Action Items

• Rebekah Straub to put together a draft proposal to formalize a process for integrating code developed outside of the consortium into the official ActivitySim code.

Meeting Notes

Beeck Center for Social Impact + Innovation / Georgetown University Request

• Representative from Beeck Center, who spoke to the group a few weeks ago, asked if she could passively participate in occasional meetings
• No objections from the group, so Joe will let her know it is ok to attend occasional meetings.

Phase 8 Scoping

• Vice Chair (Alex) would be leading the development of Phase 8 scope. He has started outlining an approach, which will be brought to the next partners only meeting (October 20).
• Can consultants pitch ideas for Phase 8? Unknown, to be discussed at the partners only meeting but leaning towards the same process as Phase 7, where some specific tasks are requested but then left open-ended for consultants to propose ideas.
• If a consultant pitched something last time that wasn’t funded but you still think it’s a good idea, please feel free to pitch again.
• Rebekah Straub asked if there could be a task to incorporate partner-specific developments into the ActivitySim codebase (for example, the long-distance components in Ohio and Oregon, and Ohio is willing to fund this). Rebekah would like to formalize a process, where partners can provide feedback and accept the changes. Joe thinks this is a good idea in theory. ACTION ITEM: Rebekah to put together a draft scope of what this may look like.
• In the past, we have worked to ensure backwards compatibility. Is this still super important, going forward? Is this a good time to break existing structure? In principle, want to keep backwards compatibility to the extent possible, unless there is a very compelling reason for otherwise. Phase 8 could address how to formalize versioning responsibilities.

Interim Contracts

• AMPO can issue an NTP for the interim task order but it hasn’t happened yet.

Technical Updates

• All of RSG’s Phase 7 work is ready for review. Initial PRs are passing all the tests.
• For workplace location choice
  • More testing is needed, probably two weeks away from being ready to present those results.
  • Still need to set user-specified ability to change the size term for work location choice to account for workers who aren’t residents of the region.
• For disaggregate accessibilities, RSG is one week away from being able to present:
  • 2 zone accessibility thematic maps
  • Testing on origin and destination sampling