1. Environment Emissions Greenhouse gases Regional pollutants Energy use Transportation energy Building energy Water Water use Runoff – flooding Runoff – pollution Consumption of open space Sensitive habitat Agricultural land Health Collisions Physical activity Emissions Greenhouse gases Regional pollutants Mental health Cost Increased costs to state and local government Roads Other infrastructure Schools Services Increased private transportation cost Increased building costs (due to parking costs) Reduced productivity per acre due to parking Housing supply/demand mismatch  future blight Implications of High VMT Development June 20151

2. Speakers Nat Bottigheimer and Matthew Ridgway June 20152 Lessons Learned from California’s Environmental Review Process Action Committee for Transit June 9, 2015

3. May 20153 Planning Context….County Growth to 2030

4. June 20154 Planning Context….Conditions Today

5. June 20155 Switching Horses…. …in Mid-Stream

6. June 20156 The Planning Process Today Overview of the planning process today

7. June 20157 The Planning Process Today Land Use Plan Example

8. June 20158 The Planning Process Today Transportation Plan Example

9. Punishes last-in, inhibits infill, pushes development outward “Solves” local congestion, exacerbates regional congestion June 20159 Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

10. Analysis of infill development using LOS Relatively little vehicle travel loaded onto the network Chris Ganson, CA OPR June 2015 10

11. Analysis of infill development using LOS Relatively little vehicle travel loaded onto the network …but numerous LOS impacts June 201511

12. Analysis of greenfield development using LOS Typically three to four times the vehicle travel loaded onto the network relative to infill development …but relatively few LOS impacts Traffic generated by the project is disperse enough by the time it reaches congested areas that it doesn’t trigger LOS thresholds, even though it contributes broadly to regional congestion. 12June 2015

13. Inhibits transit Inhibits active transport June 201513 Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact 1 person 40 people 1 person2 people

14. Measures congestion; shows failure when we succeed Measures mobility poorly; fails to optimize network June 201514 Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

15. Forces more road construction than we can afford to maintain June 201515 Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

16. June 201516 Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact Leads to costly, unhelpful solutions

17. 1.Punishes last-in, inhibits infill, pushes development outward 2.“Solves” local congestion, exacerbates regional congestion 3.Inhibits transit 4.Inhibits active transport 5.Measures congestion, not access; shows failure when we succeed 6.Measures mobility poorly; fails to optimize network even for autos 7.Forces more road construction than we can afford to maintain 8.Hard to calculate and inaccurate 9.Leads to costly, unhelpful solutions June 201517 Problems with LOS as a Measure of Transportation Impact

18. June 201518 California Policy Context Regulatory and Technical Evolution SB 375 AB 32 SB 97 SB 226 SB 743 AB 1358 AB 2245 AB 417

19. Executive Order S-3-05 California Policy Context June 201519

20. Executive Order B-30-15 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 June 201520 California Policy Context

21. Senate Bill 743 Align with State Policy Replace LOS with new criteria in the CEQA Guidelines Auto delay ≠ environmental impact Safety Officially precludes parking as an environmental impact 21 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Implementing SB 743 June 2015

22. Preliminary Discussion Draft VMT is primary metric – Land Use – Transportation Safety Methodology Mitigation Measures Applicability Appendices and Explanatory Materials 22 CEQA Guidelines Implementing SB 743 June 2015

23. 23 The New Planning Process

24. 24 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact Removes barriers to infill June 2015

25. Old: LOS on local intersections and highway segments New: VMT loaded onto the roadway network (could be area based) June 201525 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact Removes barriers to infill

26. 26 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact Easier to model Already used (e.g. for Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis) June 2015

27. Trip-based calculation – Residential: VMT/capita – Office: VMT/employee – Other: VMT/trip – Alternative: VMT/person-trip Area-wide calculation – Change in VMT over the entire area June 201527 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

28. June 201528 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact

29. June 201529 Modeling Example MainStreet/MXD+ http://asap.fehrandpeers.com/mainstreet/

30. The Problem

31. The 7 Ds That Influence Trip Generation Density Distance to Transit DestinationsDiversityDesignDemographics Development Scale

32. Independent Validation Sites 15 California 6 Florida 2 Texas 2 Georgia 2 South Carolina 2 Utah

33. MainStreet Application – Advanced Approach

34. External Vehicle Trip Estimates – Incremental Project Trips MethodDailyAM Peak HourPM Peak Hour ITE Trip Generation 5173743 ITE Handbook5173542 MainStreet2331017 MainStreet Application – Advanced Approach

35. 35 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact More accurate June 2015

36. 36 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact Sees the big picture June 2015

37. 37 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact Mitigation doesn’t undo itself by inducing more car travel June 2015

38. 38 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact Mitigation reduces long run maintenance burden June 2015

39. 39 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact Mitigation forwards other environmental and human health factors June 2015 Building Better Budgets by Smart Growth America, 2013 38% 10% 10x Potential reduction in upfront infrastructure costs Potential reduction in police, ambulance, and fire service costs Potential increase in tax revenue generation Compact Urban Development versus Conventional Suburban Development

40. 40 Benefits of VMT as a Measure of Transportation Impact 1.Removes barriers to infill 2.Easier to model 3.Already used (e.g. for Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis) 4.More accurate 5.Sees the big picture 6.Mitigation doesn’t undo itself by inducing more car travel 7.Mitigation reduces long run maintenance burden 8.Mitigation forwards other environmental and human health factors June 2015

41. 41 Statewide Implementation Urban Streamline infill Streamline transit and active transportation projects Lots of mitigation options, greatest percent VMT reduction Suburban Problems with LOS, benefits of VMT apply here too Many mitigation options; greatest absolute VMT reduction Rural Again, problems with LOS, benefits of VMT apply here too Some mitigation options at the plan level, some at the project level VMT mitigation limits growth of small towns All: Benefits to environment, health, public cost, private expenditures

42. Use Ad-hoc, LOS-triggered mitigation (highly problematic) Use LOS to plan roadway capacity; use number of units or square footage to estimate project impact (not ideal) Use LOS to plan roadway capacity; use VMT to estimate project impact (okay) Use accessibility/connectivity metric to plan network; use VMT to estimate project impact (ideal) June 201542 What might LOS’s role be post-SB 743? Bad Good

43. Impacts of High VMT Development Environment Emissions Greenhouse gases Regional pollutants Energy use Transportation energy Building energy Water Water use Runoff – flooding Runoff – pollution Consumption of open space Sensitive habitat Agricultural land Health Collisions Physical activity Emissions Greenhouse gases Regional pollutants Mental health Cost Increased costs to state and local government Roads Other infrastructure Schools Services Increased private transportation cost Increased building costs (due to parking costs) Reduced productivity per acre due to parking Housing supply/demand mismatch  future blight June 201543

44. Roadway expansion reduces travel time, which leads to: 1.Longer trips (↑ VMT) 2.Mode shift toward automobile (↑ VMT) 3.Newly generated trips (↑ VMT) 4.Route changes (can ↑ or ↓ or VMT) 5.More disperse land use development (↑ VMT) We would expect each of these effects as a result of basic supply and demand. Induced Travel Causes 44May 2015

45. Outcome: Congestion relief fails to persist Benefit of investment lost Results: Fiscal waste Increase transportation costs Harm to environment Harm to health 45 Induced Travel Implications May 2015

46. Old: LOS impacts at nearby intersections from rerouted/induced vehicle travel + Induced VMT analysis required for GHG calculation New: Induced (or reduced) VMT VMT from Roadway Expansion Projects - Overview May 201546