CITY OF LANCASTER
TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
June 23, 2026
The City recognizes that vehicular LOS is not to be used as a measure of transportation impacts in the context of CEQA. Therefore, the City has determined that a dual analysis process will be applied for identifying and evaluating potential transportation impacts and necessary roadway improvements associated with new land development and infrastructure projects located within the City. The first analysis will consist of an approach using the metric of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to identify potential transportation impacts by applying CEQA designated methodologies and thresholds. The second analysis will be a localized approach conducted primarily to identify potential safety and operational issues when applied against criteria the City has established. This approach will continue to use LOS to evaluate land development and infrastructure projects. A separate report is required for each analysis. For more information pertaining to the VMT analysis and the City’s development of significance thresholds, please refer to the attached report, Transportation Analysis Updates in Lancaster . For more information about the City’s goals regarding LOS, please refer to the City’s General Plan.
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
I. CEQA Regional Analysis Overview
Pursuant to the adoption of California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the implementation of CEQA guidance in the City of Lancaster includes the following:
• VMT Screening: The first step in the traffic analysis process is to determine when a VMT analysis is required. The City of Lancaster requires that VMT screening be conducted based on the recommendations of the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI). LCI recommends that projects be screened from a VMT analysis based on their size, location, or accessibility to transit. In addition, transportation projects that are not adding new travel lanes may be screened from further VMT analysis.
• VMT Analysis Methodology: If the project is not screened from needing a VMT analysis, the SCAG regional travel demand model shall be used to estimate a project’s VMT. LCI recommends that VMT be reported as “Home- Based VMT” per capita for residential projects and “Home -Based Work VMT” per employee for office projects. Total VMT and/or VMT per service population is to be reported for area plans, large-scale retail projects, or other project types, such as special event venues.
• VMT Impact Thresholds : Projects exceeding a level of 15 percent below the Baseline VMT (reported as VMT per capita, per employee, or per service population) are considered to have a significant VMT impact. The City of Lancaster has defined Los Angeles County’s Antelope Valley Planning Area (AVPA) as the geographic area for the Baseline VMT.
• VMT Mitigation: The types of mitigation that effect VMT are those that reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles generated by the site. This can be accomplished by changing the land uses being proposed or by implementing transportation demand management (TDM) measures.
The following sections describe the CEQA analysis process in greater detail.
VMT Screening Criteria
Land use projects can be screened from a VMT analysis based on their size, location, or accessibility to transit. In addition, transportation projects that are not adding new travel lanes may be screened from further VMT analysis. Screening opportunities in the City of Lancaster are described in the table below. A project only needs to satisfy one of the screening criteria to be exempt from requiring further VMT analysis.
Screening Categories Project Requirements to Meet Screening Criteria Project Size A project that generates 110 or fewer daily trips.
Locally Serving Retail
A project that has locally serving retail uses that are 50,000 square feet or less, including specialty retail, shopping center, grocery store, pharmacy, financial services/banks, fitness center or health club, restaurant, and café.
If the project contains other land uses, those uses need to be considered under other applicable screening criteria.
Project Located in a Low
VMT Area
A residential or office project that is located in a TAZ that is already 15% below the AVPA Baseline VMT. (See Attachment A for Low VMT Area maps.) Transit Proximity
A multifamily residential project providing higher density housing or a commercial project in an area already zoned for commercial use that is located within a ½ mile of the Metrolink station with service frequency of 20 minutes or less during commute periods or within a ½ mile of a bus stop with service frequency of 15 minutes or less during commute periods. The 20-minute frequency is based on the updated definition of a Major Transit Stop contained in CA Public Resource Code §21064.3.
Affordable Housing
A residential project that provides affordable housing units; if part of a larger development, only those units that meet the definition of affordable housing satisfy the screening criteria.
Transportation Facilities
Transportation projects that promote non -auto travel, improve safety, or improve traffic operations at current bottlenecks, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, intersection traffic control (e.g., traffic signals or roundabouts), or widening at intersections to provide new turn lanes.
VMT Analysis Methodology
For projects that do not meet any of the screening criteria in the table above, a VMT analysis is required and should rely on the best available data to inform trip generation and trip length estimates for the project uses. For land use plans (e.g., Specific Plan or General Plan) and projects consisting of residential, office, and retail land uses, the VMT analysis should be conducted using the SCAG regional travel demand model. For other project types, such performing arts center or special event venues, the VMT analysis should be customized to determine the unique trip generation and trip length characteristics of the proposed uses.
The VMT analysis should consider the potential impacts of the project under both existing and future/cumulative conditions as follows:
• Existing/Baseline Conditions: Project-generated VMT should be estimated for the proposed land uses under existing/baseline conditions. Existing/baseline conditions is the date of the NOP or project application. VMT can be estimated using the SCAG regional travel demand model and should be reported as Home-Based VMT per capita (residential projects), Home-Based Work VMT per employee (office or employment -generating projects), or Total VMT per service population (all other land uses). For land use plans, Total VMT per service populatio n or Total VMT can be used to determine potential impacts. Attachment A contains additional information on the SCAG regional travel demand model.
• Cumulative Conditions: A less than significant impact under Existing/Baseline conditions would also result in a less than significant cumulative impact as long as the project is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS.
For large planning efforts such as a Specific Plan that may result in changes to regional travel patterns, the Project-effect on VMT should be estimated under cumulative conditions to determine if VMT in the study area would be higher/lower in the future w ith the project in place. To evaluate the project’s effect on VMT, the future year travel demand model should be updated to reflect the project and determine if the citywide or regional VMT increases with the addition of the project. If the project is larg e enough that it would affect land use absorption elsewhere, a redistribution of land use can be completed to ensure that the “no project” assessment and the “with project” assessment contain the same land use control totals for the City.
VMT Impact Thresholds
The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation has identified 15% below the regional average as the threshold for identifying a significant VMT impact for land use projects and plans. This is based on research conducted to determine the VMT reduction needed in order to help the State achieve its climate goals. The California Air Resources Board has quantified the need for VMT reduction in order to meet the State’s long -term climate goals and LCI sees reducing VMT to 15% below existing conditions as a reasonable threshold for new development projects. For large regional retail projects greater than 50,000 square feet in size, a significant impact would occur if the project increased the baseline VMT in the study area. LCI guidance for transportation improvements such as roadway widening projects also states that a significant impact would occur if the project increased the baseline VMT in the study area.
The VMT thresholds for projects and plans in the City of Lancaster are summarized in the table below.
Project Type Threshold for Determination of Significant VMT Impact Residential Project Project exceeds 15% below AVPA Baseline VMT for home -based VMT per capita
Employment
(Commercial or
Industrial) Project
Project exceeds 15% below AVPA Baseline VMT for home- based work VMT per employee
Regional Retail Project1 Project results in a net increase in total VMT per service population in comparison to the AVPA Baseline VMT
Mixed-Use Projects Evaluate each project land use component separately using the criteria above
Land Use Plans Plan exceeds 15% below AVPA Baseline VMT for Total VMT per service population
Other land use types
Project exceeds 15% below AVPA Baseline VMT.
For land use types not listed above, the City can determine the appropriate VMT metric depending on the project characteristics.
For projects that are generally producing job -related travel, the employment generating VMT (home-
based work VMT per
employee) can be compared to the baseline. For other projects, the total VMT per service population can be compared to the AVPA baseline, or the net change in Total VMT can be estimated.
Transportation Projects Project results in an increase in VMT in the study area in comparison to baseline conditions
VMT Mitigation
If a project has a significant VMT impact, the Project Applicant can pay into the City’s VMT Mitigation Fee Program or implement TDM measures as described below.
VMT Mitigation Fee Program
The City adopted a $150 per VMT mitigation fee under the VMT fee program. To determine the amount of VMT that exceeds the VMT threshold and the resulting mitigation payment, the following analysis
1 Per the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) guidance, regional retail projects are those that exceed 50,000 square feet.
should be completed:
1. Estimate Project Socio -Economic Data (SE D) Inputs: The SCAG model requires socio -economic data inputs that reflect the characteristics of the project to estimate VMT. Population is required as the SED input for residential projects and employment is required for commercial or industrial projects. The SED inputs for the SCAG model should be included as part of the VMT analysis as shown in the sample table below.
Table 1: Project SED Inputs
Project Tier 2 TAZ Households/Square Footage Population/Employment TAZ number
Number of households for a
residential project or the
size/SF for a
commercial/industrial project
SED inputs (population or
employment) for the
SCAG model
2. Project VMT & Threshold Comparison Table: When calculating VMT for a project, the VMT methodology should match the methodology used to establish the Baseline VMT metrics and impact thresholds. For projects in the City of Lancaster, Baseline VMT is defined as a measurement of Home-based VMT per capita for residential projects and Home-based Work VMT per employee for commercial/industrial projects, representing VMT for all travel embarked upon by residents or employees, encompassing both Single Occupancy Vehi cle (SOV) and High- Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) drivers. The total travel (referred to as a tour in the ABM) is then divided by the population/employment within the geographic area. Following the VMT analysis, the Home - based VMT per capita or Home-based Work VMT per employee of the project is compared to the Baseline VMT to determine if it exceeds the City’s impact threshold as shown in the sample table below.
Table 2: Project VMT and VMT Threshold
VMT Metrics
Home-Based VMT per Capita or
Home-Based Work VMT per
Employee
Project VMT Estimates (Year) Project VMT for
Existing/Baseline conditions
Antelope Valley Planning Area (AVPA) Baseline VMT
(Year)
AVPA Baseline VMT (use same
year as Project VMT)
VMT Threshold: 15% Below AVPA Baseline VMT VMT Threshold is 15% below AVPA Baseline VMT
Percent Higher than VMT Threshold % higher/lower than VMT Threshold
VMT Exceeds Threshold? Yes/No
3. VMT Reduction Calculation: To determine the total amount of VMT that exceeds the City’s VMT threshold, the project Home -based VMT per capita or Home -based Work VMT per employee should be multiplied by the estimated population/employment of the Project (Project VMT from Table 2 multiplied by population/employment from Table 1). The City’s VMT threshold is then applied to the project population/employment to determine the maximum amount of VMT that the project would be allowed to generate without exceeding the City’s threshold (VMT Threshold from Table 2 multiplied by population/employment from Table 1). The Project VMT is then compared to the maximum allowable VMT based on the City’s threshold and the excess VMT generated by the Project is used to determine the required VMT reduction. The City’s mitigation fee of $150 per VMT is multiplied by the VMT reduction required to determine the mitigation payment as shown in the sample table below.
Table 3: VMT Reduction Required & VMT Impact Fee
VMT per Capita Project VMT Estimate VMT Threshold VMT Reduction Required
VMT / Capita or
Employee Project VMT from Table 2 VMT Threshold from Table 2 Project VMT
minus VMT
Threshold
Total VMT
Project VMT from Table 2
multiplied by
population/employment
from Table 1
VMT Threshold from Table 2
multiplied by
population/employment
from Table 1
Project VMT
minus VMT
Threshold
City of Lancaster VMT Impact Fee Program
Mitigation Fee per VMT $150
Mitigation Fee
Total VMT
Reduction
Required
multiplied by
$150
TDM for Project Mitigation
The types of mitigation that affect VMT are those that reduce the number of single- occupant vehicles generated by the project. This can be accomplished by changing the land uses being proposed or by implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strat egies. TDM strategies have been determined to be among the most effective VMT impact mitigators. TDM strategies are reductions available from certain types of project site modifications, programming, and operational changes.
The effectiveness of identified TDM strategies is based primarily on research provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and documented in their latest publication, Handbook for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers for Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Climate Vulnerabilities, and Health and Equity (CAPCOA Handbook) (CAPCOA, 2024). CAPCOA offers methodology based on preferred literature, along with methodology based on alternative literature, for each strategy. The strategies described in the tables in Attachment B are a sample of the options most effective in areas like the City of Lancaster, some of which are already being implemented in the City pursuant to the City’s TDM ordinance. For a comprehensive list of available TDM strategies, please refer to the CAPCOA Handbook.
The percent reductions shown in the Attachment B tables should not be directly applied to a project. The CAPCOA Handbook contains detailed equations on applying TDM reductions given the land use type and built environment context. Specific mitigation strategies need to be tailored to the project characteristics, and their effectiveness needs to be analyzed and documented as part of the environmental review process to determine if impacts could be mitigated or if they would remain significant and unavoidable . In addition, some TDM strategies have complementary benefits on reducing VMT and need to be considered in combination and not individually. When more than one mitigation measure is to be utilized, the VMT reduction expected from each mitigation measure needs to be calculated individually and the total reduction in VMT needs to consider the combination of all mitigation strategies. Given that research on the effectiveness of TDM strategies is continuing to evolve, feasible mitigation measures should be considered based on the best data available at the time a project is being considered by the City.
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
II. L Overview
In addition to the CEQA analysis described above, the City of Lancaster requires a second analysis utilizing a localized approach conducted primarily to identify potential safety and operational issues when applied against criteria the City has established. This approach continues to use LOS to evaluate land development and infrastructure projects. As part of the localized analysis, the following conditions will apply:
• For locations within the City’s “infill area,” as identified in Section 17.08.080 of the Lancaster Zoning Code, peak hour LOS lower than LOS D may be acceptable. Other indicators will also be used to evaluate transportation performance, including, but not limited to: user safety; short- and long-term costs of improvements and maintenance; provision of bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation facilities; and connectivity of the overall street network. In these locations, the efficiency and convenience of vehicular operations must be balanced with the goal of increasing transit use, bicycling, and walking and other City goals and objectives contained in the adopted Master Plan of Complete Streets. Improvements identified strictly by vehicular-based criteria shall not be required solely on the basis of the LOS metric.
• For locations outside of the City’s “infill area,” peak hour LOS should generally be maintained at LOS D. However, improvements identified strictly by vehicular- based LOS criteria shall be evaluated against other City goals and objectives contained in the adopted Master Plan of Complete Streets.
In the event a development project significantly degrades the effective use or safety of City streets, improvements may be required. Required improvements should consider transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements as well as roadway and operational imp rovements. Any proposed transportation improvements must comply with the City’s Complete Streets Design Guidelines and Engineering Design Guidelines where applicable.
The Local Transportation Assessment will analyze the changes in the LOS of designated intersections and/or roadway segments through a progression of scenarios beginning with existing traffic conditions.
If any significant degradation of operations is indicated, the Local Transportation Assessment will propose feasible improvements that are needed to accommodate the additional travel demand generated by the project.
Local Transportation Assessment Study Scope
A preliminary scope for the localized analysis study is prepared by a traffic engineer designated by the Project Applicant and includes:
1. Project trip generation
2. No. of study intersections and roadway segments, if a Local Transportation Assessment is required
A Local Transportation Assessment may be required if the Project is anticipated to generate net new trips of 100 or more during any peak hour, or 1,000 or more for any 24-hour period during the work week.
The final scope for the Local Transportation Assessment shall be determined by the City after a proposed scope is submitted for review by the Project Applicant’s designated traffic engineer. It will include:
1. Type of analysis to be completed (i.e., Full Assessment or Signal Timing Study)
2. Project trip generation, including any proposed discounts
3. Site plan, showing location, service type and geometry of each access
4. List of study intersections and roadway segments
5. Project trip distribution and assignment at study intersections and segments
6. Ambient growth rate
7. Year of project build-out
8. Table of related projects with type, size and location Scenarios for Analysis
The intersection and street segment levels of service shall be analyzed under the following scenarios:
I: Existing Conditions - Existing traffic volume, pattern and roadway geometry II: Existing plus Project Conditions – Existing traffic volumes plus project-generated vehicle trips III: Existing plus Project with Operational Improvements (if necessary) - Existing traffic volumes plus project-generated vehicle trips and roadway/intersection operational improvements IV: Opening Year Conditions – Traffic volume forecasts in the anticipated opening year of the project that reflect ambient growth (1.25% annually) and Related Projects within 1 -mile of the project site
V: Opening Year plus Project Conditions – Opening year traffic volume forecasts plus project - generated vehicle trips
VI: Opening Year plus Project with Operational Improvements (if necessary) – Opening year traffic volume forecasts plus project -generated vehicle trips and roadway/intersection operational improvements
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates should be based on the best available data. In some cases, data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers provides reasonable trip generation estimates for land uses in the City. However, to the extent possible, trip generation should be based on local data.
Signalized Intersection Operations
The most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is the preferred methodology to analyze signalized intersections. LOS ratings for signalized intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. The HCM methodology accounts for vehicular volumes, lane geometries, signal phasing, signal timings, bicycle and pedestrian volumes, upstream bottlenecks impacting travel flows, and the distribution of travel flows throughout the peak hour (peak hour factor). The follow ing table documents the relationship between the vehicle delay and the LOS for signalized intersections.
LOS DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LOS Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. ≤10.0
B
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.
>10.0 – 20.0
C
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning
vehicles.
>20.0 – 35.0
D
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit
clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. >35.0 – 55.0
E
POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles
through several signal cycles.
>55.0 – 80.0
F
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths.
>80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2022.
When comparing existing or future/opening year baseline conditions to “plus project” conditions, delay changes for signalized intersections that exceed the criteria below should be identified.
Unsignalized Intersection Operations
Traffic signal warrants are defined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The MUTCD is published by the Federal Highway Administration and then adopted by Caltrans to provide uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. A brief overview of the first three signal warrants is provided below. • Warrant 1, Eight Hour Vehicular Volume determines if the major and minor street traffic volumes are high enough and consistent enough throughout the day to meet the minimum thresholds to consider a traffic signal.
• Warrant 2, Four Hour Vehicular Volume determines if the major and minor street traffic volumes are high enough over a shorter period to meet the minimum thresholds to consider a traffic signal.
• Warrant 3, Peak Hour is most applicable in cases where proximate land uses attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. This warrant determines if the delay of the minor street and the traffic volumes are high enough for the peak hour to meet the minimum thresholds to consider a traffic signal.
The signal warrant analysis is intended to examine the general correlation between the planned level of future development and the need to install new traffic signals and should not serve as the only basis for deciding whether and when to install a signal. The City’s traffic engineer should make the ultimate determination on the appropriate types of improvements to implement (if any) for unsignalized intersections.
All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections
The most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is the preferred methodology to analyze unsignalized intersections. LOS ratings for all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At two -way or side -street-controlled intersections, the average control delay is calculated for each minor-street stopped movement and the major-street left turns, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The average control delay for unsignalized intersections is correlated to a LOS designation as shown below.
CITY OF LANCASTER CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS without
Project LOS with Project
Average Total Delay
(Seconds per
Vehicle)
Project-Related Increase in Seconds of
Average Total Delay
A, B, C, or D E or F - Any increase in delay
E or F E or F > 55.0 Equal to or greater than 5.0 seconds
LOS DEFINITIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LOS
(v/c ≤ 1.0) Description Average Control Delay Per
Vehicle (Seconds)
A Little or no delay. ≤ 10.0
B Short traffic delay. > 10.0 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays. > 15.0 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays. > 25.0 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays. > 35.0 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection
capacity exceeded. > 50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2022.
When comparing existing or future/opening year baseline conditions to “plus project” conditions, delay changes for all-way stop controlled intersections that exceed the criteria below should be identified. If an all-way stop controlled intersection’s ‘plus project’ LOS grade is E or F, the peak hour traffic signal and roundabout warrant analyses must be conducted.
CITY OF LANCASTER CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED (ALL-WAY STOP) INTERSECTIONS LOS without
Project
LOS with
Project
Average Total Delay
(Seconds per Vehicle)
Project-Related Increase in Seconds of
Average Total Delay
A, B, C, or D E or F - Any increase in delay
E or F E or F > 35.0 Equal to or greater than 3.0 seconds
Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersections
When comparing existing or future baseline conditions to “plus project” conditions, delay changes for side-street stop intersections that exceed the criteria below should be identified. In addition to the delay thresholds, the peak hour traffic signal warrant and/or all-way stop warrant should also be met as part of the performance criteria. Adding these warrants to the criteria will ensure that minor street approaches with low traffic volumes are not identified as potentially needing improvements.
CITY OF LANCASTER CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED (SIDE-STREET STOP) INTERSECTIONS
LOS with Project
Average Total Delay for Side-
Street Approach
(Seconds per Vehicle)
Project-Related Increase in LOS or
Seconds of Average Total Delay
E > 35.0 to 50.0 LOS D or better to LOS E or worse, and meets the peak hour warrant for a traffic signal
F > 50.0
LOS E to LOS F, or
> 10 seconds of delay for worst-case approach if
already at LOS F; and
meets the peak hour warrant for a traffic signal
Transportation Improvements
If a study intersection or roadway segment is found to have a significant degradation of operations based on the guidance above, potential improvements should be identified to restore operations. Potential improvements should be analyzed and discussed wit h the City to determine if they are feasible and desirable. Any proposed transportation improvements must comply with the City’s Complete Streets Design Guidelines and Engineering Design Guidelines where applicable.
In some cases, improvements identified strictly by vehicular-based criteria may not be required solely on the basis of the LOS metric. For locations within the City’s infill area, other indicators will also be used to evaluate transportation performance. T hese may include user safety; short - and long- term costs of improvements and maintenance; provision of bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation facilities; and connectivity of the overall street network. In all areas of the City, the efficiency and convenience of vehicular operations must be balanced with the goal of increasing transit use, bicycling, and walking and other City goals and objectives contained in the adopted Master Plan of Complete Streets.
III. Report Outline and Format
The traffic study report documenting both CEQA and non-CEQA analysis methodologies and results should follow this general outline:
CEQA Report Format
1. Table of Contents
a. List of report contents with corresponding page nos.
Each page should be numbered, including pages of figures and exhibits
2. Main Body of Report
a. Introduction – Full description of the Project and its planning case information b. CEQA Analysis
i. VMT Analysis – Present the VMT estimates for the specific project land uses and the comparison to the applicable threshold(s). Identify any VMT impacts. ii. Mitigation Program – Identify mitigations and their expected impact on project VMT
iii. Residual Impacts & Summary – Identify VMT impacts that are not fully mitigated and summarize the findings of the VMT analysis
3. Conclusion
a. Summary of the Project, its impacts (if any) and measures to mitigate the same Tables, figures, diagrams, exhibits, maps and charts that accompany discussion text shall be inserted in the Main Body and Conclusion of the report where appropriate for immediate and convenient reference.
4. Appendices – All technical data sheets, worksheets, calculations and other reference documents, including SCAG model outputs, supporting the tables, diagrams, maps and charts imbedded in the text shall be placed in the Appendix.
5. Attachments - Project site plans, conceptual mitigation plans and drawings that are larger than 11” by 17” paper may be included as attachments and referenced elsewhere in the report.
Local Transportation Assessment Report Format
1. Table of Contents
a. List of report contents with corresponding page nos.
Each page should be numbered, including pages of figures and exhibits
2. Main Body of Report
a. Introduction – Full description of the Project and its planning case information b. Local Transportation Assessment
i. Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation – Trip Generation estimates should rely on the best available data and may utilize the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) rates or local data.
ii. Analysis scenarios - Each traffic analysis scenario shall include a description of roadway geometry, lane configuration, traffic volume and traffic controls for each study intersection and roadway segment
iii. Finding (or non-finding) of Degradation of Operations – Discussion of any significant degradation of operations indicated at the study locations iv. Proposed Operational Improvements – Discussion of feasible measures proposed to improve traffic operations, including guarantees to ensure implementation
3. Conclusion
a. Summary of the Project, its operational degradations (if any) and measures to improve the same
Tables, figures, diagrams, exhibits, maps and charts that accompany discussion text shall be inserted in the Main Body and Conclusion of the report where appropriate for immediate and convenient reference.
4. Appendices – All technical data sheets, worksheets, calculations and other reference documents supporting the tables, diagrams, maps and charts imbedded in the text shall be placed in the Appendix.
a. A description of the traffic study scope, as approved by the City, should be included as an Appendix.
5. Attachments - Project site plans, conceptual mitigation plans and drawings that are larger than 11” by 17” paper may be included as attachments and referenced elsewhere in the report.
Submittal for Review
Prepare one (1) electronic copy of all required traffic analysis reports and submit to Project Planner for delivery to Traffic Engineering Section.
IN ALL COMMUNICATIONS, CITE THE CITY-ASSIGNED CASE NO. FOR THE PROJECT AS REFERENCE TO FACILITATE RESPONSE AND PROCESSING.
For any questions about these guidelines, please contact Matt Simons at (661) 723-5806, email [email protected].