a coherent set of assumptions.

6. Feasibility Assessment

Feasibility is multidimensional. A project may be technically feasible but financially unaffordable, economically weak, socially harmful or environmentally unacceptable. The appraisal should make these distinctions visible rather than compressing every issue into a single number.

6.1 Technical feasibility

Technical feasibility considers geometry, terrain, geotechnical conditions, drainage, structures, materials, construction staging, utility relocation, maintenance and safety. Preliminary design should test whether standards can be met and identify departures requiring approval. Constructability and access for emergency services are important at this stage.

6.2 Economic appraisal

Economic appraisal compares resource costs and benefits to society, usually excluding transfer payments such as taxes and subsidies. Typical benefits include travel-time savings, vehicle operating-cost savings, crash reduction, reliability improvement and avoided maintenance on an alternative route. Costs include construction, land, environmental mitigation, maintenance, rehabilitation and disruption.

The present value of a future amount is:

where X_t is the amount in year t, r is the real discount rate per period, and t is measured in consistent periods. The net present value is:

where B_t and C_t are benefits and costs in year t, and n is the appraisal horizon. A positive NPV indicates that discounted benefits exceed discounted costs at the selected discount rate, subject to the assumptions and valuation methods used.

The benefit–cost ratio is:

A BCR greater than 1 indicates benefits exceed costs in present-value terms. BCR can rank projects differently from NPV when project sizes differ; NPV is generally more informative when selecting among mutually exclusive alternatives under a fixed budget.

The economic internal rate of return (EIRR) is the discount rate that makes NPV equal to zero. It should be interpreted carefully when cash flows change sign more than once, because multiple rates may exist. Appraisal results should report the discount rate, price basis, treatment of residual value, risk allowances and excluded effects.

6.3 Financial feasibility

Financial appraisal examines the project from the perspective of the implementing agency, concessionaire or lender. It includes actual cash payments, financing, taxes, toll revenue, operating costs and debt service. A project can have a strong economic case but weak financial viability if users cannot or will not pay enough to cover costs.

Economic and financial appraisal must not be confused: economic benefits such as unpaid travel-time savings are not cash revenue, while taxes may be financial costs but transfers within the economy.

6.4 Social and distributional assessment

Social appraisal considers who gains and who bears costs. A highway may benefit long-distance freight operators while dividing neighbourhoods, removing homes or reducing pedestrian safety. Analysis should identify effects by income, gender, age, disability, location and livelihood.

Meaningful consultation begins before route selection is fixed. Resettlement, compensation, access continuity, labour conditions and grievance mechanisms require transparent governance. Consultation is not a substitute for technical analysis, and technical analysis is not a substitute for consent processes required by law.

6.5 Environmental assessment

Environmental assessment identifies direct, indirect, cumulative and induced impacts. Topics include habitat fragmentation, water crossings, erosion, noise, air quality, carbon emissions, construction waste, visual effects and climate vulnerability. The mitigation hierarchy is generally:

1. avoid impacts where possible;
2. minimize impacts through design and construction controls;
3. restore affected environments; and
4. offset residual impacts only where permitted and credible.

Carbon assessment may distinguish construction emissions from operational emissions. A simplified activity-based estimate is:

where A_i is the activity amount for source i and EF_i is its emission factor, with compatible units such as tonnes of material × tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per tonne. The result depends on boundaries, data quality and emission factors; it should not be presented as exact when inputs are uncertain.

6.6 Multicriteria assessment

Multicriteria analysis (MCA) is useful when alternatives have effects that cannot be credibly monetized. Criteria may include cost, travel time, safety, resilience, environmental disturbance, land acquisition, social inclusion and regional development.

A normalized weighted score can be expressed as:

where S_j is the score of alternative j, w_i is the weight of criterion i, and x_ij is the normalized performance of alternative j on criterion i. Weights should satisfy ∑w_i = 1 and scores must be oriented consistently so that a higher score always means better performance.

MCA does not eliminate judgement. Results depend on criterion selection, normalization, weights and data quality. Good practice includes stakeholder participation, publication of weights, sensitivity testing and reporting the unweighted results alongside the final score.

7. Integrated Applied Case

Illustrative case: the East Valley access corridor

Background. The East Valley produces agricultural goods but has unreliable access to a regional market. The existing two-lane road passes through a village, experiences seasonal flooding and has a high rate of serious crashes. Three broad alternatives are identified: upgrade the existing road, construct a northern bypass, or improve road and rail connections together.

Problem. A preliminary proposal favours the bypass because it provides the shortest travel time. However, the bypass would cross wetlands, require a major bridge and remove access to several small farms. The project team must determine whether the bypass remains preferable after wider appraisal.

Analysis. Traffic counts, O–D interviews and freight surveys show that much traffic is local, while only part of the flow would use a bypass. Engineering reconnaissance identifies weak alluvial soils on the northern route and more reliable ground along the existing road. Environmental mapping identifies a wetland of high ecological value. Social surveys show that village residents strongly support removing heavy through-trucks but require safe pedestrian crossings and continued access to markets.

A demand model is calibrated using counts at three screen lines and observed travel times. Low, central and high growth scenarios are tested. Economic appraisal includes travel-time savings, crash reduction, vehicle operating costs, construction, maintenance, bridge risk and residual value. The environmental assessment includes wetland loss, noise and construction emissions. MCA adds resilience, social severance, land acquisition and ecological sensitivity.

Approach and solution. The preferred strategy is a staged improvement: strengthen and widen selected sections of the existing road, construct a short village bypass on lower-risk ground, install flood-resilient drainage, provide pedestrian facilities and improve rail freight handling. The northern full bypass is retained as a future option if demand reaches a defined trigger. The decision is supported by sensitivity analysis showing that the staged option remains robust under low and central growth, while the full bypass is attractive only under high growth and optimistic construction costs.

Outcome. The recommended alternative does not produce the shortest theoretical journey for every trip, but it achieves the project objectives with lower environmental impact, lower geological risk and better distributional outcomes. Monitoring indicators include traffic diversion, crash rates, flood closures, village walking safety, freight travel time and wetland condition.

Learning points. The case demonstrates that route length is only one criterion; traffic composition matters; staged investment can manage uncertainty; technical, economic, social and environmental findings must be integrated; and monitoring should be designed during feasibility, not after construction.

8. Governance, Technology and Professional Practice

Feasibility studies involve public resources and can influence land values. Conflicts of interest must be declared, data sources documented and assumptions made available for independent review. Deliberately optimistic forecasts, selective omission of environmental effects and undisclosed weighting are professional failures.

Modern tools include GIS, remote sensing, drone photogrammetry, mobile-phone data, connected-vehicle observations, digital twins and machine-learning forecasting. These technologies improve coverage and speed but introduce risks: privacy loss, algorithmic bias, uncertain representativeness, cyber-security threats and dependence on proprietary systems. AI-generated forecasts must be independently validated, explainable to decision-makers and checked against observed conditions. Personal mobility data should be aggregated, legally obtained and protected against re-identification.

Best practice includes:

• define the decision and alternatives before collecting data;
• maintain a data register with source, date, accuracy and limitations;
• use independent quality assurance for surveys, models and cost estimates;
• separate base-year calibration from out-of-sample validation;
• test low, central and high cases rather than reporting one forecast;
• document all discount rates, units, price bases and appraisal boundaries;
• engage affected communities early and accessibly;
• incorporate road safety audits and vulnerable-road-user analysis; and
• establish monitoring indicators, triggers and post-opening evaluation.

Challenges and Limitations

Highway planning is affected by incomplete data, changing land use, uncertain economic growth, climate change, construction-price volatility and political pressure. Forecasts may be biased toward schemes already favoured by sponsors. Traffic counts can be distorted by school holidays, incidents or abnormal weather. Cost estimates may exclude utility relocation, land acquisition, environmental mitigation or maintenance.

No appraisal method captures every value. Monetized travel-time savings may undervalue people with low incomes or unpaid activities. MCA can conceal subjective judgements behind numerical scores. Public consultation may be unequal if technical documents are inaccessible. These limitations do not justify abandoning analysis; they require transparent assumptions, uncertainty analysis, independent challenge and adaptive management.

Chapter Summary

Highway planning converts a transport problem into an evidence-based investment decision. Reconnaissance and desk studies identify feasible corridors and major constraints. Traffic surveys measure volumes, vehicle classes, speeds, delays and movements; engineering surveys establish topography, geology, drainage, utilities, land ownership and environmental conditions. Demand forecasts must state their assumptions, be calibrated and validated, and be tested through scenarios that account for induced demand and uncertainty.

Feasibility is multidimensional. Technical feasibility examines constructability and safety; economic appraisal compares discounted social benefits and costs; financial appraisal examines cash flows and affordability; social assessment considers distribution, displacement and access; environmental assessment applies avoidance and mitigation; and multicriteria analysis supports transparent comparison where effects cannot be monetized. Professional practice requires reliable data, ethical governance, public participation, privacy protection and post-opening monitoring. The best route is therefore not necessarily the shortest or cheapest, but the alternative that most responsibly meets defined objectives over its life cycle.

Key Terms

Annual average daily traffic (AADT): Average number of vehicles per day over a full year, adjusted for seasonal variation.

Appraisal horizon: Period over which project costs and benefits are evaluated.

Corridor: Broad geographic band within which a highway alignment may be located.

Demand forecasting: Estimation of future travel under stated assumptions.

Economic appraisal: Comparison of a project’s social resource costs and benefits.

Environmental assessment: Systematic evaluation of environmental effects and mitigation.

Feasibility study: Investigation of whether a proposal is practical, beneficial, affordable and acceptable.

GIS: Computer-based system for storing, analysing and displaying geographically referenced data.

Multicriteria analysis: Structured comparison using several weighted criteria.

Origin–destination survey: Survey identifying the starting and ending zones of trips.

Peak-hour factor: Measure of how evenly traffic is distributed within the peak hour.

Reconnaissance: Preliminary desk and field investigation of route conditions.

Route alternative: A possible corridor or alignment capable of serving the planning objective.

Sensitivity analysis: Test of results when one assumption is changed.

Social assessment: Examination of distributional, community and livelihood effects.

Traffic assignment: Allocation of forecast trips to network routes.

Traffic count: Recorded number and classification of vehicles passing a location.

Travel-time saving: Reduction in journey time attributable to a project.

Validation: Testing a model or forecast against observations not used in calibration.

Weighted score: Combined multicriteria result obtained by multiplying normalized performances by criterion weights.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. Why should a project objective be distinguished from a proposed highway solution?
2. What information is normally collected during reconnaissance?
3. Distinguish ADT from AADT.
4. What is the purpose of an origin–destination survey?
5. Why should demand forecasts be presented as conditional estimates?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain the stages of highway planning from problem definition through monitoring.
2. Describe the principal traffic and engineering surveys required for a corridor feasibility study.
3. Explain the four steps of conventional travel-demand modelling and identify major data requirements.
4. Compare economic appraisal, financial appraisal, social assessment and environmental assessment.
5. Discuss the advantages and limitations of multicriteria analysis in route selection.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A road carries 18,000 vehicles per day and is expected to grow by 2.5% annually for 15 years. Calculate the forecast volume using compound growth, state the assumptions, and explain why the result should be tested with scenarios.
2. Two route alternatives have similar NPVs, but one affects a wetland and the other requires substantial resettlement. Design a multicriteria framework that would make these trade-offs transparent.
3. A traffic model reproduces observed traffic counts at calibration locations but substantially overestimates traffic on a new bypass after opening. Identify possible causes and propose a validation and corrective-action programme.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which statement best distinguishes a highway objective from a highway solution?

A. An objective states the transport outcome, while a solution states how it may be achieved.

B. An objective is always expressed as a construction quantity.

C. A solution must be selected before the problem is defined.

D. An objective is limited to reducing pavement thickness.

Correct Answer: A. An objective states the transport outcome, while a solution states how it may be achieved.

Question 2

A road has an observed average of 10,000 vehicles per day during a representative count period. If the seasonal factor is 1.08, what is the estimated AADT?

A. 9,259 vehicles/day

B. 10,080 vehicles/day

C. 10,800 vehicles/day

D. 108,000 vehicles/day

Correct Answer: C. 10,800 vehicles/day

Question 3

What does a lower peak-hour factor generally indicate?

A. Traffic is more evenly distributed throughout the day.

B. Traffic is more concentrated within part of the peak hour.

C. The road has no heavy vehicles.

D. Annual traffic is necessarily declining.

Correct Answer: B. Traffic is more concentrated within part of the peak hour.

Question 4

Which survey is specifically designed to identify trip origins and destinations?

A. Topographic survey

B. Origin–destination survey

C. Materials survey

D. Drainage survey

Correct Answer: B. Origin–destination survey

Question 5

In the conventional four-step model, which step allocates trips among car, bus, rail, walking and cycling?

A. Trip generation

B. Trip distribution

C. Mode choice

D. Traffic assignment

Correct Answer: C. Mode choice

Question 6

If benefits and costs are discounted at a positive rate, a benefit received later will generally have what relationship to an equal benefit received today?

A. A larger present value

B. The same present value

C. A smaller present value

D. An undefined present value in every case

Correct Answer: C. A smaller present value

Question 7

What is a principal purpose of environmental assessment during route planning?

A. To guarantee that every project is approved

B. To identify impacts and develop avoidance or mitigation measures

C. To replace all engineering surveys

D. To determine vehicle classification only

Correct Answer: B. To identify impacts and develop avoidance or mitigation measures

Question 8

In a weighted multicriteria score, what must normally be true of the criterion weights?

A. They must all be negative.

B. They must sum to one when expressed as normalized weights.

C. They must equal the traffic growth rate.

D. They must be based only on construction cost.

Correct Answer: B. They must sum to one when expressed as normalized weights.

Question 9

A forecast using V_t = V₀(1+g)^t assumes that growth is primarily what type?

A. Constant proportional growth

B. Constant absolute decline

C. Random hourly variation

D. A fixed traffic capacity

Correct Answer: A. Constant proportional growth

Question 10

Which practice most directly improves the credibility of a demand model?

A. Using only the highest forecast scenario

B. Changing criteria after seeing the preferred route

C. Calibrating with observations and validating with independent data

D. Omitting uncertainty from the report

Correct Answer: C. Calibrating with observations and validating with independent data