City of Pasadena
Transportation
Impact Fee Update —
Nexus Study
Prepared for:
City of Pasadena
June 2025
LA-23-3458.00
ATTACHMENT B
2 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 6 What is Transportation Impact Fee? ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Who pays the Transportation Impact Fee? ........................................................................................................................ 6 How is the Transportation Impact Fee calculated? ........................................................................................................ 6 How are fees assessed? ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Regulatory Context .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Existing Transportation Impact Fee ............................................................................................................................... 8
2. Impact Fee Methodologies ...................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Fee Categories ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Fee Level Comparisons .....................................................................................................................................................12
3. Transportation Impact Fee Projects ...................................................................................... 18
4. Nexus Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Methodology Overview ....................................................................................................................................................23
4.2 VMT Benefits .........................................................................................................................................................................24
4.3 Impact Fee Calculation .....................................................................................................................................................25
4.3.1 Growth Forecasts ....................................................................................................................................................25
4.3.2 Cost of Project List ..................................................................................................................................................26
4.4 Transportation Impact Fee ..............................................................................................................................................27
4.5 Findings: Compliance with Government Code Section 66001 .........................................................................32
5. Fee Implementation and Administration ............................................................................. 34
5.1 Administration Features and Costs ..............................................................................................................................34
5.2 Program Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................................................34
5.2.1 Annual Report ..........................................................................................................................................................34
5.2.2 Five-Year Report ......................................................................................................................................................35
3 Appendices
Appendix A: Impact Fee Program Transportation Project List Appendix B: AB-602 Calculations for Residential Units by Size Appendix C: Pasadena Travel Demand Forecasting Model Development Report
4 List of Figures
Figure 1. Transportation Impact Fees Per Dwelling Unit (DU) – Residential & Lodging Land Uses ................. 13 Figure 2. City of Fremont – Residential Transportation Impact Fees Per DU ............................................................ 14 Figure 3. Transportation Impact Fees Per Thousand Square Feet (KSF) – Industrial Land Uses ........................ 14 Figure 4. Transportation Impact Fees Per KSF – Office & Medical Office Land Uses ............................................. 15 Figure 5. Transportation Impact Fees Per KSF – Retail Land Uses ................................................................................. 15 Figure 6. Transportation Impact Fees Assessed for Other Land Uses (Burbank, Fremont, Culver City & Santa Monica) ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 7. Transportation Impact Fees Assessed on a Per Trip Basis ............................................................................. 17
List of Tables
Table 1: Residential Development Impact Fee Categories ............................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Non-Residential Development Impact Fee Categories ..................................................................................... 11 Table 3: City of Pasadena Infrastructure Projects ................................................................................................................ 19 Table 4: PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecast Growth ................................................................................................. 26 Table 5: Project List Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 6: Mobility Impact Fees per Average PM Peak Hour Trip .................................................................................... 27 Table 7: Equivalent Dwelling Units for Residential Uses per AB-602 .......................................................................... 29 Table 8: Transportation Impact Fees by Land Use Type ................................................................................................... 31 Table 9: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Transportation Impact Fees .......................................................... 32
5 This page intentionally left blank.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
6 Executive Summary
What is Transportation Impact Fee?
A Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is a type of development impact fee created to address the impacts of new residents and workers utilizing transportation-related infrastructure, such as roads, intersections, bridges, as well as facilities that serve transit, pedestrians and/or non-motorized vehicles (e.g., trails, bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.). The fee anticipates and is aimed at addressing the impacts of growth on City streets, including protecting neighborhoods from increased traffic.
Who pays the Transportation Impact Fee?
Applicants of land use development and redevelopment projects—including residential, office, retail, and industrial developments—are responsible for paying Transportation Impact Fees.
How is the Transportation Impact Fee calculated?
The fee is determined through a Nexus Study conducted per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Fees established herein follow the fundamental legal tenets of having an essential nexus (relationship) and rough proportionality to the impacts which the fee is designed to mitigate. The methodology ensures the fee maintains a legally required essential nexus (relationship) and rough proportionality to the impacts it aims to mitigate. The analysis establishes a connection between the transportation -related effects of future development and the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate increased demand.
The costs associated with these improvements are proportionally allocated based on the magnitude of anticipated growth.
How are fees assessed?
The fees are assessed based on the anticipated impact of new developments on the transportation infrastructure. The City of Pasadena Department of Transportation (DOT) administers the fee program and builds projects as fees are collected. The assessment process includes identifying the project's land use, calculating the net new units within the applicable land use category, and applying fees based on the adopted schedule. Developers are required to pay a one-time fee prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. These impact fees apply exclusively to new development; however, developers must still conduct transportation studies and implement improvements if localized impacts are identified. The fee is subject to annual adjustments based on the Construction Cost Index.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
7 1. Introduction
The City of Pasadena (the “City”) is updating its city-wide Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program to address the transportation needs of future development through 2035. The previous TIF was established in 2017 and had a horizon year of 2035. The updated program aims to ensure that new developments contribute their fair share of the cost of necessary transportation improvements using the City’s latest Travel Demand Forecasting Model (TDF Model, Appendix C) 1 while factoring in their effect on vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). The fees collected will help fund infrastructure projects, supplementing other sources like County sales tax measures and state or local grants. The program follows California's Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), which requires a direct nexus between development impacts and the fees imposed, ensuring they are proportional to the impact of the projects. The updated Transportation Impact Fee will use the new model data and be categorized based on land use. The list of transportation improvements and the methodology for calculating the TIF are detailed in the following sections of this report.
1.1 Regulatory Context
California Government Code
The California Government Code §§ 66000-66025, often referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act, governs how local governments can impose development impact fees. This legislation ensures that such fees are both legally defensible and equitable. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt an ordinance that enables the fee and defines the program structure. The fee may be updated periodically when supported by a technical analysis and approved by City Council.
In establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition for the approval of a development project 2, Government Code §§ 66001(a) and (b) state that the local agency must:
• Identify the purpose of the fee.
• Identify how the fee is to be used.
• Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee established and type of development project for which the fee is imposed.
• Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed.
1 The City of Pasadena Travel Demand Forecasting Model was originally developed in 2011 and updated twice in 2013 and 2017. The latest model has been calibrated and validated to 2017 base year conditions using actual traffic counts, census data, Streetlight travel pattern data, and land use data compiled by City staff. The latest Model Development Report is available in Appendix C.
2 Development includes any land use activity that involves construction of residential, commercial, industrial, office, or other non-residential improvements which requires the issuance of a building permit. Such improvements are generally expected to create additional impacts to the City’s transportation infrastructure once completed through additional travel demand associated with the proposed use.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
8 • Demonstrate the relationship between the fee and the cost of the public facility.
Section 4.5 of this report summarizes findings complying with Government Code §§ 66001. Once the TIF update is adopted, this Nexus Study and the technical information it contains will be maintained and reviewed periodically by the City to ensure impact fee accuracy and to enable the adequate programming of funding sources. To the extent that transportation improvement requirements, costs, and development potential changes over time, the fee program will need to be updated.
California Assembly Bill 602
Effective January 1, 2022, AB 602 requires that impact fees levied on residential development must be calculated such that they are proportional to the square footage of future units. A nexus study must evaluate how existing and future residential development can be estimated by residential square feet or document why the use of residential square feet is not relevant as it would not appropriately reflect the relationship between the fee, facility demand, and residential land use. Section 4.3 outlines methodologies for implementing the AB 602 requirement in the TIF update.
1.2 Existing Transportation Impact Fee
City of Pasadena’s transportation improvement fee program was originally established in November 2006.
The most recent iteration of the adopted fee program was adjusted and adopted by City Council i n July 2017 (Ordinance No. 7309).
The existing Transportation Impact Fee Study identifies transportation improvements needed to support growth, including roads, public transit, bikeways, and pedestrian walkways. The cost of these improvements are distributed between future and existing development based on the benefits received.
The Fee Study divides land uses into five (5) categories: Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, Retail, Office, and Industrial. Chapter 2 examines the City's existing Transportation Impact Fee program in comparison to similar programs implemented by other jurisdictions.
Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(4) requires local agencies adopting increases to existing transportation impact fees review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee. Since City of Pasadena’s existing transportation impact fee will decrease across most land use categories (Table 9) following the implementation of proposed new fees, an assessment of the Existing Transportation Impact Fee is not required.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
9 2. Impact Fee Methodologies
This Chapter presents a comparison of the City of Pasadena’s existing Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program with TIF programs from other comparable jurisdictions that were identified in consultation with Pasadena Department of Transportation staff. The jurisdictions that were selected for comparison include Burbank, Santa Monica, West Los Angeles3, Culver City, Orange, Anaheim, Fremont, and Palo Alto. The Cities of Glendale and Lancaster were evaluated for inclusion but were excluded from the analysis because the City of Glendale is currently in the process of updating its TIF program and the City of Lancaster’s TIF program serves to facilitate project-level VMT mitigation under CEQA, whereas the TIF programs in the City of Pasadena and the jurisdictions that were selected for comparison do not.
2.1 Fee Categories
Table 1 and Table 2 present the various development impact fee programs that have been adopted by each of the comparison jurisdictions for residential and non-residential land uses. As shown in the tables, each of the comparison jurisdictions assesses a transportation improvement fee on new residential and non-residential development. For residential development, parks & recreation fees are assessed in each of the jurisdictions, and fees for public art, public safety, and libraries are common. For non- residential development, several jurisdictions assess fees for public art, public safety, libraries, and affordable housing.
3 West Los Angeles comprises the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan area.
Development projects that are proposed in this area pay distinct transportation improvement fees in addition to citywide impact fees for the City of Los Angeles in the categories of parks and recreation, affordable housing, and public art.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
10 Table 1: Residential Development Impact Fee Categories Fee Category Pasadena Burbank Santa
Monica West LA Culver City Orange Anaheim Fremont Palo Alto Year Adopted 2017 2022 2013 2019 2021 2020 1993 2021 2007 Transportation X X X X X X X X X
Residential
Parks & Recreation X X X X X X X X X
Public Art X X X X
Library X X X
Police X X X
Fire X X X X
Childcare X
Affordable Housing X X
Other IT Water
Demand Condo Tax Sanitation Capital
Facilities
Comm.
Facilities
Source: Fehr & Peers
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
11 Table 2: Non-Residential Development Impact Fee Categories Fee Category Pasadena Burbank Santa
Monica West LA Culver City Orange Anaheim Fremont Palo Alto Year Adopted 2017 2022 2013 2019 2021 2020 1993 2021 2007 Transportation X X X X X X X X X
Residential
Parks & Recreation X X X
Public Art X X X X X
Library X X X
Police X X X
Fire X X X X
Childcare X
Affordable Housing X X X X
Other IT Water
Demand Commercial/I
ndustrial Tax Sanitation Capital
Facilities
Comm.
Facilities
Source: Fehr & Peers
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
12 2.2 Fee Level Comparisons
Figure 1 shows the comparison of transportation impact fees for residential and lodging land uses across each of the comparison jurisdictions except for Fremont, which charges a residential fee for both single family and multifamily development on a per bedroom basis, and Palo Alto, which charges a transportation impact fee for residential and non-residential land uses on a per trip basis (per net new PM peak hour trip). Fee levels in Santa Monica differ according to the proximity of development projects to public transit. Because of this, the fee levels shown in Figure 1 reflect the average across the entire city.
Figure 2 shows the transportation fees for residential development in Fremont. Pasadena's residential transportation impact fees are the highest among compared jurisdictions for single-family uses. For multi- family uses, only West LA’s 'Apartment' and 'Condominium/Townhouse' categories exceed Pasadena’s current fee level.
Figure 3 shows the comparison of transportation impact fees for industrial land uses, Figure 4 shows the comparison for office and medical office land uses, and Figure 5 shows the comparison for retail land uses. For industrial land uses, Pasadena assesses a lower fee than all of the comparison jurisdictions except for the City of Orange. For office land uses, Pasadena assesses a lower fee than the other Los Angeles County jurisdictions, but higher than Fremont and the Orange County jurisdictions. For retai l land uses, Pasadena assesses a lower fee than all of the other Los Angeles County jurisdictions except for Burbank and West LA’s ‘less than 250 KSF’ category, but higher than Fremont and the Orange County jurisdictions.
Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8 show the comparison of transportation impact fees in other jurisdictions for land uses not currently assessed in Pasadena or grouped under broader categories like retail and office. These land uses include hospitals, film studios, auto sales, schools (public, private, vocational/trade), religious facilities, research & development facilities, business parks, convalescent/nursing homes, and assisted living/congregate care facilities. The fee comparisons shown in these figures are presented for informational purposes should the City of Pasadena elect to update its TIF program to assess a fee for additional land uses beyond what is currently required from the existing TIF program. Figure 9 presents transportation impact fee comparisons for jurisdictions that assess a fee on a per trip basis, including Anaheim, Orange, and Palo Alto. It is important to note that the City of Orange only assesses a transportation impact fee on a per trip basis (per daily trip end) for atypical land uses that are not specified in the TIF program. In Anaheim, non-residential projects must pay a fee per peak hour trip end in addition to a fee that is unique by land use.
The fee schedules for these jurisdictions have been updated to reflect Fiscal Year 2025, except for the City of Orange (FY 2021), West LA (FY 2021), and Fremont (FY 2024), as FY 2025 data for these locations is not available online.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
13 Figure 1. Transportation Impact Fees Per Dwelling Unit (DU) – Residential & Lodging Land Uses
Note: Single family and multi-family fees for Santa Monica represent the citywide average. Affordable housing fees for Burbank reflect the average across both minimum-required and above-minimum affordable units.
$- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000
Single Family
Multi-Family
Affordable Single Family
Affordable Multi-Family
Apartment/Condominium/Townhouse
Lodging (Per Room)
Pasadena Burbank Santa Monica Culver City Orange Anaheim - East of 55 Freeway Anaheim West LA City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
14 2
Figure 2. City of Fremont – Residential Transportation Impact Fees Per DU
Figure 3. Transportation Impact Fees Per Thousand Square Feet (KSF) – Industrial Land Uses
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
0 (studio) 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms >4 per bedroom $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000
Pasadena
Burbank
Santa Monica
Culver City
West LA
Orange
Anaheim
Fremont
Industrial Light Industrial Manufacturing Warehouse/Self-Storage Mini-Warehouse City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
15 Figure 4. Transportation Impact Fees Per KSF – Office & Medical Office Land Uses
Note: Fees for West LA office and medical office projects between 50 – 250 KSF are interpolated.
Figure 5. Transportation Impact Fees Per KSF – Retail Land Uses
Note: Fees for West LA office and medical office projects between 250 – 800 KSF are interpolated $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000
Pasadena
Burbank
Santa Monica
Culver City
West LA (< 50 KSF)
West LA (> 250 KSF)
Orange
Anaheim
Fremont
Office
Medical Office
$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 Pasadena
Burbank
Santa Monica
Culver City
West LA (< 250 KSF)
West LA (> 800 KSF)
Orange
Anaheim
Fremont
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
16 2
Figure 6. Transportation Impact Fees Assessed for Other Land Uses (Burbank, Fremont, Culver City & Santa Monica)
Note: Fees for Culver City film studio projects represent the average of two categories - Active Production and Passive Production. $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 Auto Sales (per KSF)
Private School/College (per student)
Religious Facilities (per KSF)
R&D (per KSF)
Business Park (per KSF)
Convalescent Home/Nursing Home (per KSF)
Assisted Living/Congregate Care Facility (per KSF)
Hospital (per KSF)
Film Studio (per KSF)
Schools (K-12, per KSF)
Vocational Trade School (per KSF)
Burbank Fremont Culver City Santa Monica
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
17 Figure 7. Transportation Impact Fees Assessed on a Per Trip Basis
Note: In Anaheim, non-residential projects must pay a fee per peak hour trip end in addition to a fee that is unique by land use.
$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000
Orange - Atypical Land Uses (Per Daily Trip End)
Palo Alto - Citywide (Per Net New PM Peak Hour Trip)
Anaheim - Non-Residential Projects (Per Peak Hour Trip
End)
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
18 3. Transportation Impact Fee
Projects
The City of Pasadena’s transportation infrastructure projects for the fiscal years (FY) 2026 to 2030 will be funded (in part) through the City’s fee program. Projects have been identified through the City’s budget cycle, planning efforts, and community needs. Key Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project categories and examples are shown below:
1. Active Transportation and Complete Streets: The improvements include new bikeways in Class II, III, or IV based on needs identified through the City’s Bicycle Transportation Action Plan , pedestrian needs identified through the Pasadena Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (PTAP), and safety enhancement needs from the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). o Pasadena Bicycle Program FY 2026-2030: Focused on improving the city's bicycle infrastructure, this project has a proposed budget of $500,000. o Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Program FY 2021-2028: Program is designed to improve pedestrian crossings across the city, with a proposed budget of $4.25 million.
2. Traffic Operations, Traffic Signals, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): The improvements include safety-focused multimodal improvements such as pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWKS).
o Transportation System Safety Enhancements Project: A comprehensive initiative to manage traffic and enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists, with a proposed budget of approximately $1.1 million.
3. Transit: These projects include replacement to existing fleets and innovative sustainable mobility improvements.
o Bus Stop Improvement Program: A comprehensive program to upgrade bus stops with accessibility and safety enhancements, with a proposed budget of approximately $4.3 million.
4. Streets and Streetscapes: These projects include general roadway improvements, Specific Plans and granular enhancements to specific corridors.
o Pedestrian Safety Enhancements on Oak Knoll Ave: Focuses on improving accessibility along the right-of-way with a proposed budget of $300,000.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
19 These projects are essential to Pasadena’s long-term transportation planning goals in the General Plan, addressing various aspects like cycling infrastructure, pedestrian safety, and roadway efficiency. The full list of eligible projects through the City’s fee program is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: City of Pasadena Infrastructure Projects
Project
Category Project Name Type1 Source Document
& Page Number2
Active Transportation / Complete Streets
Pasadena Bicycle Program FY 2026-2030 Bike CIP (5.1)
Citywide Neighborhood Traffic Management Program FY
2026-2030 Bike/Ped/Roadway CIP (5.3)
Arterials Speed Management Program FY 2026-2030 Roadway Capacity CIP (5.4) Citywide Complete Streets Program FY 2025-2029 Bike/Ped/Roadway CIP (5.5) Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan - Outreach and
Conceptual Design Ped CIP (5.8) - 75511
Citywide Continental Crosswalk Implementation Ped CIP (5.12) - 75917 Compete Streets Project - Mountain St at Sierra Bonita Ave and Sinaloa Ave - Design Phase Ped/Roadway CIP (5.13) - 75107 Rose Bowl Pedestrian & Bicycle Access Study Ped/bike CIP (5.14) Two-Way Traffic Conversion - Mentor Ave from Walnut St to Colorado Blvd - Feasibility Study Roadway CIP (5.16) - 75918 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Program FY 2021-2028 Ped CIP (5.17) - 75112 El Molino Avenue Quick-Build Greenway Demonstration
Project Bike CIP (5.18)
Complete Streets Project - Rosemont Ave Pedestrian Safety Enhancements from Seco St to Orange Grove Blvd - Design Phase
Ped/Roadway CIP (5.48)
Arroyo Link Walking and Biking Path Ped/bike CIP (5.49) Traffic Operations, Traffic Signals, ITS Mobility Corridor Improvements FY 2026-2030 Roadway CIP (5.19) Old Pasadena Traffic Improvement - FY 2026-2030 Roadway CIP (5.20) ITS Equipment Upgrades/Replacement - FY 2021-2028 Ped CIP (5.21) - 75117 Citywide Leading Pedestrian Interval/Accessible Pedestrian Signal (LPI/APS) Implementation Program FY 2025-2029 Ped CIP (5.22) Implementation of Citywide Transportation Performance
Monitoring Network Roadway CIP (5.23) - 75602
Installation of Traffic Signal and Curb Extensions at Sierra Bonita Ave and Orange Grove Ped/Roadway CIP (5.30) - 75134 Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWKs) at Various Locations Ped CIP (5.35)
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
20 Project
Category Project Name Type1 Source Document
& Page Number2
Mobility Hubs & First/Last Mile Improvements Ped CIP (5.36) Signal Preemption Equipment at Traffic Signals Citywide - Phase II Roadway CIP (5.38) - 75916
Transportation System Safety Enhancements Project – FY
2021-2028 Roadway CIP (5.39) - 75115
Transit
Purchase of Zero-Emission Pasadena Transit Vehicles and Supporting Infrastructure Transit CIP (5.40)
Purchase of Zero-Emission Pasadena Dial-A-Ride Vehicles and Supporting Infrastructure Transit CIP (5.41)
Systemwide Bus Zone Enhancements Transit CIP (5.42)
Purchase of Replacement Transit Vehicles and Expansion
Fixed-Route Transit Vehicles Transit CIP (5.43) - 75085 Purchase of Dial-a-Ride Vehicles Transit CIP (5.44) - 75086 Construction of Transit Operations Maintenance Facility Transit CIP (5.45) - 75707 Bus Stop Improvement Program Transit CIP (5.46) - 75900 Streets & Streetscape
Intersection Improvements at Colorado Blvd and Garfield Ave Ped/Roadway CIP (2.14) Pedestrian Safety Enhancements on Oak Knoll Ave Ped CIP (2.15) Improvement of Green Street - Orange Grove Blvd to Hill Ave Roadway CIP (2.16) Safe Routes to School - Sidewalk Repairs Ped CIP (2.17) Civic Center/Mid-Town Public Improvements & Related
Components - Phase II Ped/Roadway CIP (2.18)
New York Drive Bridges - Preventive Maintenance Misc CIP (2.19) Arroyo Boulevard Bridge - Seismic Retrofit Misc CIP (2.21) Annual Citywide Street Resurfacing and ADA Improvement
Program FY 2026 Ped/Roadway CIP (2.1)
Curb Ramp ADA Improvements Program FY 2022 - 2026 Ped CIP (2.4) - 73937 San Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Misc CIP (2.9) - 73946 Street Lighting Program FY 2024-2028 Misc CIP (3.4) - 74422 Other
Playhouse Village - Colorado Blvd Enhancements from
Madison Ave to Oak Knoll Ave - Feasibility Study Ped/Roadway CIP (5.51) Playhouse Village - N Lake Ave. from E Colorado Blvd. to Corson St. - Feasibility Study Ped/Roadway CIP (5.52)
Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Improvements on Kinneloa Ave at Del Mar Blvd Ped/Roadway CIP (5.53)
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
21 Project
Category Project Name Type1 Source Document
& Page Number2
Traffic Signal at Electronic Dr and Sierra Madre Villa Blvd Roadway CIP (5.54) Mountain Street Curb Extension Ped CIP (5.55)
Complete Streets Project - Sunnyslope Ave at Estado St - Construction Phase Ped/Roadway CIP (5.56)
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Retro-reflective backing plates Roadway LRSP (77)
Nearside Signals Ped LRSP (77)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) Ped LRSP (77) Regulatory Signs Roadway LRSP (77)
Lake Ave & Maple St High Visibility Crosswalks Ped LRSP (78) El Molino Av & Villa St High Visibility Crosswalks Ped LRSP (78) Optional Restriping Roadway LRSP (79)
Fair Oaks Ave & Maple Street Safety Improvements Roadway LRSP (77) Washington Boulevard Safety Improvements btwn Forest Ave and Catalina Ave Roadway LRSP (77)
Del Mar Boulevard Safety Improvements btwn Los Robles Ave and east City Limits Roadway LRSP (77)
Lake Ave & Washington Bl Optional Safety Enhancements Roadway LRSP (78) Fair Oaks Ave & Washington Bl Optional Safety
Enhancements Roadway LRSP (78)
Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Bl Optional Safety
Enhancements Roadway LRSP (78)
Colorado Bl & Sierra Madre Bl Optional Safety Enhancements Roadway LRSP (78) Arroyo Pkwy & Green St Optional Safety Enhancements Roadway LRSP (78) Lake Ave btwn Mountain and California Optional Safety
Enhancements Roadway LRSP (79)
Los Robles Ave btwn Washington and Maple Optional Safety Enhancements Roadway LRSP (79)
Pedestrian
Transportation
Action Plan (PTAP)
Allen Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project from north City limit to Colorado Blvd. Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
Del Mar Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project from
Pasadena Avenue to east City limit Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
Fair Oaks Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project from north City limit to south City limit Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
22 Project
Category Project Name Type1 Source Document
& Page Number2
Foothill Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project from
Walnut Street to east City limit Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
Lake Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project from north City limit to Colorado Boulevard Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
Lincoln Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project from north City limit to Washington Boulevard Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
Los Robles Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project from
north City limit to Walnut Street Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
Raymond Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project from
Colorado Boulevard to E Glenarm Street Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
San Gabriel Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project from Maple Street to California Boulevard Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
Washington Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement Project from Lincoln Avenue to Lake Avenue Ped PTAP
(Appendix F)
Note:
1. Ped = Pedestrian, Misc = Miscellaneous
2. CIP = Capital Improvement Program (FY 2026), LRSP = Local Road Safety Plan (2022), and PTAP = Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (2024)
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
23 4. Nexus Analysis
The purpose of a nexus study is to establish the relationship, referred to as the “nexus ,” between anticipated new development and the need for new and expanded major public facilities. After establishing the nexus, the transportation fees to be levied for various land use types are calculated based on the proportionate share of the total facility use.
4.1 Methodology Overview
The improvements contained in the transportation project list will provide travel options for those driving, biking, and walking as part of a transportation system that is consistent with local and statewide policies .
Growth in residents and employees is expected in the City of Pasadena with or without these transportation projects and the transportation impact fee program does not change the amount of anticipated growth. Pasadena’s General Plan Mobility Element guides the continuing development of the transportation system to support planned growth. The anticipated development pattern will increase the use of the City’s transportation system, including demand for local and regional roadways as well as pedestrian, bike, and public transit infrastructure. The impact fee is used to pay for transportation projects needed to accommodate the demands on the transportation system created by new development. These transportation projects were identified in or tied to guiding principles, objectives and/or policies in the General Plan Mobility Element. One of the goals of the impact fee is to provide improvements that result in the production of fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on a “per capita/employee” basis.
VMT measures miles traveled by all vehicles (e.g., private automobiles, trucks, and buses) in the study area. In comparison to vehicle trips, VMT accounts for a vehicle’s true impact on the transportation system as it considers both the number of trips a driver makes along with the distance traveled during each of those trips. VMT will likely increase with the addition of new residents and employees, the City aims to reduce VMT on a “per capita/employee” basis with land use policies that help Pasadena resid ents and workers meet their daily needs within a short distance from home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto
4. The City’s General Plan prioritizes VMT reduction as a key sustainability goal. Its guiding principles emphasize a livable community with enhanced mobility options beyond automobiles. The Mobility Element outlines four objectives for transportation system management: Promote a livable and economically strong community, encourage non-auto travel, protect neighborhoods by discouraging traffic from passing through neighborhoods, and manage multimodal corridors to improve citywide transportation services5. Projects aligned with these objectives will support the VMT reduction goal.
4 City of Pasadena, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, April 2022. 5 City of Pasadena, General Plan Mobility Element, August 15.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
24 4.2 VMT Benefits
The VMT benefits of transportation projects in Table 3 were assessed through two pathways: (1) alignment with Mobility Element objectives and other City-adopted plans and guidelines, and (2) anticipated VMT reduction benefits documented in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (CAPCOA) 6. Beyond VMT reduction, many projects also improve accessibility, mode share, and safety, with additional benefits identified where applicable.
Active Transportation/Complete Streets, Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), and Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (PTAP)
These projects include new bikeways in Class II, III, or IV based on needs identified through the City’s Bicycle Transportation Action Plan, pedestrian needs identified through the Pasadena Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (PTAP), and safety enhancement needs from the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP).
According to CAPCOA, expanding bikeway network encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, which contributes to up to 0.5% VMT reduction. Providing pedestrian network improvement encourages people to walk instead of drive, which results in up to 6.4% VMT reduction. In addition, Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Accessibility are two of the City’s CEQA transportation metrics.
Implementing these projects will help the City improve measures of bike facility access and average walkability.
Traffic Operations, Traffic Signals, ITS
These projects include citywide signal and ITS upgrades to effectively manage the transportation network through design and technology solutions. While there are often emissions reductions associated with these types of projects as running time per mile decreases, there are no associated VMT reductions.
Although in some cases, these projects can induce additional VMT by lowering the cost and delay of traveling by vehicle, majority projects in the list are safety-focused multimodal improvements, such as the Transportation System Safety Enhancements Project, Citywide Leading Pedestrian Interval/Accessible Pedestrian Signal (LPI/APS) Implementation Program, and Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWKs). In addition, the City’s strategic combination of roadway improvements and VMT-reducing projects will help mitigate the effects of induced travel.
Transit
Transit projects include bus stop improvements, the purchase of replacement, expansion and zero- emission vehicles for fixed-route transit and Dial-A-Ride services. These initiatives support the Land Use Element by enhancing non-auto transportation options, improving access to neighborhoods, community centers, and mixed-use boulevards. They also address mobility needs for non-drivers, consistent with Mobility Element Policy 1.5-Consider the mobility needs of the disabled, students and especially seniors,
6 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, 2021.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
25 when designing new infrastructure and developing transportation programs. According to CAPCOA, extending transit network coverage or hours encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions up to 4.6%.
Streets and Streetscapes, Other
These projects include general roadway improvements with a focus on enhancing walkability and pedestrian safety. These projects align with Mobility Element policies, such as Policy 1.2 Promote greater linkages between land uses and transit, as well as non-vehicular modes of transportation to reduce vehicular trip related emissions, and Policy 1.11 Design Streets to reflect the mobility needs of the adjacent land use context to support healthy activities such as walking and bicycling.
4.3 Impact Fee Calculation
The impact fees were computed as follows:
• The Pasadena TDF Model was utilized to determine the anticipated growth within the City by 2035.
• The number of new PM Peak Hour vehicle trips generated by the aforementioned growth was calculated.
• A portion of the total costs (approximately 12.1%) of the Pasadena mobility fee project lists were divided by the total number of new trips to determine the cost per PM peak hour trip. • The percent of new trips generated by various land use types and trip length characteristics by land use were used to calculate the fees to account for VMT.
Each of these steps is explained in further detail below.
4.3.1 Growth Forecasts
The City of Pasadena TDF Model, a detailed and validated model for the City, provides the ability to evaluate the transportation system, generate performance measures for land use and transportation analysis, provide information on regional pass-through traffic versus locally generated trips, and graphically display these results. The model captures planned growth in the city, and is sensitive to emerging land use trends through improved sensitivity to built environment variables. The model forecasts AM and PM peak period daily vehicle and transit flows on the transportation network in the city.
The latest City of Pasadena TDF Model was used for nexus analysis, which forecasts the City’s General Plan build-out conditions in Future Year 2035. A model select zone run was conducted to isolate traffic volumes on the roadway network associated with anticipated growth within the City. The project team reviewed the incremental growth in traffic volumes that occurs either through or in the vicinity of transportation improvements in the project list. The most intensely impacted corridors and locations that have projects associated with them were identified and the fair share was determined by comparing the relationship to the existing baseline traffic. Table 4 summarizes the total PM peak hour volume forecasts City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
26 associated with Anticipated City Growth in 2024 Baseline, 2035 Future Year, and the fair share allocation of the new development.
Table 4: PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Forecast Growth
Scenarios Total Traffic Volumes Generated by Anticipated Growth along/on Project Locations
[A] 2024 Baseline 65,523
[B] 2035 Future Year 73,424
[C] Volume Change 7,901
[D] New Development % Fair Share
(D = C/A) 12.1%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.
4.3.2 Cost of Project List
Detailed project cost estimates were prepared for the transportation improvements in the project list, as shown in Appendix A. The cost estimates were based on the capital costs required to construct the projects. The transportation impact fee program only takes into account the unfunded project costs since many of these projects are partially funded by other grants or funding sources. Table 5 summarize the total costs along with unfunded project costs for each category of project in the mobility fee project list.
Costs may not represent the total expenses, especially for segmented or phased projects. Additionally, the transportation impact fee program has limitations, such as restrictions on addressing existing deficiencies, and does not cover all improvements within the City. For instance, Off-Street Parking Facility Maintenance and Repair Project, Annual ADA Citywide Sidewalk Improvement Program FY 2026 - 2030, and Miscellaneous Sidewalk Repair Program FY 2026 – 2030 in the CIP are excluded from the project list.
An administrative fee of 5% was added to the project list cost to provide oversight and implementation of the fee program by City of Pasadena DOT. Therefore, the total project costs including 5% administrative fee would be approximately $360 million.
Table 5: Project List Cost Estimates
Project Category Unfunded Cost Estimate % of Total Project List Cost Active Transportation/Complete Streets $106,782,725 31% Traffic Operations, Traffic Signals, ITS $36,134,721 10% Transit $98,299,675 29%
Streets and Streetscapes $51,323,555 15%
Other $3,672,000 1%
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) $6,735,123 2%
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
27 Project Category Unfunded Cost Estimate % of Total Project List Cost Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (PTAP) $41,221,036 12% Total Cost Estimate $344,168,835 100%
Total Project Cost (Include 5% Admin Fee) $361,377,277 N/A Source: City of Pasadena, 2025.
4.4 Transportation Impact Fee
As explained previously, fee programs require new development to contribute a fair share to complete regional improvements to mitigate the cumulative impacts of their projects to traffic conditions. The traffic volume forecast shows a 12.1% growth from existing conditions to future conditions in the PM peak hour as a result of new development. As shown in Table 6, new development would be responsible for funding the fair share (12.1%) of the approximately $360 million of the City’s planned transportation improvements contained in the project list, which would be approximately $44 million. The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund existing development’s share of the planned transportation improvements. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants. The City’s impact fees were calculated by dividing the fair-share allocation (12.1%) of the project list costs by the growth of PM peak hour trips.
Table 6 presents the average “per trip” fee for the initial year of the fee program update. Transportation impact fees will be paid by a developer as a one-time fee prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy.
Table 6: Mobility Impact Fees per Average PM Peak Hour Trip Measure Pasadena
[E] Total Project Cost (Include 5% Admin Fee) $361,377,277 [F] 12.1% of Total Cost
(F = E * 12.1%, rounded to the nearest integer) $43,726,651 [C] PM Traffic Volume Growth (Vehicle Trips) 7,901
[H] Average Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip
(H = F/C, rounded to the nearest integer) $5,534
Following the calculation of the average “per trip” cost, additional variables were added to the fee calculations to further account for the transportation impacts of various land use types. • PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: ITE trip rates were used to estimate the number of trips by land use type to determine the equivalent fee on a per unit or square footage basis. • Average Vehicle-Trip Length: The distance drivers are willing to travel is largely dependent on the purpose of their trip. For example, a person traveling to work may be willing to commute 10 miles each day (20 miles of total driving) but choose to shop and dine in their local comm unity, resulting in shorter trips. The average vehicle trip lengths for various land use types (i.e., various trip types) are generated from the Pasadena TDF model.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
28 The average trip length data was used to generate a VMT factor for each land use type. The VMT factor was based on the average trip length generated by a single-family household. Since single family households generate different trip types, such as work, school and shopping trips, they are thought to reflect an average of a variety of trip types. Therefore, the VMT factor for a single - family household is 1.0, and uses with longer average trip lengths are greater than 1.0 while uses with shorter trip lengths, such as locally serving retail, are lower than 1.0. • Percent of New Vehicle-Trips: Trips generated by housing, employment centers and schools are considered to generate all “new” trips. However, a portion of trips associated with retail uses are not considered to be new trips; these trips are often referred to as “pass-by” trips. Pass-by trips are vehicles that are already traveling along a corridor that stop at a use on the way to their ultimate destination. For example, a person traveling from work to home may stop at a grocery store located along the corridor for a gallon of milk. In this situation, the grocery store is not generating a new trip as that vehicle would have already been traveling along the roadway. The pass-by trip credits are reflected in the fee calculations. • Residential Fee based on Unit Size: Assembly Bill (AB) 602 requires impact fee programs to establish fees for residential uses based on the size of the unit. Given that trip generation rates for residential uses have traditionally been calculated on a ‘per unit’ basis regardless of size, additional data was collected to estimate the number of vehicle trips based on household size (i.e., square feet, SF). Data from the National Household Travel Survey 7 and American Housing
Survey8 was used to develop trip rates based on unit size for single family housing. Using data that represents the State of California, the trip generation based on household size was estimated based on the following:
◦ The average daily trips per household were compiled based on the number of persons per household.
◦ The number of persons per household based on the size (SF) of the unit was then compiled. The data was grouped into four ranges for single family units: 1) Less than 2,000 SF, 2) 2,000 – 2,999 SF, 3) 3,000 – 3,999 SF, and 4) 4,000 SF or greater. ◦ According to the City of Pasadena, the median size of a new single-family home in Pasadena is 2,000 SF. Therefore, single family homes in the 2,000 – 2,999 SF size range were considered to be the typical size for a new home and used to create an Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) factor for each of the size ranges noted above.
◦ The same methodology was applied for multi-family units with a smaller size range considered based on typical product type: 1) 800 SF or Less, 2) 801 – 1,600 SF, 3) Greater than 1,600 SF. Multi-family units in the 801 – 1,600 SF size range were considered to be the typical size for a new unit and used to create an EDU factor for the remaining size ranges. ◦ Table 7 summarizes the EDU factors for single family and multi-family units applied to the impact fees. Appendix B contains detailed calculations.
7 2017 National Household Travel Survey California Add-On. 8 2021 California American Housing Survey.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
29 Table 7: Equivalent Dwelling Units for Residential Uses per AB-602 Residential Type & Size Range Average Persons per
Household Average Trips EDU
Single Family Units
< 2,000 SF 2.63 8.44 86%
2,000 – 2,999 SF 3.13 9.8 100%
3,000 – 3,999 SF 3.24 10.11 103%
≥ 4,000 SF 3.5 10.74 110%
Multi-Family Units
≤ 800 SF 2.07 6.9 79%
801 – 1,600 SF 2.74 8.73 100%
≥ 1,601 SF 3.02 9.53 109%
Notes:
EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit. EDUs for single family units and multi-family units are calculated separately within their respective categories and are not directly comparable across categories.
Data compiled from 2017 National Household Travel Survey California Add-On and 2021 California American Housing Survey. • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): An updated process for assessing fees on ADUs was established as part of Senate Bill (SB) 13. This legislation only allows a fee to be assessed on ADUs that are larger than 750 square feet. In order to be consistent with the procedures in the Planning Department, the City of Pasadena DOT will only assess a fee on ADUs that are greater than 800 square feet. In addition, the fee needs to be proportional to the size of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel. For example, if a 1,000 square foot ADU is proposed on a parcel with a 2,500 square foot primary residential unit, the size of ADU is 40 percent (1,000 ÷ 2,500 = 0.4) of the size of the primary dwelling unit. Then the fee assessed to the ADU would be 40 percent of the fee for a single-family residential unit in the 2,000 to 2,999 size range; $5,202 fee for units in applicable size range × 0.4 = $2,080.8 fee for ADU.
• Government Code Section 66005.19: This section requires local agencies to set reduced traffic impact fees for housing developments located within transit priority areas that are scheduled to
9 Government Code Section 66005.1 (a) – When a local agency imposes a fee on a housing development pursuant to Section 66001 for the purpose of mitigating vehicular traffic impacts, if that housing development satisfies all of the following characteristics, the fee, or the portion thereof relating to vehicular traffic impacts, shall be set at a rate that reflects a lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such housing developments in comparison with housing developments without these characteristics, unless the local agency adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that the housing development, even with these characteristics, would not generate fewer automobile trips than a housing development without those characteristics:
(1) The housing development is located within a transit priority area and the major transit stop, if planned, is programmed to be completed before or within one year from the scheduled completion and occupancy of the housing development.
(2) Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within one-half mile of the housing development.
(3) The housing development provides either the minimum number of parking spaces required by the local ordinance, or no more than one onsite parking space for zero- to two-bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
30 be completed within a year of the housing development. These developments must meet specific criteria such as proximity to convenience retail (within ½ mile) and parking restrictions. If these criteria are met, local agencies cannot impose higher fees for vehicular traffic impacts. For City of Pasadena, most of the forecast development of housing projects used to calculate the general fees are already located within transit priority areas, are within one-half mile of convenience retail uses, and provide minimum amounts of parking. Therefore, the general fee structure assumes these projects will have lower VMT impacts. Accordingly, the City expects that few multi-family housing projects would be eligible for additional TIF reductions, because the fee already accounts for a lower rate of automobile trip generation.
The updated transportation impact fees by land use type for the initial year of the fee program are shown in Table 8. As shown, the transportation impact fee for residential uses ranges from $1,705 for a median size multi-family residential unit to $5,722 for a median size single-family unit. For commercial uses, the impact fee ranges from $1.15 per SF for light industrial uses to $20.66 per SF for medical office uses. Some uses, such as ADUs that are 800 square feet or smaller, affordable housing, government buildings, religious uses, and parking structures, were excluded from the TIF analysis calculations, as the City did not wish to impose TIFs on those uses. Compared to the existing transportation impact fees, the updated transportation impact fees decreased across most land use categories, except for m edical office uses (Table 9).
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
31 Table 8: Transportation Impact Fees by Land Use Type Land Use Category Unit1 ITE Code2 PM Trip
Rate2
EDU/
% New Trips3
Trip
Length
VMT
Factor Fee per Unit4
Residential
Single Family DU 210 0.94 100%
17.5 1.00
$5,202 per DU
< 2,000 SF 86% $4,474 per DU
2,000 – 2,999 SF 100% $5,202 per DU
3,000 – 3,999 SF 103% $5,358 per DU
≥ 4,000 SF 110% $5,722 per DU
Multi-Family DU 221 0.39 100%
17.5 1.00
$2,158 per DU
≤ 800 SF 79% $1,705 per DU
801 – 1,600 SF 100% $2,158 per DU
≥ 1,601 SF 109% $2,352 per DU
ADU [>800 SF] DU Proportional to single family unit
Non-Residential
Lodging5 Room 310 0.59 100% 7.8 0.44 $1,437 per Room
Retail/Service SF 821 9.03 70% 6.0 0.34 $11.89 per SF
Office SF 710 1.44 100% 16.6 0.95 $7.57 per SF
Medical Office5 SF 720 3.93 100% 16.6 0.95 $20.66 per SF Hospital5 SF 610 0.86 100% 6.0 0.34 $1.62 per SF
Research and
Development5 SF 760 0.98 100% 16.6 0.95 $5.15 per SF
Light Industrial SF 110 0.65 100% 5.7 0.32 $1.15 per SF Notes:
1) Units = Dwelling Units (DU), Hotel (Rooms), and Square Feet (KSF). 2) Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban; Not Close to Rail Transit. PM peak hour trip rate per DU, Room, or KSF.
3) Pass-by Trips are accounted for retail uses.
4) Impact Fee = [PM Trip Rate] x [EDU/% New Trips] x [VMT Factor] x [Average Cost per PM Trip] 5) The study resulted in the designation of updated land use categories to better define proposed development and the establishment of updated fees in compliance with legislation passed within the past four years.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
32 Table 9: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Transportation Impact Fees Existing TR/TIF Category Current FY 2025 Rate Proposed TR/TIF Rate Single family (per dwelling unit) $11,141.89 $4,474 - $5,722 Multi-family (per dwelling unit) $4,314.10 $1,705 - $2,352 Industrial use (per square foot) $1.38 $1.15
Office use (per square foot) $10.14 $7.57
Retail use (per square foot) $13.48 $11.89
*Lodging use (per room) $13.48/SF (treated as retail) $1,437 per room *Medical Office use (per square foot) $10.14 (treated as office) $20.66 *Hospital use (per square foot) $10.14 (treated as office) $1.62 *R&D use (per square foot) $10.14 (treated as office) $5.15 Note: Asterisk (*) indicates recategorized land use.
4.5 Findings: Compliance with Government Code Section 66001 This section summarizes findings demonstrating the nexus between fees imposed, the use of the fees, and the development projects on which the fees are imposed, in compliance with Government Code Section 66001.
Identify the Purpose of the Fee
Fees collected from the TIF program funds the implementation or construction of transportation improvements in support of livability, neighborhood protection, and mobility goals as identified in the current City’s General Plan Land Use and Mobility Elements and to accommodate new development’s additional demand on roadways and non-vehicular transportation infrastructure.
Identify how the fee is to be used.
Funds collected will be used to implement the municipal transportation projects ( Table 3) required to address vehicular and non-vehicular demand generated by new development, improving the infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists, and increasing frequency of service on Pasadena Transit System.
Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee established and type of development project for which the fee is imposed.
Pasadena’s General Plan projects growth in residents and employees by 2035. The anticipated development pattern is expected to elevate the demand for the City’s transportation system, including increased traffic, VMT, transit ridership, and bicycle and pedestrian activity.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
33 Furthermore, this growth exacerbates safety risks by increasing potential conflicts at intersections, pedestrian crossings, and other high-use areas. Consequently, safety improvements – such as intersection enhancements, protected non-motorized facilities, and modernized traffic controls – are essential to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system while accommodating new development.
This demonstrates a direct link between new development and the necessity for transportation infrastructure improvements. To maintain service standards, the fees to be imposed on new development will ensure new development contributes its fair share of funds to mitigate the impacts caused by such development.
Determine how the need for the public facility relates to the type of development project for which the fee is imposed.
Funds collected through TIF will be used to implement transportation projects listed in Table 3. These projects were identified in the General Plan Mobility Element, the City’s Capital Improvement Program , Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan, and Local Road Safety Plan. These projects are essential to Pasadena’s long-term transportation planning goals to support increased demand for new developments.
The TIF program will not be used to address existing transportation deficiencies. The City has funded and is implementing several major intersection and roadway improvement projects to address existing and future traffic that are not funded through the Fee. Therefore, the TIF differentiates this relationship by aligning fees assessed with the projected impacts of each type of future development.
Demonstrate the relationship between the fee and the cost of the public facility.
The Nexus Study uses the Pasadena TDF Model to determine the anticipated growth within the City by 2035. A model select zone run was conducted to isolate traffic volumes on the roadway network associated with anticipated growth within the City. The project team reviewed the incremental growth in traffic volumes that occurs either through or in the vicinity of transportation improvements in the project list. The traffic volume forecast shows a 12.1% growth from existing conditions to future conditions in th e PM peak hour as a result of new development. Therefore, new developments would be responsible for funding the fair share (12.1%) of the City’s planned transportation improvements contained in the project list (Table 3). Section 4.2 demonstrates the calculations of the fee.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
34 5. Fee Implementation and
Administration
5.1 Administration Features and Costs
Transportation impact fees (Table 8) include a five percent (5%) administrative charge to cover overhead costs for City programs (legal, accounting, and administrative support) and fee program expenses such as revenue collection, cost accounting, public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Since the impact fees developed in this study are based on future facilities costs in 2025 dollars, applying an annual escalator is appropriate to account for inflation. Therefore, beginning on January 1, 2026 and annually thereafter, these fees will be adjusted to reflect changes in the Construction Cost Index (CCI). This ensures that as costs rise, new development continues to contribute to funding improvements at the time of payment. The City of Pasadena DOT will calculate the updated impact fee each year.
Transportation impact fees will be paid by a developer as a one-time fee prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Additionally, a development project may be conditioned to provide local transportation and streetscape improvements to offset the negative effects on local circulation system due to increased traffic on adjacent roadways. These improvements may include, but are not limited to, signal system upgrades, phasing adjustments, lane reassignment, and enhancements to bicycle or pedestrian facilities that are not part of the transportation project list in this analysis. Developments may be eligible to credit the cost of any specific improvement required as a condition of approval against the required transportation impact fee so long as such improvement would be considered a part of the Transportation Impact Fee Project List contained in Appendix A.
5.2 Program Monitoring
The California Mitigation Fee Act requires all municipalities to complete both an annual public report and a five-year public report summarizing the status of their fee programs.
5.2.1 Annual Report
Government Code Section 66006(b) requires the City to publicly disclose following information, with the Annual Report due within 180 days of the end of each fiscal year:
• A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. • The amount of the fee.
• The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. • The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned.
City of Pasadena Transportation Impact Fee Update
June 2025
35 • An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
• An identification of an approximate date when construction will begin if the City determines that it has sufficient funds to complete financing for an incomplete public improvement; verification of previously reported projects began as scheduled; and the provision of reason for the delay and a revised start date if construction did not commence.
• A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund. • The amount of refunds made from the accounts.
5.2.2 Five-Year Report
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d)(1), The submittal of the Five-Year Report to the City Council must occur every five years following the first deposit of impact fees into an account. The City Council is required to make specific legislative findings to continue its collection of the fees if any unexpended funds remain in the account, or must return any fees to the property owners who paid them.
The Council must approve the Five-Year Report, which does the following:
• Identify the purpose of imposing the fee;
• Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; • Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing any incomplete improvements that were identified when enacting the fee; and • Identify the approximate dates when the anticipated funds are expected to be received.
Appendix A: Impact Fee Program
Transportation Project List
Project
Category Project Name Type1
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Unfunded
Project
Cost
Source
Document &
Page Number2
Active Transportation / Complete Streets
Pasadena Bicycle Program FY 2026-2030 Bike $500,000 $400,000 CIP (5.1) Citywide Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program FY 2026-2030
Bike/Ped/Roa
dway $1,199,915 $1,199,915 CIP (5.3)
Arterials Speed Management Program FY
2026-2030
Roadway
Capacity $660,500 $660,500 CIP (5.4)
Citywide Complete Streets Program FY 2025-
2029
Bike/Ped/Roa
dway $20,000,000 $20,000,000 CIP (5.5)
Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan -
Outreach and Conceptual Design Ped $2,200,000 $2,000,000 CIP (5.8) - 75511 Citywide Continental Crosswalk
Implementation Ped $18,300,000 $18,225,000 CIP (5.12) - 75917 Compete Streets Project - Mountain St at
Sierra Bonita Ave and Sinaloa Ave - Design
Phase
Ped/Roadway $4,500,000 $4,420,000 CIP (5.13) - 75107
Rose Bowl Pedestrian & Bicycle Access Study Ped/bike $9,436,889 $9,436,889 CIP (5.14) Two-Way Traffic Conversion - Mentor Ave
from Walnut St to Colorado Blvd - Feasibility
Study
Roadway $200,000 $103,000 CIP (5.16) - 75918
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Program
FY 2021-2028 Ped $4,250,000 $2,991,771 CIP (5.17) - 75112 El Molino Avenue Quick-Build Greenway
Demonstration Project Bike $1,945,650 $1,945,650 CIP (5.18) Complete Streets Project - Rosemont Ave
Pedestrian Safety Enhancements from Seco St
to Orange Grove Blvd - Design Phase
Ped/Roadway $400,000 $400,000 CIP (5.48)
Arroyo Link Walking and Biking Path Ped/bike $45,000,000 $45,000,000 CIP (5.49) Traffic Operations, Traffic
Signals, ITS
Mobility Corridor Improvements FY 2026-
2030 Roadway $612,144 $612,144 CIP (5.19)
Old Pasadena Traffic Improvement - FY 2026-
2030 Roadway $310,000 $280,000 CIP (5.20)
ITS Equipment Upgrades/Replacement - FY
2021-2028 Ped $950,802 $450,000 CIP (5.21) - 75117
Citywide Leading Pedestrian
Interval/Accessible Pedestrian Signal
(LPI/APS) Implementation Program FY 2025-
2029
Ped $5,500,000 $5,500,000 CIP (5.22)
Project
Category Project Name Type1
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Unfunded
Project
Cost
Source
Document &
Page Number2
Implementation of Citywide Transportation
Performance Monitoring Network Roadway $3,182,428 $2,520,500 CIP (5.23) - 75602 Installation of Traffic Signal and Curb
Extensions at Sierra Bonita Ave and Orange
Grove
Ped/Roadway $970,000 $132,077 CIP (5.30) - 75134
Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
(HAWKs) at Various Locations Ped $2,000,000 $2,000,000 CIP (5.35) Mobility Hubs & First/Last Mile
Improvements Ped $24,000,000 $24,000,000 CIP (5.36)
Signal Preemption Equipment at Traffic
Signals Citywide - Phase II Roadway $280,000 $240,000 CIP (5.38) - 75916 Transportation System Safety Enhancements
Project – FY 2021-2028 Roadway $1,097,710 $400,000 CIP (5.39) - 75115 Transit
Purchase of Zero-Emission Pasadena Transit
Vehicles and Supporting Infrastructure Transit $43,300,000 $43,300,000 CIP (5.40) Purchase of Zero-Emission Pasadena Dial-A-
Ride Vehicles and Supporting Infrastructure Transit $3,542,500 $3,542,500 CIP (5.41) Systemwide Bus Zone Enhancements Transit $3,000,000 $3,000,000 CIP (5.42) Purchase of Replacement Transit Vehicles and
Expansion Fixed-Route Transit Vehicles Transit $42,445,364 $10,628,276 CIP (5.43) - 75085 Purchase of Dial-a-Ride Vehicles Transit $7,884,316 $3,969,278 CIP (5.44) - 75086 Construction of Transit Operations
Maintenance Facility Transit $100,000,000 $31,540,000 CIP (5.45) - 75707 Bus Stop Improvement Program Transit $4,332,093 $2,319,621 CIP (5.46) - 75900 Streets & Streetscape
Intersection Improvements at Colorado Blvd
and Garfield Ave Ped/Roadway $400,000 $400,000 CIP (2.14) Pedestrian Safety Enhancements on Oak Knoll
Ave Ped $300,000 $300,000 CIP (2.15)
Improvement of Green Street - Orange Grove
Blvd to Hill Ave Roadway $4,000,000 $4,000,000 CIP (2.16) Safe Routes to School - Sidewalk Repairs Ped $1,000,000 $1,000,000 CIP (2.17) Civic Center/Mid-Town Public Improvements
& Related Components - Phase II Ped/Roadway $8,500,000 $8,500,000 CIP (2.18) New York Drive Bridges - Preventive
Maintenance Misc $2,181,000 $2,181,000 CIP (2.19)
Arroyo Boulevard Bridge - Seismic Retrofit Misc $5,844,000 $5,844,000 CIP (2.21) Annual Citywide Street Resurfacing and ADA
Improvement Program FY 2026 Ped/Roadway $54,200,000 $20,400,000 CIP (2.1) Curb Ramp ADA Improvements Program FY
2022 - 2026 Ped $5,000,000 $2,201,950 CIP (2.4) - 73937 San Rafael Bridge Seismic Retrofit Misc $10,215,001 $1,121,661 CIP (2.9) - 73946 Street Lighting Program FY 2024-2028 Misc $6,775,000 $5,374,944 CIP (3.4) - 74422
Project
Category Project Name Type1
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Unfunded
Project
Cost
Source
Document &
Page Number2
Other
Playhouse Village - Colorado Blvd
Enhancements from Madison Ave to Oak
Knoll Ave - Feasibility Study
Ped/Roadway $250,000 $250,000 CIP (5.51)
Playhouse Village - N Lake Ave. from E
Colorado Blvd. to Corson St. - Feasibility
Study
Ped/Roadway $250,000 $250,000 CIP (5.52)
Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Improvements
on Kinneloa Ave at Del Mar Blvd Ped/Roadway $1,500,000 $1,500,000 CIP (5.53) Traffic Signal at Electronic Dr and Sierra
Madre Villa Blvd Roadway $950,000 $950,000 CIP (5.54)
Mountain Street Curb Extension Ped $297,000 $297,000 CIP (5.55) Complete Streets Project - Sunnyslope Ave at
Estado St - Construction Phase Ped/Roadway $425,000 $425,000 CIP (5.56) Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Retro-reflective backing plates Roadway $689,910 $689,910 LRSP (77) Nearside Signals Ped $105,628 $105,628 LRSP (77)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) Ped $499,590 $499,590 LRSP (77) Regulatory Signs Roadway $163,913 $163,913 LRSP (77)
Lake Ave & Maple St High Visibility
Crosswalks Ped $14,274 $14,274 LRSP (78)
El Molino Av & Villa St High Visibility
Crosswalks Ped $19,032 $19,032 LRSP (78)
Optional Restriping Roadway $3,218,430 $3,218,430 LRSP (79) Fair Oaks Ave & Maple Street Safety
Improvements Roadway $109,612 $109,612 LRSP (77)
Washington Boulevard Safety Improvements
btwn Forest Ave and Catalina Ave Roadway $190,891 $190,891 LRSP (77) Del Mar Boulevard Safety Improvements btwn
Los Robles Ave and east City Limits Roadway $310,621 $310,621 LRSP (77) Lake Ave & Washington Bl Optional Safety
Enhancements Roadway $59,951 $59,951 LRSP (78)
Fair Oaks Ave & Washington Bl Optional
Safety Enhancements Roadway $59,951 $59,951 LRSP (78)
Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Bl Optional
Safety Enhancements Roadway $516,719 $516,719 LRSP (78) Colorado Bl & Sierra Madre Bl Optional
Safety Enhancements Roadway $59,951 $59,951 LRSP (78)
Arroyo Pkwy & Green St Optional Safety
Enhancements Roadway $613,782 $613,782 LRSP (78)
Lake Ave btwn Mountain and California
Optional Safety Enhancements Roadway $55,288 $55,288 LRSP (79)
Project
Category Project Name Type1
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
Unfunded
Project
Cost
Source
Document &
Page Number2
Los Robles Ave btwn Washington and Maple
Optional Safety Enhancements Roadway $47,580 $47,580 LRSP (79) Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (PTAP)
Allen Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project
from north City limit to Colorado Blvd. Ped $6,951,691 $6,951,691 PTAP (Appendix F)
Del Mar Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement
Project from Pasadena Avenue to east City
limit
Ped $4,817,903 $4,817,903 PTAP
(Appendix F)
Fair Oaks Avenue Pedestrian Improvement
Project from north City limit to south City
limit
Ped $6,363,397 $6,363,397 PTAP
(Appendix F)
Foothill Boulevard Pedestrian Improvement
Project from Walnut Street to east City limit Ped $1,614,389 $1,614,389 PTAP (Appendix F)
Lake Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project
from north City limit to Colorado Boulevard Ped $3,563,718 $3,563,718 PTAP (Appendix F)
Lincoln Avenue Pedestrian Improvement
Project from north City limit to Washington
Boulevard
Ped $1,647,458 $1,647,458 PTAP
(Appendix F)
Los Robles Avenue Pedestrian Improvement
Project from north City limit to Walnut Street Ped $4,113,529 $4,113,529 PTAP (Appendix F)
Raymond Avenue Pedestrian Improvement
Project from Colorado Boulevard to E
Glenarm Street
Ped $3,329,173 $3,329,173 PTAP
(Appendix F)
San Gabriel Boulevard Pedestrian
Improvement Project from Maple Street to
California Boulevard
Ped $2,103,690 $2,103,690 PTAP
(Appendix F)
Washington Boulevard Pedestrian
Improvement Project from Lincoln Avenue to
Lake Avenue
Ped $6,716,088 $6,716,088 PTAP
(Appendix F)
Note:
1. Ped = Pedestrian, Misc = Miscellaneous
2. CIP = Capital Improvement Program (FY 2026), LRSP = Local Road Safety Plan (2022), and PTAP = Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (2024)
Appendix B: AB-602 Calculations for
Residential Units by Size
Table: Average Trip Generation by Dwelling Unit Size for Single Family and Multi Family Units to Comply with AB 602
1. Single Family
Number of
Units**
Percent of
Units Trips Number of
Units**
Percent of
Units Trips Number of
Units**
Percent of
Units Trips Number of
Units**
Percent of
Units Trips
1 person 3.82 2,606 27% 1.02 223 10% 0.38 47 8% 0.32 40 14% 0.55 2 persons 6.88 2,963 30% 2.08 785 35% 2.39 192 34% 2.33 65 23% 1.60 3 persons 9.44 1,548 16% 1.49 396 18% 1.65 103 18% 1.72 36 13% 1.22 4 persons 12.61 1,512 15% 1.95 460 20% 2.57 111 20% 2.47 57 20% 2.58 5 persons 14.72 710 7% 1.07 222 10% 1.45 59 10% 1.53 40 14% 2.11 6 persons 15.28 237 2% 0.37 101 4% 0.68 27 5% 0.73 20 7% 1.10 7 persons or more 21.08 217 2% 0.47 75 3% 0.70 27 5% 1.01 21 8% 1.59 Total 9,794 100% 8.44 2,261 100% 9.80 566 100% 10.11 279 100% 10.74 *Source: 2017 National Household Travel Survey California Add-On. **Source: 2021 California American Housing Survey.
2. Multi-Family
Number of
Units**
Percent of
Units Trips Number of
Units**
Percent of
Units Trips Number of
Units**
Percent of
Units Trips
1 person 3.82 955 45% 1.73 1,295 23% 0.88 579 13% 0.51
2 persons 6.88 560 27% 1.82 1,715 31% 2.11 1,472 34% 2.33 3 persons 9.44 253 12% 1.13 947 17% 1.60 743 17% 1.62
4 persons 12.61 234 11% 1.40 881 16% 1.98 857 20% 2.49
5 persons 14.72 72 3% 0.51 474 8% 1.25 386 9% 1.31
6 persons 15.28 19 1% 0.14 163 3% 0.45 155 4% 0.55
7 persons or more 21.08 17 1% 0.17 125 2% 0.47 149 3% 0.72 Total 2,111 100% 6.90 5,601 100% 8.73 4,342 100% 9.53
*Source: 2017 National Household Travel Survey California Add-On. **Source: 2021 California American Housing Survey.
3.50 79% 100% 109%
Persons per Household Trips per
Household*
Less than or equal to 800 sq.ft 801 to 1,600 sq.ft Greater than 1,600 sq.ft Average Persons Per Household 2.07 2.74 3.02
Greater than 4,000 sq.ft
Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Persons per Household Trips per
Household*
Less than 2,000 sq.ft 2,000 to 3,000 sq.ft 3,000 sq.ft to 4,000 sq.ft Equivalent Dwelling Unit 86% 100% 103% 110%
Average Persons Per Household 2.63 3.13 3.24
Appendix C: Pasadena Travel Demand
Forecasting Model Development Report
Pasadena Travel Demand Forecasting
Model Development Report
Prepared for:
City of Pasadena
Ref. LA17-2944
December 2018
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. ............................. 1 General Discussion of the TDF Model ................................................................................................................. 1 What Is a TDF Model? ................................................................................................................................... 1 How Is a TDF Model Useful? ......................................................................................................................... 1 How Do We Know if the TDF Model is Accurate? ........................................................................................ 1 Is the City of Pasadena TDF Model Consistent with Standard Practices? ................................................. 2 How Can the TDF Model Be Used? ............................................................................................................... 2 Study Area and Street Network ........................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of the Input Data ..................................................................................................... .................. 4 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... ...................................... 4 Land Use Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Traffic Analysis Zone System ............................................................................................................................... 8 Street Network .................................................................................................................................................... 11 HOV Lanes ..................................................................................................................... .............................. 13 Description of the Model Calibration Process .................................................................................. ..... 15 Trip Generation Rates ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Production and Attraction Balancing ................................................................................................................. 17 Further Refinement ............................................................................................................................................ 18 Area Types .................................................................................................................... ............................... 18 Trip Distribution (Gravity Model) ........................................................................................................................ 23 Friction Factors ............................................................................................................................................ 23 K Factors ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 Trips between the Model Area and External Areas ................................................................................... 25 Through Trips ............................................................................................................................................... 26 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................... ....................... 28 Turn Penalties .............................................................................................................................................. 28 Model Validation .................................................................................................................................... 29 Static Validation .................................................................................................................................................. 29 Comparison Techniques ............................................................................................................................. 30 Validation Guidelines .................................................................................................................................. 32 Dynamic Validation ............................................................................................................................................. 33 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) .................................................................................................. ............... 38 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) ............................................................................................ 38 Streetlight Data ................................................................................................................................................... 39 Mode Shift Analysis Tool ...................................................................................................... .................. 42 MSAT Approach ................................................................................................................. ................................. 42 Strategies Analyzed ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Sensitivity Testing and Updates to 2017 Model ............................................................................................... 45 Running the Model ............................................................................................................. .................... 48 Model Post Processing ....................................................................................................................................... 48 APPENDIX A: Traffic Analysis Zones Key Map ................................................................................... ... 51
List of Figures
Figure 1 –Pasadena Study Area and Street Network ................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 – Pasadena External Station Locations ..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3 – Model Area Types .................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 4 – Friction Factors ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 5 – Increase Speed on Colorado between Marengo and El Molino, from 35 mph to 45 mph .................. 34 Figure 6 – Add Capacity on Wilson between Walnut and Green, from 600 to 900 .............................................. 35 Figure 7 – Add Lanes on Mountain between Wheeler and Lake, from 1 to 2 lanes in each direction ................ 36 Figure 8 – Remove Lanes on Lake between Villa and Mountain, from 2 to 1 ....................................................... 37 Figure 9 – Trip Length Comparison ......................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 10 – Scatter Plot Comparing Streetlight and Pasadena Model Trip Distribution ..................................... 40 Figure 11 – Streetlight Zones .................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 12 – Mode Shift Analysis Tool Structural Procedure ................................................................................... 45 Figure 13 – Proximity Analysis: Bike ......................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 14 – Proximity Analysis: Transit .................................................................................................................... 50
List of Tables
Table 1 – Base Year Model Land Use Categories ..................................................................................................... 6 Table 2 – Future Model Land Use Categories .......................................................................................................... 7 Table 3 – External Stations ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4 – Network Changes ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 5 - Typical Roadway Speeds and Capacities ................................................................................................ 14 Table 6 – Trip Purpose Percentages ........................................................................................................................ 18 Table 7 - Vehicle Per Person in Pasadena ............................................................................................................... 19 Table 8 - Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rate Comparison ....................................................................................... 20 Table 9 – Average K Factor by Area Type ............................................................................................................... 25 Table 10 - Pasadena Commuting Patterns .............................................................................................................. 26 Table 11 - Matrix of Daily Through (EE) Trips .......................................................................................................... 27 Table 12 - Results of Daily Model Validation .......................................................................................................... 30 Table 13 - Results of Peak Period Model Validation ............................................................................................... 31 Table 14 - Results of Peak Hour Model Validation ................................................................................................. 31 Table 15 – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Comparison ........................................................................................... 38 Table 16 – Trip Length Comparison ......................................................................................................................... 39 Table 17 - Mode Shift Analysis Tool Strategies Tool Kit ......................................................................................... 46 Table 18 - Metro Gold Line Daily Ridership ............................................................................................................ 47 Table 19 - Mode Shift Analysis Tool Coefficients Recalibration ............................................................................ 47
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
1 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to introduce and describe updates to the Travel Deman d Forecasting (TDF) model built for the City of Pasadena. This report describes the model development process in general, and how this process was applied to develop the City of Pasadena model, including the sources of data used to develop key model inputs. This process was originally completed in 2011, then updated in 2013, and again in 2017. Most comparisons in the report compared the 2017 version of the model with the 2013 version.
General Discussion of the TDF Model
This section summarizes the answers to commonly asked questions related to TDF models and how the City can use a TDF model.
What Is a TDF Model?
A TDF model is a computer program that simulates traffic levels and travel patterns for a specific geographic area. The program consists of in put files that summarize the ar ea’s land uses, street network, travel characteristics, and other key f actors. Using this data, the mo del performs a series of calculations to determine the amount of trips generated, the beginning and endi ng location of each trip, and the route taken by the trip. The model’s output includes projections of traffic volumes on major roads, and peak hour turning movements at certain key intersections.
How Is a TDF Model Useful?
The City TDF model is a valuable tool for preparing long-range transportation planning studies, such as Pasadena’s General Plan and Mobility Element Update. The travel m o d e l c a n b e u s e d t o e s t i m a t e t h e average daily and peak hour traffic volumes and Vehicle Miles T raveled (VMT) on the major roads in response to future land use, transportation infrastructure, and policy assumptions. It can also be used to form a consistent basis by which to analyze the different poten tial land use scenarios. Additionally, using these traffic projections, transportation improvements will be identified to accommodate the changing traffic patterns associated with the General Plan’s preferred land use alternative.
How Do We Know if the TDF Model is Accurate?
To be deemed accurate for projecting traffic volumes in the future, a model must first be calibrated to a year in which actual land use data and traffic volumes are avai lable and well documented. A model is accurately calibrated when it replicates the actual traffic counts on the major roads within certain ranges of
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
2 error established in 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines (California Transportation Commission, 2010) and it demonstrates stable responses to varying levels of inpu ts. The Pasadena model has been calibrated to 2017 base year conditions using actual traffic counts, census data, Streetlight travel pattern data, and land use data compiled by City staff.
Is the City of Pasadena TDF Model Consistent with
Standard Practices?
The City of Pasadena model is consistent in form and function with standard travel forecasting models used in transportation planning. The model includes a land use/trip g e n e r a t i o n m o d u l e , a g r a v i t y - b a s e d t r i p distribution model, and a capacity-restrained equilibrium traff ic assignment process. The travel model utilizes Version 7.0 (Build 12410) o f the TransCAD Transportati on GIS software, which is consistent with m a n y o f t h e m o d e l s u s e d b y l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n C a l i f o r n i a a nd throughout the nation. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Southern California, maintains their current regional travel demand model in TransCAD.
How Can the TDF Model Be Used?
The TDF model can be used for many purposes related to the plan ning and design of the City’s transportation system. The following is a partial listing of the potential uses of the TDF model:
• To update the land use and circulation elements of the General Plan • To conduct a city-wide traffic impact fee program
• To evaluate the traffic impacts of area-wide land use plan alternatives • To evaluate the shift in traffic resulting from a roadway improvement • To evaluate the traffic impacts of land development proposals • To determine trip distribution patterns of larger land development proposals • To support the development of transportation sections of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) • To support the preparation of project development reports for Caltrans • To calculate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Trips (VT) per capita per the City’s transportation impact guidelines
Study Area and Street Network
Figure 1 shows the study area for the City travel demand forecasting model. The model area encompasses the City of Pasadena, and neighboring areas that have high leve ls of interaction with Pasadena. The study area contains all areas that may experience land use changes un der the Pasadena General Plan Land Use Update.
·110
·134
·210
"2
%&605
%&710
!"5
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted.mxd Pasadena Model Area and Street Network
Model Street Network
Pasasena Model Area
Figure 1
N
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
4 Summary of the Input Data
Data Collection
A data collection effort was under taken at the outset of the model update process. Data sources include SCAG for street network and regional travel data, Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) traffic count data, independently colle cted traffic counts within Pasad ena, GPS data for travel flow information, the City of Pasadena for land use, and street network data.
Land Use Data
Land use data is one of the primary inputs to the Pasadena model, and this data is instrumental in estimating trip generation. The model’s primary source of land use data is the City’s parcel-level land use database (maintained in a GIS format). This database provides information on how much development currently exists within each traffic analysis zone (TAZ), a detailed explanation of the TAZ system is provided below. For the 2017 update of the model, new developments and land use changes were listed individually and added or subtracted from the TAZ in which they are located. The land use data in the model is divided into a variety of residential and non-residential categories. The City of Pasadena model employs 27 data categories to describe land use in the City, these categories and their change from 2013 is shown in Table 1.
To refine the land use categories within the City, the Auto land use category was divided into general auto uses (Auto) and Auto Dealership. A new trip generation rate was developed for Auto Dealerships and a share of the land use in Auto was shifted to Auto Dealership. The trip generation rate for this land use was developed based on the Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 2017), Auto Sales (new) land use category.
The land use data in the model is also used to generate the population and employment, service population, for the VT and VMT per capita calculation. Each land use type has an associated factor, that is multiplied by the trip generation unit, 1,000 square feet, units, students, or acres, to generate residents in the case of the housing land uses and employees in the case of all other land u ses. The previous version of the model did n o t i n c l u d e a n e m p l o y m e n t f a c t o r f o r t h e e d u c a t i o n a l l a n d u s e s : Elementary School, High School, and College. Despite this gap in the factors, the they produced a t otal employment estimate for Pasadena that was similar to the American Community Survey (ACS) estimate of employment.
For the new model, employment factors were developed for Elementary School, High School, College, and A u t o D e a l e r s h i p l a n d u s e s . T h e employment factors for Elementar y School and High School with in Pasadena were developed based on data from Pasadena Unified School District (USD). The factor for College
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
5 was developed using the Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition , trip generation information for Junior/Community College. As Caltech is a research institution and has different employment patterns from other colleges within Pasadena, a different employment factor was developed for Caltech that is based on data from Caltech. The factor for Auto Dealership was developed using Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition trip generation information for the Auto Sales (new) land use.
So as not to overestimate the employment in Pasadena, the employment factors from the previous version of the model were proportionally reduced so that the total employment estimate, including the new factors, remains close to the ACS estimate of employment with in Pasadena.
The City’s land use data is supplemented by SCAG TAZ-based data for areas bordering the City of Pasadena, the buffer area. The land use for these TAZs was updated to reflect the 2016 Adopted version of the SCAG model.
Table 1 also shows the land use changes from the 2012 SCAG Model to the 2016 SCAG model in the buffer area according to the SCAG land use categories.
The future year models remain largely the same as the previous versions of the future year models. All land uses remained the same except Auto, because some land use was transferred from the Auto land used classification to the Auto Dealership classification. Per TAZ, t h e s a m e a m o u n t o f l a n d u s e ( K S F ) w a s transferred from Auto to Auto Dealership as in the 2017 model, except where the future amount of Auto was less than the amount transferred from Auto to Auto Dealersh i p i n t h e b a s e y e a r m o d e l . I n t h e s e situations, where the future model anticipates less overall Auto land use, only the amount of Auto present in the future was transferred to Auto Dealership. Table 2 contains the land use changes from the previous Adopted 2035 model and the updated Adopted 2035 model.
Model Land Use Category Units
Model 2013
Land Use
Total
New 2017
Land Use
Total
Delta Total Percent
Change Total
Single-Family (SFU) units 37,967 40,922 2,955 7.8%
Multi-Family (MFU) units 57,716 56,650 -1,066 -1.8%
Senior Citizen Housing units 2,203 2,203 0 0.0%
Lodging ksf 1,185 1,280 94 7.9%
Retail ksf 7,178 7,245 67 0.9%
Personal Services ksf 578 767 188 32.5%
Restaurant ksf 849 921 72 8.4%
Entertainment ksf 1,340 1,337 -3 -0.2%
Automotive Related ksf 1,432 1,205 -227 -15.8%
Auto Dealership (new in 2017) ksf 257 257 100.0%
Office ksf 13,624 13,840 216 1.6%
Medical Office ksf 1,078 1,188 110 10.2%
Government Office ksf 1,012 1,012 0 0.0%
Hospital ksf 2,092 2,092 0 0.0%
Religious Facilities ksf 1,966 1,967 1 0.1%
Cultural ksf 703 712 9 1.3%
Police and Fire Services ksf 130 130 0 0.0%
Park and Recreational Facilities acres 833 833 0 0.0%
Industrial ksf 4,569 4,239 -330 -7.2%
Utility Facilities acres 125 125 0 0.0%
Elementary and Middle School students 21,354 21,354 0 0.0% High Schools students 8,181 8,181 0 0.0%
College students 32,410 32,410 0 0.0%
SCAG Retail1
employees 2,437 2,131 -306 -12.6%
SCAG Office1
employees 14,112 16,602 2,490 17.6%
SCAG Industrial1
employees 3,159 2,612 -547 -17.3%
SCAG Educational1
employees 6,047 6,650 603 10.0%
Table 1
Pasadena Model
Summary Land Use Change
1 Data adapted from SCAG TAZs, uses SCAG units of employment Model Land Use Category Units
Old 2035
Land Use
Total
New 2035
Land Use
Total
Delta Total Percent
Change Total
Single-Family (SFU) units 39,935 42,008 2,073 5.2%
Multi-Family (MFU) units 69,985 69,300 -685 -1.0%
Senior Citizen Housing units 1,967 1,967 0 0.0%
Lodging ksf 1,525 1,525 0 0.0%
Retail ksf 10,149 10,149 0 0.0%
Personal Services ksf 734 734 0 0.0%
Restauran
t ksf 984 984 0 0.0%
Entertainment ksf 1,186 1,186 0 0.0%
Automotive Related ksf 893 708 -185 -20.7%
Auto Dealership (new in 2017) ks f 0 219 219 100.0%
Office ksf 21,413 21,413 0 0.0%
Medical Office ksf 1,950 1,950 0 0.0%
Government Office ksf 1,026 1,026 0 0.0%
Hospital ksf 2,284 2,284 0 0.0%
Religious Facilities ksf 1,796 1,796 0 0.0%
Cultural ksf 783 783 0 0.0%
Police and Fire Services ksf 88 88 0 0.0%
Park and Recreational Facilities acres 836 836 0 0.0%
Industrial ksf 2,183 2,183 0 0.0%
Utility Facilities acres 110 110 0 0.0%
Elementary and Middle School students 22,256 22,256 0 0.0% High Schools students 8,492 8,492 0 0.0%
College students 33,035 33,035 0 0.0%
SCAG Retail1 employees 2,735 2,793 58 2.1%
SCAG Office1 employees 15,913 16,858 945 5.9%
SCAG Industrial1 employees 3,893 2,915 -978 -25.1%
SCAG Educational1 employees 6,862 7,275 413 6.0%
Table 2
Pasadena Model
Summary Future Land Use Change
1 Data adapted from SCAG TAZs, uses SCAG units of employment
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
8 Traffic Analysis Zone System
T r a v e l d e m a n d m o d e l s us e t r a f f i c a na l y s i s z o ne s ( T A Z s ) t o s ub d i v i d e t he s t ud y a r e a f o r t he p ur p o s e o f connecting land uses to the street network. TAZs represent physical areas containing land uses that produce or attract vehicle-trip ends. The 2017 TAZ system is consistent with the 2013 Pasadena Travel Model.
The resulting model TAZ system includes 488 zones in the model area, of which 349 zones cover the City of Pasadena. The remaining 139 cover the surrounding areas of South Pasadena, Sierra Madre, San Marino, East Pasadena, City of Los Angeles, Arcadia, and Altadena. As t he SCAG TAZs in the Pasadena model area did not change in the 2012 or 2016, the Pasadena TAZs were not modified in the 2013 or 2017 updates of the Pasadena model. Detailed maps showing the TAZ numbers in all portions of the model area are included in Appendix A. Also included in the TAZ structure are the exter nal stations or gateways at points where major roadways provide access into the model area. The external gateways represent all major routes by which traffic can enter or exit the study area and capture the traffic entering, exiting, or passing through the model area.
Table 3 contains a list of the 44 external gateways numbered fr om 1001 to 1044 that were established for this model. Figure 2 illustrates the locations of the external stations.
Station Road Segment
1001 Foothill Blvd e/o Viro Rd
1002 I-210 Mainline n/o of Belkshire
1003 Dummy External
1004 Berkshire Ave e/o of Dover Rd
1005 Chevy Chase Drive n/o Highland Dr
1006 Chevy Chase Drive 2 w/o Linda Vista Rd
1007 SR 134 Mainline w/o Figueroa
1008 SR 134 HOV w/o Figueroa
1009 Dummy External
1010 Dummy External
1011 Colorado Blvd e/o Genevieve
1012 Yosemite Dr w/o Figueroa St
1013 Meridian St w/o Figueroa St
1014 York Blvd w/o Figueroa St
1015 N Figueroa s/o York Blvd
1016 Avenue 64 s/o York Blvd
1017 Pasadena Freeway s/o York Blvd
1018 Dummy External
1019 Arroyo Verde Rd s/o Pasadena Ave
1020 Monterrey Rd s/o Kolle Ave
1021 Meridian Ave s/o Pine St
1022 Huntington Rd WB n/o Beech St
1023 Fremont Ave s/o Huntington Dr
1024 N Atlantic Blvd s/o Huntington Dr
1025 Garfield Ave s/o Huntington Dr
1026 Virginia Rd s/o Huntington Dr
1027 West Dr s/o Huntington Dr
1028 San Marino Ave s/o Huntington Dr
1029 Del Mar Ave s/o Huntington Dr
1030 San Gabriel Blvd s/o Huntington Dr
1031 Madre St s/o Huntington Dr
1032 Rosemead Blvd s/o Huntington Dr
1033 California Blvd s/o Huntington Dr
1034 Baldwin Ave s/o Huntington Dr
1035 Huntington Rd EB e/o Baldwin Ave
1036 Colorado St e/o Baldwin Ave
1037 I-210 Mainline e/o Baldwin Ave
1038 I-210 HOV e/o Baldwin Ave
1039 Dummy External
1040 SR 134 Ramps n/o Colorado Blvd
1041 W Foothill Blvd e/o Baldwin Ave
1042 Orange Grove e/o Baldwin Ave
1043 Sierra Madre Blvd e/o Baldwin Ave
1044 Grandview Ave e/o Baldwin Ave
Dummy Externals may be used for future forecasting
endevors, where more external connections may
be needed, such as the planned Interstate 710 extension.
Table 3
Pasadena Model
External Stations
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!( !(!(!(
!(!(!( !(!(
!( !( !( !(
!( !( !( !( !(!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
NFigueroa St
Honolulu Av
MontroseAv
York Bl
West Colorado Bl
S Central Av
Li d a St
LindaVistaAv
Cordova St
Las Tunas Dr
Brand Bl
LaCrescentaAv Gould Av
El Monte Av
Avenue64
North Windsor Av
South Arroyo Pw
CypressAv
New York Dr
South California Av
Mission St
East California Bl
Longden Av
Broadway
North Santa Anita Av
East Del Mar Bl
East Glenoaks Bl
East Colorado Bl
Yosemite Dr
Ocean View Bl
Fremont Av
MissionDrGranada Av
S Glendale Av
North Lake Av
Eagle Dale Av
N Glendale Av
Main St
Rosemead Bl
Cañada Bl
West Del Mar Bl
Peck Rd
Duarte Rd
West Alhambra Rd
S Verdugo Rd
Glendale Bl
Rosemont Av
San Gabriel Bl
Foothill Bl
South 1st Av
West Foothill Bl
North Marengo Av
Live Oak Av
Walnut St
Temple City Bl
California Bl
Santa Anita Av
Adams St
Campus Dr
East Orange Grove Bl
Sierra Madre Bl
Briggs Av
West Sierra Madre Bl
EagleRock Bl
East Evergreen Av
Mountain Av
Maple St
San Pascual Av
Griffith Park Rd
LincolnAv
East Washington Bl
Colorado Bl
West Duarte Rd
BuenaVistaSt
ArrowHw
Foothill Bl
Lowell Av
South Michillinda Av
Via Marisol
AltadenaDr
North Fair Oaks Av
West Huntington Dr
Commonwealth Av
East Walnut St
Sanchez Dr
W Broadway E Broadway
SanMarinoAv Huntington Dr
Allen Av
Angeles Crest Highway
Newell St
Descanso Dr
Linda Vista Rd
GlenoaksBoulevard
Monterey Rd
North Hill Av
Avenue 50
East Altadena Dr
Crown Av
Armstrong Av
West Ventura St
Palm Dr
Dunsmore Av
West Loma Alta Dr
Pennsylvania Av
El Paso Drive
East Mountain St
Boston Av
CaminoSanRafael
New York Av
EChevyChaseDr
Mount Wilson Red Box Rd
·110
·134
·210
"2
%&605
%&710
!"5
1001
100210041005
1006
1007
1008
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016 1017
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
10241025
1026 1027
1028 1029
10301031 1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1040
1041
1042 1043
1044
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_ExtGates.mxd Pasadena External Station Locations
!( External Station
Model Street Network
Pasasena Model Area
Figure 2
N
!(
!(!(
!(
BaldwinAvenue
Foothill Boulevard
·210
1036
1037
1038
1041
!(
!(!(
!(
Berkshire Place
Foothill Boulevard
Berkshire Avenue
·210
1001
100210041005
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( N Figueroa Street
ColoradoBoulevard
Scholl Canyon Road
La LomaRoad
·134
1007
1008
1011
1012
1040
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
1020
10191017
1016
1015
1014
1013
·110
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
11 Street Network
The street network for the base year conditions in 2009 was dev eloped by modifying the 2003 SCAG network within the Pasadena model area, by using 2009 Pasadena Aerial photography, and by gathering input from the City regarding ro adway network assumptions. The model street network includes all freeways, state highways, arterials, collectors, and some relevant local roads within the study area (see Figure 1).
For the 2013 model update, several changes to the number of lan es were made to reflect changes in the network that occurred by September 2013. Additionally, an exter nal gate was also added to the model to represent the SR-134 On- and Off-Ramps at Colorado Blvd. Althou gh these ramps existed in 2009, they were not included in the previous model’s roadway network.
For the 2017 update, changes were made to three additional roadway segments. These changes are summarized in . There were other changes in the overall transpo rtation system in Pasadena, but not all changes in bike facilities and on-street parking caused a chang e i n l a ne s o r c a p a c i t y . T he ne t w o r k w a s modified to reflect changes associated with the following projects.
Lane (per
direction) Capacity Lane (per
direction) Capacity
Lincoln Ave Forest Ave Washington
Blvd 2 700 1 800 S-N
1 lane in each direction and a
center turn lane, capacity
increased because of turn lane
2013
Sierra Madre
Villa Ave Foothill Blvd Orange Grove
Blvd 2 650 1 750 Buffered
Bike Lanes S-N 1 lane in each direction, capacity
increased because of wider lanes 2013
Marengo Ave Villa St Orange Grove
Blvd 2 650 1 750 Bike Lanes S-N
1 lane in each direction and a
center turn lane, capacity
increased because of turn lane
2013
Direction Change Installed
Table 4
Pasadena Model
Network Changes
Roadway From To
2013 Model 2017 Model Bike
Facility
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
13 The major street categories used in the model are described below.
Freeways
Freeways are high-capacity facilities that primarily serve long er distance travel. Access is limited to interchanges typically spaced at least one mile apart. Intersta te 210 runs directly through the Pasadena model area in an east-west direction, then turns north-south on the west side of Pasadena where it extends north to the San Fernando Valley. State Route 134 (Ventura Freeway) is the east-west corridor that connects to Interstate 210 and the partially built 710 freeway connection on the west side of Pasadena. The Pasadena Freeway (CA -110) is a north-sout h facility that begins in the south of Pasadena and connects the City to downtown LA.
HOV Lanes
The high-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV Lanes) are freeway lanes reserved for vehicles with a driver and one or more passengers. These lanes encourage ride-sharing in the f reeway network by theoretically allowing these vehicles to move at a faster speed during peak periods. The Pasadena model contains the HOV lanes that run east-west starting on SR -134 (west of Pasadena) and co ntinuing on to Interstate 210 in the east- west direction.
Principal Arterials
Roadways designated as principal arterials are typically major roads that are not limited-access freeways. In Pasadena, these facilities serve travel between the City and it s neighboring jurisdictions. For example, one of the main principal arterial in Pasadena is the Sierra Madre Boulevard. Moreover, Colorado Blvd. Arroyo Parkway, and Los Robles Avenue have also being designated as principal arterials in Pasadena.
Minor Arterials
Roadway segments classified as Minor Arterials are major roads that provide connections within the City, between the City and neighboring areas, and through the City (c ut-through traffic). Arterials in Pasadena typically have two lanes in each direction, with travel speeds of 30-35 miles per hour (mph). Examples of these arterials are Fair Oaks, Lake, and Hill Avenues.
Major Collectors
Collectors are facilities that connect local streets to the art erial and highway system, and may also provide direct access to local land uses. Collectors typically have one lane in each direction, with speeds of 25-35 mph
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
14 Minor Collectors
Minor Collectors are smaller facilities that connect local streets to the arterial and highway system, and may also provide direct access to local land uses. Collectors typically have one lane in each direction, with speeds of 25-35 mph
Local Streets
Some Local Streets have been added to the model; these streets primarily feed collector roads and are typically one lane in each direction, with speeds of 20-25 mph. These streets where added mainly to provide more realistic loadings to larger roadways and may not accurately represents the actual volumes experience on an average day.
For each of its records, the street network database includes a street name, distance, functional class, speed, capacity, and number of lanes. T hese attributes were checked us ing maps, aerial photographs, and other data provided by the City. The number of lanes, peak hour parki ng restrictions and free flow speeds were verified for the entire network. The capacities of roadway links and travel time factors were adjusted during the calibration process for each time period to reflect actual conditions at specific locations. Table 5 shows the initial roadway speeds, lanes and capacities used for each roadway class in the model. Where necessary, these values were adjusted to reflect current conditions at specific locations.
Table 5 - Typical Roadway Speeds and Capacities
Roadway
Classification1
Average Speed Ranges
(mph)
Total Through
Lanes
Lane Capacities
(vphl)
Freeway 55-65 1-6 1800-2100
HOV Lanes 65 1 1800-2200
Principal Arterials 25-50 2-8 350-850
Minor Arterials 25-45 2-8 400-850
Major Collectors 25-45 2-8 400-650
Minor Collectors 25-45 2-8 350-800
Freeway Ramps 30-65 1-4 1200-1800
Local Streets 20-35 2-4 400-700
Centroid Connectors2 20 2 90000
1 Functional Class definitions are in concurrence with the City of Pasadena: 2004 Mobility Element. 2 Centroid connectors are abstract representations of the starting and ending point of each trip, and thus should have no capacity constraints.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
15 Description of the Model
Calibration Process
Model calibration is the process by which parameters for the model are determined. These parameters are based on comparing travel estimates computed by the model with actual data from the area being modeled.
This section provides a general description of the calibration steps and the adjustments made during the process to achieve accuracy levels that are within Caltrans guidelines.
Trip Generation Rates
Trip generation rates relate the number of vehicle trips going to and from a site to the type of land use intensity and diversity of that particular site. Each trip has two ends, a “production” and an “attraction”. By convention, trips with one end at a residence are defined as be ing “produced” by the residence and “attracted” to the other use (workplace, school, retail store, etc.), and are called “Home-Based” trips. Trips that do not have one end at a residence are called “Non-Home-Based” trips.
There are eight trip purposes used in the Pasadena model:
1. Home-Based Work (HBW): trips between a residence and a workplace.
2. Home-Based Other (HBO): trips between a residence and any other destination.
3. Non-Home-Based (NHB): trips that do not begin or end at a residence, such as traveling from a workplace to a restaurant, or from a retail store to a bank.
4. School (SCHOOL): trips to and from a school.
5. College (COLLEGE): trips to and from a college.
6. Recreational (REC): trips to and from parks and other entertainment venues.
7. Internal to External Commute Trips (IXHBW): Work trips of model area residents who work outside the model area
8. External to Internal Commute Trips (XIHBW): Work trips of model area employees who live outside the model area.
Trip generation rates are initially defined for total trips and later split by trip purpose, for both productions and attractions.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
16 The most widely used source for individual project vehicle trip generation rates in the transportation planning field is the Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition . T h i s b o o k c o n t a i n s n a t i o n a l a v e r a g e s o f t r i p g e n e r a t i o n r a t e s f o r a v a r i e t y o f l a n d u s e s i n w h a t a r e g e n e r a lly suburban locations. The ITE land use categories tend to be very specific, while model land use categories (accounting for all land use in the City) tend to be more general. ITE rates are appropriate for smaller site-specific uses, such as traffic studies for development review, and they can provide a starting point for t ravel models by capturing the interaction between all land uses in the City. However, the unique local ch aracteristics of Pasadena require the development of specific trip generation rates for the model.
A traffic impact study uses ITE trip generation rates because, in most cases, the project being examined shares characteristics with the information contained in the Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition. In other words, both the traffic impact study and the ITE rates rely on single-use, isolated projects that have plenty of free parking and little or no interaction with other nearby u s e s . W h e n a s s e s s i n g t h e i m p a c t o f a n individual project, the ITE rate s are typically appropriate sin ce they can correctly mimic the site being analyzed in the traffic impact study.
T h e P a s a d e n a m o d e l , o n t h e o t h e r hand, generates trips by purpo se, and balances productions to attractions. The model also has trip rates calibrated to local conditions and other advanced trip generation features such as the cross classification of dwelling units by vehicle availability. Traffic impact studies rely on ITE trip rates that only vary based on land use type or size. While these trip rates are a valid starting point for model calibration and validat ion, they have a different pur pose and are not necessarily suitable for demand forecasting without customization.
Certain ITE rates are more applicable to Pasadena model rates b ecause of their comparable level of detail.
For example, both ITE and the Pa sadena model have a generic office category. Some ITE rates, however, cannot be used directly because the land use category is not the same as the City’s land use classifications.
For example, ITE’s restaurant ca tegories include high turnover restaurant, fast food restaurant, fast food restaurant with drive-through with seating, fast food restaurant with drive-through and no seating, etc. By necessity, Pasadena restaurant rates represent a compilation and average of those rates customized to the City. It is important to recognize that ITE rates are also aver ages, based on driveway counts at multiple locations, so the utilization of average rates within the Pasadena model is entirely appropriate.
The original model trip generation rates were initially based on residential trip generation surveys, the SCAG regional model, the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) trip generation survey, and ITE’s Trip Generation 8th Edition. The trip generation rates developed for the Pasadena model used previously calibrated rates developed for the Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood city-wide models.
These model were selected because they share some socioeconomic and land use characteristics with the City of Pasadena. The rates were then modified to account for l ocal conditions based on traffic counts,
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
17 production-to-attraction balancing (discussed below), and the difference between ITE and model land use d e f i n i t i o n s . T h e f i n a l P a s a d e n a trip generation rates are uniqu e t o t h e P a s a d e n a m o d e l , a n d t h e y a r e ultimately based upon the results of successful model calibration and validation. For the model update, rates remain the same but for the addition of Auto Dealership.
Production and Attraction Balancing
Local trips (internal-to-internal, or I-I) are trips that both start and end in the study area. One of the basic assumptions of any travel model is that the total number of local trips produced is equal to the total number of local trips attracted. It is logically assumed that if a journey is started somewhere, it must have an ending somewhere else. If the total productions and attractions are no t equal, the model will typically adjust the attractions to match the productions, thus ensuring that each d eparting traveler finds a destination. While it is never possible to achieve a perfect match between productions and attractions prior to the automatic balancing procedure, the existen ce of a substantial mismatch in one or more trip purposes indicates that either land use inputs or trip generation factors may be in err or. Therefore, in developing the trip productions and attractions for the Pasadena Model, a careful p re-balancing was conducted outside the model stream to eliminate any possible disparity errors.
In addition to production and attraction balancing, the percent of total trips for each purpose were checked for reasonableness. Table 6 shows the trip purpose as a share to total trips in the 2013 model, the updated model and based on the subset of the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) that represents Pasadena.
T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t the trip generation component of the Pasadena model is performing reasonably.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
18 Table 6 – Trip Purpose Percentages
Trip Purpose
Percent of Total Daily Vehicle Trips
2013 Pasadena
Model1
2017 Pasadena
Model1
CHTS
Pasadena2
Home-Based Work
(HBW) 25% 25% 21%
Home-Based Other
(HBO) 42% 44% 49%
Non-Home-Based
(NHB) 33% 31% 30%
Total 100% 100% 100%
1 The trip purposes listed are the broad categories applied in most every travel model. The more specific Pasadena trip purposes are subsets of these broader trip purposes, and have been aggregated here for ease of comparison. IXHBW and XIHBW are subsets of the HBW trip purpose.
School, College, and REC are subsets of the HBO trip purpose. 2 2012 California Statewide Household Travel Survey
Further Refinement
In addition to the standard trip generation procedures, certain enhancements were added to the Pasadena model to better capture local trip making characteristics and provide the ability to test certain policy options for future development scenarios . These enhancements include di viding the model area into four “area types” that represent vehicle ownership characteristics within the City.
Area Types
City-wide travel demand models frequently benefit from different trip generation rates for single land use categories. For example, single family residences may have different vehicular trip generation characteristics depending on where they are located within city boundaries. Our experience with other models indicates that vehicular availability within each zone is a major factor in vehicular trip generation, where these differences can across different regions within the city. Therefore, four different area types that account for vehicle availability were selected in the model.
Some models, such as the SCAG Planning Model, use a vehicle availability model to estimate vehicular trip generation. In developing the original Pasadena Model, National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data was used to estimate the average number of vehicles on a per person basis within each of the TAZs in the Pasadena Model. The vehicles per pers on ra tes wer e obt ai ned at a census tract level and subsequently
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
19 a p p l i e d a t t h e T A Z l e v e l . Table 7 s h o w s t h e a v e r a g e v e h i c l e s p e r p e r s o n f o r t h e C i t y o f P a s a d e n a a n d surrounding buffer area as obtained in NHTS dataset.
Table 7 - Vehicle Per Person in Pasadena
Parameter Average Number of Vehicles per
Person
Average 0.692
Maximum 0.907
Minimum 0.368
Standard Deviation 0.102
Area Type 1 (Old Pasadena) NA
Area Type 2 (Avg. Vehicle Availability) .590 to .793
Area Type 3 (High Vehicle Availability) > .793
Area Type 4 (Low Vehicle Availability) < .590
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
20 Table 8 - Daily Vehicle Trip Generation Rate Comparison Land Use Type Units Model Area
1 Model Area
2 Model Area
3 Model Area
4 Single-Family (SFU) units 8.93 9.79 10.30 8.76
Multi-Family (MFU) units 6.11 6.90 7.21 6.49
Senior Citizen Housing units 1.88 2.06 2.06 1.55
Lodging ksf 2.82 3.09 3.09 2.58
Retail ksf 35.72 46.35 39.14 36.05
Personal Services ksf 41.36 44.29 45.32 36.05
Restaurant ksf 51.70 82.40 82.40 72.10
Entertainment ksf 36.66 41.20 40.17 39.14
Automotive Related ksf 79.90 87.55 87.55 87.55
Auto Dealership (new in 2017) ksf 26.17 28.68 28.68 28.68 Office ksf 11.28 10.30 10.30 9.79
Medical Office ksf 23.50 30.90 30.90 30.90
Government Office ksf 28.20 61.80 28.84 28.84
Hospital ksf 14.10 16.48 15.45 17.51
Religious Facilities ksf 11.28 10.30 12.36 12.88
Cultural ksf 26.32 28.84 28.84 25.75
Police and Fire Services ksf 6.58 6.70 7.21 6.70
Park and Recreational Facilities acres 23.50 26.78 25.75 25.75 Industrial ksf 1.88 1.55 2.06 1.55
Utility Facilities acres 18.80 25.75 25.75 25.75
Elementary and Middle School students 1.22 1.24 1.34 1.44 High Schools students 1.32 1.44 1.44 1.44
College students 0.47 0.52 0.82 0.93
SCAG Retail1 employees 30.08 36.05 37.08 33.99
SCAG Office1 employees 3.29 3.61 3.81 3.09
SCAG Industrial1 employees 2.82 3.09 3.09 3.09
SCAG Educational1 employees 2.16 2.37 2.37 2.37
1 ITE multifamily (MFU) rates range from 4.18 to 6.72 depending on the dwelling type. Variability among these trip rates was based on Area Type
2 Not all non‐residential land use categories are present in each area type. 2010 trip generation rates were only developed for land uses present in 2010 in each area type.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
21 Using this information, four area types were developed for the City of Pasadena Model. The TAZs were divided into area types by using the standard deviation ( ) calculated from the da ta set. The standard deviation is a statistical parameter used to measure the variab ility of particular data set from its mean (or average). The standard deviation used here, relates to the normal distribution. In a normally distributed data set, most of the data tends to cluster around the mean, and a smaller percentage of the data represent the upper and lower limits. For example, the bulk of the data (68.2 %, representing 2 standard deviations) was grouped to represent Area Type 2, where those TAZs were assumed to have average vehicle availability.
Trip generation rates for each land use in each area type are shown in Table 8.
A description of the area types is provided below:
• Area Type 1 (Old Pasadena): Irrespective of vehicle availability, there is evidence that urban density and parking benefit districts play a major role in trip generation characteristics, thus downtown Pasadena requires an area type of its own.
• Area Type 2 (average vehicle availability): As explained above, this is measured using one standard deviation ) below and one above the mean (0.590 to 0.793), which accounts for most Pasadena residents or 68.2% of the data set.
• Area Type 3 (high vehicle availability): Where the rate of vehicles per person is above 0.793, which accounts for 15.9% of the data.
• Area Type 4 (low vehicle availability): Where the rate of vehicles per person is below 0.590, which accounts for 15.9% of the data.
Figure 3 shows the area types applied to the TAZ structure of the Pasadena city-wide model. ·110
·134
·210
"2
%&605
%&710
!"5
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_Areas.mxd Pasadena Model Area Types
Model Street Network
Model Area Type
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Figure 3
N
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
23 Trip Distribution (Gravity Model)
Once the trip generation step has determined the number of trips that begin and end in each zone, the trip distribution process determines t he specific destination of eac h originating trip. The destination may be within the zone itself, resulting in an intra-zonal trip. If th e destination is outside of the zone of origin, it is a n i n t e r - z o n a l t r i p . I n t e r n a l - i n t e r n a l ( I - I ) t r i p s o r i g i n a t e a nd terminate within the model area. Trips that originate within but terminate outside of the model area are internal-external (I-X), and trips that originate outside and terminate inside of the model area are external-internal (X-I). Trips passing completely through the model area are external-external (E-E).
The trip distribution model uses a gravity model equation to di stribute trips to all zones. This equation estimates an accessibility index for each zone based on the number of attractions in each zone and a friction factor, which is a function of travel time between zones. Each attraction zone is given its share of productions based on its share of the accessibility index. This process app lies to the I-I, I-X, and X-I trips. The E-E trips are added to the trip matrix prior to final assignment.
This stage of the model was calibrated and validated using data from the California Household Travel Survey for trip length and Streetlight Data for trip distribution. These comparisons are described in more detail in the Model Validation section below.
Friction Factors
Friction factors, also known as travel time factors, determine the relative attractiveness of each destination zone based on the travel time between TAZs and the number of potential origins and destinations in each TAZ. These factors are used in the trip distribution stage of t he model. The 2017 Pasadena model friction factors were initially based on data reported in national model ing reference documents such as National Cooperative Highway Research Pro gram (NCHRP) 365 and modified u sing the 2012 CHTS Data explained in the Model Validation Section. The friction factor curves are shown below in Figure 4.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
24 Figure 4 – Friction Factors
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
25 K Factors
To inform the trip distribution patterns observed in the Streetlight data, a K Factor matrix was added to the model. The K factors make certain travel patterns more or less attractive and are applied on top of the travel patterns predicted by the gravity model. As a method of updating the model to match the observed travel patterns described above, K Factors were applies based on Streetlight data. The factors were generated by comparing the percent of total t ravel origin-destination matrix for the base version of the model with the matrix for the Streetlight data. For each origin-destination pa ir, the Streetlight value was divided by the base model, to generate the base K Factors. Subsequent alterations were made to select K Factors to better match the Streetlight data observations. The table below summarizes the average K Factor for each model area.
Table 9 – Average K Factor by Area Type
Area Type 1 2 3 4
1 0.58 0.63 0.50 0.64
2 0.63 1.03 0.83 1.04
3 0.48 0.84 1.02 0.81
4 0.64 1.05 0.80 1.60
Trips between the Model Area and External Areas
One of the important inputs to a travel model is an estimate of the amount of travel between the study area and neighboring areas outside the model. These are typically called internal-external, or I-X/X-I, trips.
The United States Census Bureau surveys residential and work locations at the place level. Table 10 illustrates the distribution of work locations for Pasadena residents and t he distribution of residential locations for Pasadena employees. The census data is specific to Pasadena, while the model area also encompasses parts of neighboring cities. It is assumed that a certain percentage of Pasadena employees who live outside the City of Pasadena live within the buffer area included in the model
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
26 Table 10 - Pasadena Commuting Patterns
Work Locations for Pasadena Residents
Year % Working Inside Pasadena % Working Outside Pasadena 2015 24% 76%
Residential Locations of Pasadena Employees
Year % Living Inside Pasadena % Living Outside Pasadena 2015 13% 87%
Source: US Census Bureau
Based on this data, the proportion of HBW trips entering and le aving the study area was estimated. For non-work trip purposes, information from the SCAG Regional Model was used to develop initial estimates of the percent of HBO and NHB trips that travel between Pasadena and to other regions in the Los Angeles metropolitan region.
Through Trips
Through trips (also called extern al-external, or EE trips) are trips that pass through the study area without stopping inside the study area. The major flows of through traf fic in the Pasadena area use Interstate 210, State Route 134, Huntington Blvd, and the Pasadena Freeway (CA-110) with lower volumes of through traffic using other arterials. The size of these flows was estimated based on Caltrans traffic counts (PeMS) and the SCAG Regional Model. A sub-area e xtraction was performed in the SCAG Regional Model to obtain the traffic flow patterns coming in and out of the external stations, then the flows were adjusted using the Fratar algorithm to properly estimate the volumes as observed by the c ounts. In other words, the through trips were modified in conjunction with the external station weights so that results at the model gateways accurately represent observed data. The resulting through trip matrix is summarized in Table 11.
Origin - Destination ID 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 Sum Foothill Blvd 1001 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.86 5.28 30.40 15.29 11.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 125.52 84.45 38.99 3.92 92.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 154.95 7.76 79.85 0.00 659.34 I-210 Mainline 1002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.52 9.35 36.30 17.18 25.81 0.00 271.98 0.00 0.00 110.18 0.45 1428.64 2168.85 407.80 1005.82 168.09 0.00 571.92 49.76 880.25 116.02 2014.24 866.11 912.56 78.97 690.51 20178.61 5496.85 0.00 39.31 586.66 43.60 59.35 0.00 38254.68 1003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Berkshire Ave 1004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.24 10.59 3.20 17.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.21 1.44 67.50 0.00 149.04 Chevy Chase Drive 1005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 708.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 708.75 Chevy Chase Drive 2 1006 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.96 708.20 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.28 0.62 0.04 1.29 0.59 0.38 0.04 0.71 6.33 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.03 0.20 0.00 727.38 SR 134 Mainline 1007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.66 80.17 215.78 1531.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 677.38 1.13 325.62 231.77 289.62 77.06 1.72 193.55 595.05 1076.34 189.50 2162.70 1182.60 1296.51 156.59 1076.85 34654.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 1193.82 138.90 95.72 0.00 47466.00 SR 134 HOV 1008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.32 14.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.16 0.00 17.78 10.42 10.48 3.57 21.29 33.46 71.53 92.77 14.63 148.71 91.85 139.22 11.41 261.55 0.00 5554.87 0.00 0.00 148.48 12.83 12.77 0.00 6700.32 1009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Colorado Blvd 1011 0.00 3.40 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 1.17 9.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.89 6.61 233.04 114.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.46 0.00 67.97 13.68 167.69 0.00 0.00 0.79 4.94 9.15 4.76 27.02 13.28 29.67 1.69 28.65 273.22 203.39 0.00 0.00 28.16 2.24 4.46 0.00 1375.38 Yosemite Dr 1012 3.60 17.32 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 78.97 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.37 18.00 1216.63 120.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 93.60 0.00 51.61 4.35 55.27 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.31 1.66 8.33 9.55 9.25 2.25 16.63 300.93 7.38 0.00 0.00 16.29 1.88 1.38 0.00 2091.42 Meridian St 1013 5.91 28.22 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 218.95 11.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.95 273.59 9.09 0.00 0.00 23.79 2.44 1.94 0.00 621.27 York Blvd 1014 6.31 22.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 258.34 14.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.58 0.00 175.54 2976.15 311.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 636.23 0.00 406.07 53.04 1024.54 52.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.56 0.00 24.44 31.90 0.00 66.87 2.22 74.38 1.46 0.00 0.00 7.94 1.17 0.78 0.00 6185.16 N Figueroa 1015 6.25 27.08 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 1576.56 109.81 0.00 0.00 34.65 1286.70 0.00 3001.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.06 0.00 46.35 7.40 272.12 23.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.39 0.00 15.02 20.68 0.00 73.25 12.12 553.63 2.88 0.00 0.00 47.15 5.42 3.08 0.00 7168.50 Avenue 64 1016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 158.16 0.00 387.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 545.94 Pasadena Freeway 1017 0.00 245.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 5.14 22.90 379.93 109.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 97.65 0.00 388.32 462.15 1.16 862.40 369.00 1224.27 25.92 0.00 0.00 965.83 142.17 144.68 0.00 5446.44 1018 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arroyo Verde Rd 1019 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.37 0.00 6.09 2.62 81.32 6.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.96 6.11 0.00 47.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 157.14 Monterrey Rd 1020 0.00 37.39 0.00 3.61 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 491.33 0.00 15.37 4.82 113.39 14.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 0.00 12.23 17.77 0.00 69.18 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 784.08 Meridian Ave 1021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 640.14 25.93 0.00 0.00 31.84 134.62 0.00 699.82 42.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.82 505.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2082.51 Huntington Rd WB 1022 0.00 1565.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.37 16.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132.04 9.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.35 0.00 197.04 176.26 0.00 970.56 49.32 15.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.43 40.32 0.00 0.00 3221.37 Fremont Ave 1023 0.00 2427.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 293.72 13.81 0.00 0.00 7.51 32.55 0.00 221.82 67.03 0.00 13.05 0.00 7.94 15.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.09 7.47 0.00 78.11 7.16 11.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.48 4.61 0.00 0.00 3246.48 N Atlantic Blvd 1024 0.00 455.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 0.00 24.71 7.50 0.00 25.04 0.00 0.00 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.70 9.78 0.00 874.61 89.46 16.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.61 77.55 0.00 0.00 1750.41 Garfield Ave 1025 0.00 919.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 286.11 12.88 0.00 0.00 255.13 76.07 0.00 1094.13 334.34 0.00 359.04 0.00 20.04 49.67 0.00 124.88 3.52 0.00 0.35 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 0.00 4.80 5.19 0.00 37.89 1.81 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.95 0.00 0.00 3594.78 Virginia Rd 1026 0.00 159.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 68.74 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 68.36 40.15 0.00 84.24 0.00 10.24 7.81 0.00 24.86 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 466.56 West Dr 1027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 11.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 321.33 20.04 16.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.60 17.28 0.00 0.00 404.19 San Marino Ave 1028 0.00 468.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 240.70 64.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.81 4.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.00 809.19 Del Mar Ave 1029 0.00 51.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 369.21 41.62 0.00 0.00 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 343.83 60.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.94 21.58 0.00 0.00 906.39 San Gabriel Blvd 1030 0.00 1174.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1203.64 90.76 0.00 0.00 33.30 1.23 0.00 11.41 6.35 0.00 115.40 0.00 0.00 2.31 0.00 16.11 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 457.36 92.82 23.33 0.00 0.00 50.15 94.09 49.76 0.00 0.00 3424.68 Madre St 1031 0.00 81.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 167.15 20.55 0.00 0.00 6.92 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.21 2.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.25 3.53 2.90 0.00 0.00 345.87 Rosemead Blvd 1032 190.70 1799.11 0.00 13.31 0.00 0.80 2183.30 135.77 0.00 0.00 88.56 4.70 0.00 30.42 21.51 0.00 458.73 0.00 30.56 8.16 0.00 225.14 19.47 43.99 5.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 831.66 137.04 63.32 0.00 0.00 171.13 98.37 54.49 0.00 0.00 6615.27 California Blvd 1033 86.73 842.41 0.00 7.30 0.00 0.36 1243.42 68.71 0.00 0.00 43.47 6.25 0.00 34.96 25.86 0.00 413.70 0.00 29.85 9.81 0.00 165.79 4.44 7.66 5.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 126.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3122.55 Baldwin Ave 1034 40.21 523.98 0.00 3.17 0.00 0.14 709.73 101.98 0.00 0.00 24.77 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3106.04 265.78 116.30 0.00 0.00 68.05 119.66 513.69 0.00 0.00 5597.91 Huntington Rd EB 1035 8.64 82.35 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.04 166.70 16.80 0.00 0.00 5.11 1.75 0.00 70.18 97.53 0.00 979.62 0.00 56.69 62.28 0.00 1085.02 86.37 769.83 38.38 0.00 320.16 8.32 144.12 923.10 0.00 1009.69 0.00 2522.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.28 0.00 10.70 0.00 0.00 8487.99 Colorado St 1036 77.90 859.18 0.00 8.97 0.00 0.49 1460.97 153.92 0.00 0.00 46.70 17.26 12.26 3.08 13.89 0.00 498.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 206.51 0.00 209.62 0.00 0.00 3568.86 SR 134 Mainline 1037 0.00 20245.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 34872.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 568.03 217.08 336.92 68.07 429.84 0.00 1116.16 0.00 0.00 8.77 0.00 1.82 0.00 3.83 1.66 0.00 5.54 0.00 0.00 7.32 0.00 12.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2632.29 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 60535.35 SR 134 HOV 1038 0.00 5446.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 5593.07 0.00 0.00 165.44 24.81 22.66 4.98 9.99 0.00 40.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11404.80 1039 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SR 134 Ramps 1040 0.00 19.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.82 60.65 19.26 184.71 136.83 135.68 19.19 150.51 2618.34 77.35 0.00 0.00 144.63 15.73 19.15 0.00 3606.12 W Foothill Blvd 1041 36.71 503.41 0.00 4.91 0.00 0.20 1204.04 173.28 0.00 0.00 34.22 13.08 29.04 7.59 40.95 0.00 930.34 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.00 105.34 17.54 111.10 2.63 0.00 41.55 0.70 28.81 173.85 0.00 167.12 0.00 113.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 154.49 0.00 359.74 0.00 0.00 4254.93 Orange Grove 1042 4.63 39.39 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.02 138.54 12.19 0.00 0.00 3.42 1.40 2.69 1.02 4.75 0.00 140.45 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 42.18 4.07 55.19 0.76 0.00 13.94 0.41 7.08 70.96 0.00 56.83 0.00 398.54 9.02 129.14 109.26 24.76 0.00 15.59 455.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 1743.12 Sierra Madre Blvd 1043 191.74 209.14 0.00 89.55 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 490.86 Grandview Ave 1044 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum 659.34 38254.67 0.00 149.03 708.20 728.08 47465.99 6700.32 0.00 0.00 1375.38 2091.42 621.27 6185.16 7168.50 545.94 5446.44 0.00 157.14 784.08 2082.51 3221.37 3246.48 1750.41 3594.78 466.56 404.19 809.19 906.39 3424.68 345.87 6615.26 3122.55 5597.90 8487.99 3568.86 60535.29 11404.79 0.00 3606.12 4254.93 1743.12 490.86 0.00 ######### Table 11
Pasadena Model
Matrix of Daily Throught (EE) Trips
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
28 Trip Assignment
The trip assignment process deter mines the route that each vehi cle trip takes from a particular origin to particular destination. The mode l selects these routes in a man ner that is sensitive to congestion and the desire of drivers to minimize overall travel time. It uses an i terative, capacity-restrained assignment, and volume adjustments are made that progress towards equilibrium. This technique finds a travel path for each trip that minimizes travel time, while taking into account cong estion delays caused by the other simulated trips in the model.
The general assignment process includes the following steps. Assign all trips to the links along their selected paths. After all assignments, examine the volume on each link and adjust its impedance based on the volume-to-capacity ratio.
Repeat the assignment process for a set number of iterations or until specified criteria related to minimizing travel delays are satisfied.
Calibration of the street network included modification of the centroid connectors to more accurately represent the location at which traffic accesses local roads; adjustment of speeds from posted speed limits to reflect the attractiveness of the route and the prevailing speed of traffic, refinements to the turn penalties files, and finally an additional travel time factor was used.
Turn Penalties
T u r n p e n a l t i e s a r e u s e d t o p r o h i b i t o r a d d d e l a y t o c e r t a i n t u rning movements. The Pasadena model prohibits traffic from getting off a freeway ramp and then imme diately getting back on. The model also prohibits traffic from making turns across impassable medians. In addition, the model does not allow U- turns in order to avoid counter-intuitive traffic routing. Info rmation on prohibited turns was maintained from the 2013 Travel Model.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
29 Model Validation
Model val i dati on i s t he te rm used to d escri be model performanc e i n term s of ho w cl osel y the model ’s output matches existing travel data in the base year. During the model development process, these outputs are used to further calibrate model inputs. The extent to which model outputs match existing travel data validates the assumptions of the inputs.
Traditionally, most model validat ion guidelines have focused on the performance of the trip assignment function in accurately assigning trips to the street network. T his metric is called static validation, and it remains the most common means of measuring model accuracy.
Models are seldom used for static applications; however, by far the most common use of models is to forecast how a change in inputs would result in a change in tra ffic conditions. Therefore, another test of a model’s accuracy focuses on the model’s ability to predict real istic differences in outputs as inputs are changed. This method is referred to as dynamic validation. This section describes the highest-level validation checks that have been performed for the Pasadena model.
Additional steps to validate the Trip Distribution stage of the model are also discussed. As these validation methods rely on newer data sources and innovative data comparisons, there are no standardized validation thresholds for the Trip Distribu tion validation steps. Therefor e, the VMT section below describes comparisons between the model and other data sources rather than strict validation criteria.
Static Validation
The most critical static measure ment of the accuracy of any tra vel model is the degree to which it can approximate actual traffic counts in the base year. Caltrans ha s established certain trip assignment guidelines for models forecasting future year traffic in Travel Forecasting Guidelines (California Department of Transportation, November 1992). The validity of the Pasadena model was tested under daily, AM peak period, PM peak period, midday peak period, off-peak period, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour conditions.
Model volumes were compared to existing traffic counts at 206 individual count sites for daily, peak period, and peak hour validation. The results are shown in, Table 12, Table 13, and Table 14.
Link volume results from model runs were examined and checked for reasonableness. Links where model results varied substantially from the observed counts were identified, and the characteristics of these links were reviewed to ensure that the link attributes reflected local operating conditions. In some cases, link characteristics such as speeds were modified to better reflect conditions on the ground.
Pa
sadena Model Development Report
December 2018
30 Comparison Techniques
Travel model accuracy is usually tested using four comparison techniques:
• The volume-to-count ratio is computed by dividing the model volume by the actual traffic count for individual roadways (or intersections) area-wide.
• The maximum deviation is the difference between the model volume and the actual count divided by the actual count.
• The correlation coefficient estimates the overall level of accuracy between observed traffic counts and the estimated traffic volumes from the model. These coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly fits the data.
• The percent root mean square error (RMSE) is the square root of the model volume minus the actual count squared, divided by the number of counts. It is a measure similar to standard deviation in that it assesses the accuracy of the entire model.
Table 12 - Results of Daily Model Validation
Validation Item Criterion for
Acceptance
Model
Results
Count Locations NA 200
% of Links within Caltrans Standard Deviations At least 75% 88% % of Screenlines with Caltrans Standard Deviations 100% 100% 2-way Sum of All Links Counted Within +/- 10% -2%
Correlation Coefficient Greater than 88% 0.98
RMSE 40% or less 20%
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
31 Table 13 - Results of Peak Period Model Validation
Validation Item Criterion for
Acceptance
AM Peak
Period
MD Peak
Period
PM Peak
Period
Off Peak
Period
Count Locations NA 200 200 200 200
% of Links within Caltrans
Standard Deviations At least 75% 80% 82% 76% 75%
% of Screenlines with
Caltrans Standard Deviations 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2-way Sum of All Links
Counted
Within +/-
10% 0% -4% 1% -6%
Correlation Coefficient Greater than
88% 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.98
RMSE 40% or less 30% 22% 26% 31%
Table 14 - Results of Peak Hour Model Validation
Validation Item Criterion for
Acceptance
AM Peak
Hour
Off Peak
Hour
Count Locations NA 200 200
% of Links within Caltrans Standard
Deviations At least 75% 76% 81%
% of Screenlines with Caltrans Standard
Deviations 100% 100% 100%
2-way Sum of All Links Counted Within +/- 10% 5% 2%
Correlation Coefficient Greater than 88% 0.96 0.96
RMSE 40% or less 31% 29%
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
32 Validation Guidelines
For a model to be considered accurate and appropriate for use in travel forecasting, it must replicate actual conditions within a certain level of accuracy. Since it would b e impossible for any mo del to replicate all counts precisely, validation guidelines have been established by Caltrans and other agencies. Key validation standards for daily travel models based on the Caltrans guidelines are summarized below:
• At least 75 percent of the roadway links for which counts are available should be within the maximum desirable deviation, which ranges from approximately 15 to 60 percent depending on total volume (the larger the volume, the less deviation is permitted). • All of the roadway screenlines should be within the maximum desirable deviation, which ranges from approximately 15 to 64 percent depending on total volume. ◦ Screenlines are boundaries drawn across a street network to determine the total volume crossing the boundary. Screenline accuracy determines whether the volume moving across the model area is consistent with the observed volumes. The following screenlines were used for model validation:
▪ Fair Oaks Avenue
▪ Los Robles Avenue
▪ Lake Avenue
▪ Hill Avenue
▪ Allen Avenue
▪ San Gabriel Boulevard
▪ Washington Boulevard
▪ Orange Grove Boulevard
▪ Walnut Street
▪ Colorado Boulevard
▪ Del Mar Boulevard
▪ California Boulevard
• The two-way sum of the volumes on all roadway links for which counts are available should be within 10 percent of the counts.
• The correlation coefficient between the actual ground counts and the estimated traffic volumes should be greater than 88 percent.
Although not stated in the Caltrans standards, an additional Fehr & Peers validation guideline was applied to the Pasadena model:
• The RMSE should not exceed 40 percent.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
33 Dynamic Validation
Several Dynamic Validation tests were also performed to validate that the model responds appropriately to changes on the land use and network. A summary of those changes and their effect on the model outputs are listed and shown in figures below. For each run the model responds to the changes appropriately.
Dynamic Tests:
Add Households to Zone 250
o Initial Daily Trip Generation: 7,950 trips
o Add 10 Multifamily Households: 8,020 trips
o Add 100 Multifamily Households: 8,641 trips
o Add 1000 Multifamily Households: 14,823 trips
Add Auto Dealership to Zone 227
o Initial Daily Trip Generation: 5,740 trips
o Add 10 KSF of Auto Dealership: 6,030 trips
o Add 100 KSF of Auto Dealership: 8,607 trips
Figure 5 - Increase Speed on Colorado between Marengo and El Molino, from 35 mph to 45 mph Figure 6 - Add Capacity on Wilson between Walnut and Green, from 600 to 900 Figure 7 - Add Lanes on Mountain between Wheeler and Lake, from 1 to 2 lanes in each direction Figure 8 - Remove Lanes on Lake between Villa and Mountain, from 2 to 1
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
38 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
One of the Pasadena CEQA Thresholds is Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This update to the Pasadena Model focused on comparing the VMT produced by the model with Streetl ight Data, the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS), and the SC AG Model. The ta ble below shows the new VMT estimate comparted to the estimate in the previous model and to other data sources estimated of VMT.
Table 15 – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Comparison
Source Daily Pasadena
VMT
Daily Pasadena VMT
per Capita
2013 Model 5,591,328 22.6
2017 Model 5,706,256 22.8
Source Daily Freeway
VMT Daily Total VMT
2017 Model 3,298,237 8,893,871
Caltrans HPMS1 3,009,197 NA
SCAG Model NA 8,084,133
Percent
Difference 109.61% 110.02%
Ratio 1.096 1.100
1 Caltrans Highway Performance Monitoring System, 2016
2012 California Household Travel Survey
(CHTS)
A n i m p o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t o f V M T a n a l y s i s i s t r i p l e n g t h b e c a u s e VMT is based on the number of trips multiplied by trip length. The trip generation step determines t h e n u m b e r o f t r i p s p r o d u c e d , a n d t r i p distribution determines the trip length. To validate the trip length in the model, Fehr & Peers analyzed data from the 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS). This d ata includes trip information based on travel-diary entries from across the state of California. Trips were identified to be within the model area, both inside the City of Pasadena and in the buffer area, based on the census tract of the trip origin or destination.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
39 The number of trips from the model and CHTS were summarized by one-mile trip length bins from 1 mile to 13 miles. The model was calibrated to better match the trip length pattern reported in CHTS showing a spike in the number of trips with a 2-mile length, then decreasing, shown in Figure 9. The model calibration, particularly altering the friction factors, resulted in a larger proportion of short trips as observed in the CHTS.
Figure 9 – Trip Length Comparison
The 2017 Pasadena model is 75% correlated with CHTS trip length pattern, showing a strong relationship b e t w e e n t h e t w o d a t a s e t s . Table 16 shows the average trip length in the updated Pasadena model, compared to CHTS.
Table 16 – Trip Length Comparison
Source Average Trip Length
(commute)
Average Trip Length
(non-commute)
Correlation to
CHTS
CHTS 7.68 NA
2017 Model1 4.31 4.26 75%
1 Trip Length for this comparison is calculated in a different manner than the trip length used for the CEQA Thresholds Trip Length
Streetlight Data
The CHTS data was used to calibrate the model’s trip length dis tribution. To better calibrate where these trips are distributed, Streetlight data was analyzed. Streetlight data is a third-party provider of GPS and cell phone travel data. Streetlight data uses a sample of observed travel patterns to provide estimates of where
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
40 people travel. Fehr & Peers used Streetlight Data to calibrate the model travel patterns. This data source r e p o r t s t r a v e l m a g n i t u d e b e t w e e n a s e t o f o r i g i n s a n d d e s t i n a t ions input by the user. To facilitate comparison, the Pasadena TAZs were aggregated to the 29 Streetl ight Zones, developed in coordination with the City of Pasadena and shown in . The percent of total t ravel between each origin-destination pair was compared between the Pasadena travel model and the Streetlight data.
As described in the K Factor sec tion, the Streetlight data was used to generated K Factors, which resulted in trip distribution patterns that better match the observed tr avel patterns. The scatter plot below, Figure 10, shows the model data compared with the Streetlight data, wi th each point represents an origin- destination pair. The orange line in the scatter plot represent how the data would look of the two data sets matched exactly. The trip distri bution in the updated model is 91% correlated with the Streetlight trip distribution, showing a strong relationship between the model and the observed travel patterns.
Figure 10 – Scatter Plot Comparing Streetlight and Pasadena Model Trip Distribution
·110
·134
·210
"2
%&710
%&605
!"5
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_STL.mxd Streetlight Zones
Figure 11
N
Pasadena City Boundary
Pasadena Streetlight Zones (22 zones)
Buffer Streetlight Zones (7 zones)
Regional Zones that extend across LA County
were also included but are not depicted here
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
42 Mode Shift Analysis Tool
The Mode Shift Analysis Tool (MSAT) has been developed for the Pasadena travel demand model in order to analyze and demonstrate the effectiveness of traffic reducti on associated with changes to local transit service expansion (TSE) and transportation demand management (TDM). Fehr & Peers developed a robust tool in TransCAD, using the GISDK programming language, to prop erly incorporate and quantify TSE and TDM benefits in the City of Pasadena. Fehr & Peers is continually doing research in understanding TDM and has updated the model’s sensitivity to be consistent with new r esearch being done for the California Air Resources Board.
MSAT Approach
The MSAT is a local adaptation of a number of TDM models develo ped to date by the US EPA and the FHWA. Specifically, some of the mathematical procedures associa t e d w i t h t h i s t o o l a r e o u t l i n e d i n t h e COMMUTER Model v2.01 produced by the US EPA. In addition, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA): Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures 2 recent publication has been incorporated as a guiding post f or reasonableness checking. This document brings together research that provides expected trip reductions ranges for various TSE and TDM strategies.
From the outset of model develop ment, Pasadena trip generation rates were calibrated to reflect current mode splits. The current mode split (Base Year Model 2017) in P asadena reflects existing levels of transit service and current levels of TDM strategy deployment. Improvements to the transit service results in fewer auto trips and therefore reductions in VMT and associated GHG emissions. Similarly, increasing the level of current TDM strategies and expand ing into new strategies also r educes vehicle trips and associated GHG emissions.
M S A T i s a t r i p r e d u c t i o n p r o c e s s i n t h e P a s a d e n a t r a v e l d e m a n d model that estimates the effects of improved transit service (as in the case of the Metro Gold Line transit expansion), and TDM measures (also referred as Best Management Practices “BMPs” by the Air Resources Board) on roadway volumes and city- wide VMT. In Pasadena, non-auto trips make up a very small port ion of total travel. However, the mode
1 Procedure Manual for the COMMUTER Model v2.0, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (J. R. Kuzmyak, Sierra Research, Inc., and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2005).
2 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report: Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures – A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August, 2010.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
43 share is different for commute trips than for non-commute trips . MSAT was developed to quantify mode share changes at the commute and non-commute level for analysis and forecasting purposes.
The MSAT model simplifies the quantification of workplace commuting programs, transit service expansion, and parking management policies by making selective mode share changes to the initial modal shares in the Pasadena model. The procedure is heavily based on the 2005 COMMUTER Model v2.0, which was an update of the Federal Highway Administration’s TDM Evaluation Model3, developed in 1993. These models have undergone significant sensitivity testing and have been applied widely across the country by planning agencies, transportation agencies, and other organizations. Therefore, the mathematical processes used by them were deemed appropriate for the Pasadena’s city-wide model.
Strategies Analyzed
MSAT is able to evaluate the effects of various types of trip r eduction strategies, these strategies can be divided into three categories: commute trip reduction programs, transit service improvements, and parking pricing strategies.
Commute Trip Reduction Programs:
1. Transit Fare Subsidy
2. Employee Parking Cash-out
3. Workplace Parking Pricing
4. Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle
5. Ride Share Program
6. Commute Trip Reduction Marketing
Transit Service Improvements:
7. Transit Network Expansion
8. Transit Service Frequency (headways)
9. Transit Speed Increase & Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Parking Policy/Pricing:
10. Parking Supply Limits
11. Unbundled Parking Cost
12. On-Street Market Pricing
3 The TDM Evaluation Model was developed by COMSIS Corporation in 1993 in conjunction with a comprehensive program of research and development of reference and guidance tools by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
44 The 12 strategies outlined have different quantifiable effects on the transportation system, the employer- based commute trip reduction strategies quantify monetary and n on-monetary actions, like rideshare matching, transit subsidies, pr eferential parking, and other ma rketing efforts that incentivize ride sharing, transit usage, walking, and bicycling trips. The first six stra tegies affect only work trips (i.e., HBW, internal- external HBW, and external-internal HBW).
Transit service programs; quantify the effects of reduction in transit in-vehicle-travel-times (IVTT) and out- of-vehicle-travel-times (OVTT), increase in bus service frequen cies, speeds, or deployment of new transit/bus lines. The transit service improvements affect all trip purposes (i.e., commute and non-commute).
Parking strategies quantify trip reductions induced by parking management policies, which deal with the supply and pricing of parking. Empirical studies show that managing the availability or costs of parking has the greatest effect in trip reduct ions as compared to other TDM p r o g r a m s . T h e s e p a r k i n g s t r a t e g i e s , implemented mostly at the neighb orhood level, only affect non-c ommute trips (i.e., NHB, HBO, College, and recreational trips).
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
45 Figure 12 – Mode Shift Analysis Tool Structural Procedure
Sensitivity Testing and Updates to 2017
Model
A variety of tests were performe d on the MSAT to evaluate its c orrect application of the computational routines performed for the twelve TSE and TDM strategies descri b e d a b o v e , a n d t o a s s u r e t h a t i t s predictions were realistic and consistent. The coefficients use d in this tool were taken from a previously calibrated TDM model for the SCAG region and were tested to assure their applicability. In addition, recent Fehr & Peers TDM research, which provides the range of effectiveness for different TDM and TSE strategies at the VT and VMT level was used as reasonableness checking for the tool.
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
46 Table 17 shows the expected levels of VT reductions for each of the str ategies available in the mode shift analysis tool.
Table 17 - Mode Shift Analysis Tool Strategies Tool Kit No. Strategy Trip Type1
2013 VT
Reduction
Ranges2
2017 VT
Reduction
Ranges2
Commute Trip Reduction Programs
1 Transit Fare Subsidy co 1 - 20.0% <16%
2 Employee Parking Cash -out co < 7.7% <7.7%
3 Workplace Parking Pricing co < 19.7% <14%
4 Employer's Vanpool/Shuttle co <15% <7.4%
5 Ride Share Program co <15% <8.3%
6 CTR Marketing co 6% - 21% <26%
Commute Trip Reduction Programs
7 Transit Network Expansi on co, nc < 8.5% <10.5%
8 Transit Service Frequency (headways) co, nc < 2.6% <6.3% 9 Transit Speed increase & BRT co, nc < 3.3% <3.2%
Parking Policy/Pricing:
10 Parking Supply Limits co, nc <12.5% <12.5%
11 Unbundled Parking Cost nc <13% <12%
12 On-Street Market Pricing nc < 5.5% <14.5%
1 Commute (co), non-commute (nc)
2 Reductions are applied at the TAZ level, thus the total city-wide Pasadena reductions maybe much smaller.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011.
Metro Gold Line transit ridership was also analyzed between 2013 and 2018 to better understand the local context for CTR strategy 7.
Table 18 shows the increase in ridership with the recent Gold Line netw ork expansion. Fehr & Peers also did sensitivity testing with MSAT and showed that the In-Vehicle Travel Time and Out-of-vehicle Travel Time coefficients accurately represent the changes that were experie nced in Pasadena. The model showed a reduction of approximately 500 ve hicle trips, and the observed ridership showed an increase of
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
47 approximately 2,600 transit riders. According to a recent Metro survey4, twenty percent of new transit riders shifted from auto. Twenty percent of 2,600 is approximately 500 vehicle trips which is consistent with the Pasadena model testing. Therefore, current IV TT and OVTT coefficients accurately acco unt for changes in transit network expansion.
Table 18 - Metro Gold Line Daily Ridership
Station 2013 Ridership 2018 Ridership Growth
80416 - FILLMORE
STATION
2,945 3,258 313
80417 - DEL MAR
STATION
2,929 3,402 473
80418 - MEMORIAL
PARK STATION
4,782 5,573 791
80419 - LAKE STATION 3,556 4,032 476
80420 - ALLEN STATION 3,001 3,558 557
Total 17,213 19,823 2,610
Conversion From Auto (20% According to Metro Survey) 522 MSAT Vehicle Trip Reduction 544
Table 19 below shows the adjustments made to the MSAT coefficients to m aintain consistency with the latest TDM research available an d Metro ridership data. The IVT T and OVTT coefficients did not change b a s e d o n c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n M S AT testing and observed Metro ri dership. Cost and Parking Cost coefficients were reduced based on sensitivity testing and main taining consistency with the latest TDM research.
Table 19 - Mode Shift Analysis Tool Coefficients Recalibration In-Vehicle Travel Time
(IVTT)
Out-of-vehicle Travel
Time (OVTT) Cost Parking Cost
2013 Pasadena Travel Model
-0.025 -0.053 -0.625 -0.625
2017 Pasadena Travel Model
-0.025 -0.053 -0.45 -0.45
4 Customer Survey of Expo Riders, LA Metro, http://thesource.metro.net/2016/09/12/customer-survey-of-expo-line- riders/
Pasadena Model Development Report
December 2018
48 Running the Model
The Graphical User Interface (GU I) developed for the City of Pa sadena Travel Demand Model and for the Pasadena’s Mode Shift Analysis Tool was built to conveniently allow the user to run the model with the click of a button, without going into the technicalities of the progr ams beneath the model. Both GUIs closely follow the stages in the model and give the user the ability to run one stage of the model at a time or running the entire model system by the click of a button. Model Installation See Attachment 1.
Model Post Processing
The model produces outputs that feed directly into a post processing tool that calculated the Pasadena CEQA Thresholds. The “Performance Metrics 2017 Existing” spreadsheet calculates all four metrics. The steps for using tool are listed below.
1. Input the Existing model scenario path in cell D2
2. Enter "Yes" or "No" if the project is in within Level 1 or 2 Bike or Transit Network in cells D3 and D4 a. Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the areas considered Level 1 or 2 Bike or Transit. These are also provided as KMLs in the “… 2017_Existing\Outputs\0_Analysis\ProximityQuality KML” folder and can be viewed in Google Earth.
3. If periods change, fill in period names (up to 5) to determine which files are imported starting on cell C5
4. If post processing folders change, fill in postprocessing file names starting in cell C9
5. If network or regional travel flows are modified, complete the following:
a. Copy network data (link IDs, length, and type) to DATA worksheet b. Copy SZ matrix statistics for each period (up to 5) to DATA worksheet c. Copy regional VMT by speed bin and gate for each period (up to 5) to DATA worksheet d. Fill out external gate correspondence for centroids and gates on the DATA worksheet
6. Enter Project Name in cell B14
7. Click "Import Volumes from SZ Assignment" to import files and update Performance Metrics tab ·110
·134
·210
"2
%&710
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_ProximityQuality.mxd Proximity Analysis: Bike
Model Street Network
Proximity Analysis
Bike Level 2
Figure 13
N
·110
·134
·210
"2
%&710
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_ProximityQuality.mxd Proximity Analysis: Transit
Model Street Network
Proximity Analysis
Level 1 Transit
Level 2 Transit
Figure 14
N
APPENDIX A:
Traffic Analysis Zones Key Map
5 9
12 14
4 8
11 13
3 7
10 2 6
1 \\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
Pasasena Model Area
Inset
Cities
N
2 6
1 349
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 1
3 7
2 6
1 694
654
701
678
724
682
733
731
707
666
651
642
664
628
718
737
337
686
332
801
315
247
342
671
329
349
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 2
240
4 8
3 7
2 6
216
189
311
146
629
694
627
654
701
678
230
219
682
707
666 651642
664
628
662 648 640
718
737
337
291
686
332
203
323347
333
315
247
267
248
164
147
336
322
314
49 727
723
711
341
345 309 271
313
304
115
39 253
143
293
154
346
177
223 265
205
149
292 285159 46
142 193 241
30 88
98 249
58 228 234
245
171
185
326
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 3
55 25
130
5 9
4 8
3 7
219336 322
314727
711
341
622
633
719
685
331
274
186
257283
155
339
348
345
309
271
102
122
278
303
176
287
327
286
313
304
31 256
276
160320
115
302
180
39 116
162
226
253
240
244
129
126
20 318
224
136
113
9 16
89 293
154
76 260
289
151
33 346
195
294
268
251
35 78
10 4
2 1
13 8
5 142 193 241
98 249
58 144
228 234
245
232
128
125
18 43
179
40 1219
101
171
6 7
284
213
330
321
67 68 21
325
326
106
252
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 4
2055
113
25 5 9
4 8
633
687
679
710
626
719
685
641
619
617
632
620
681
704 713
649
675
638
611
630
661
644
331
647
636
637
274
257283
327
276160320 302
180
116
162
226
204
318
224
210 221
9 16
89 697
199
260
289
151
33 73
50 294
268
284
213
316
330
321
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 5
3 7
10 2
6 1
694
621
645654
701
678
655
714
724
682
733
731
707
666
651
642
664 628
735
730
734
616625
718
337
686
332
801
315
247
342
732
683 709
671
699
717
344
329349
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 6
4 8
11 3
7 10
2 6
216
189
311
146
629
674
694
621
645
627
654
701
678
655
714
230
222
191
290
227
263
288
104
172
178
165
71 167
646
658
120
236
202
219
707
666 651
642
664
628
662 648 640
735730
718
737
337
291
686
332
203
323
333
315
247
267
248
164
147
314
49 341
732
602
670
667 708
605
683 709
677
652
657
690
81 615
692
650
604
669
639
699
309
271
278
313
304
115
39 131158201
237
253
100
243240 235 187 148
717
143
173
198
37 54
344
215
242 275 214 175
168 56 65 92
262 140 225 114 200
293
154
86 197
346
177
223 265
205
149
292 285
159 46
103
123
142 193 241
30 88
98 249
58 228 234
245
101
171
185
64 326
118
181
161
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 7
11620
343
55 255 9
12 4
8 11
3 7 167 236202
219
314
341
274
186
257
155
339
348
345
309
271
102
122
278
303
176
287
327
313
304
31 256
276
160320
115
302
180
39 162
226
131158201
237
253
100
243240 235
244
187
129
148
166
126
233 270
318
224
210 643
282
32 334
300
281
85 53 51
84 72
61 79
706
173
215242 275 214 175
168 56 65 92
262 140 225 114
266
200
255
97 94
279
96 110
111
42 91
28 29
15 36
22 93 299
45 117
634
696
606 614
600
728
136
113
9 16
89 293
1476
86 197
121
623609
612
610 608
138
729
59 618
75 212
95 194
11 174 272 192
209
260
289
151
33 346
195 280184208
17 47
294
268
251
35 78
10 4
2 1
13 8
5 60153
6224
156152
277 77
123
170
80 239 90 99
66 23 26
196 238 8752119
83134
135139
207
82 38
142 193 241
98 249
58 144
228 234
245
232
128
125
18 43
179
40 12 319
101
171
217
141
124
229
6 7
284
213
321
41 74 34
67 130
68 21 297
64 325
326
48145 112
118
106
181
252
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 8
283 320 2055
25 5 9
12 4 8
687
679
710
641
619
617
632
620
681
704 713
649
675
638
611
630
661
644
647
636 637
613
656
668
680
673
695
715
274
257 327
276160 302
180
116
162
226 233 270
204
318
224
210 221
643
343
282
32 334
300
281 61
79 706
279
696
606 614
600
728
113
9 16
89 697
612
610 608
138
729
59 618
212
209
199
260
289
151
33 73
50 294
268
317
306
277
77 284
213
316
321
712
702 659
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 9
11 13
7 10
6 714
288
178
165
71 646
658
120
236
202
735730
734
616
736
732
602
670
667 708
605
683 709
677
652
657
690
81 615
692
650
604
653
340133
319
324
669
607
639
699
717
722 721
198
37 54
344
215
242 275 214 175
338
312
298
308328118
181
161
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 10
691716
12 14
8 11
13 7
10227
263
288
178
165
71 120
236
202
736
676
726
672
652
690
81 615
692
650
604
653
335
307
340
211
109
133
319
324
231
669
607
639
131
235 187 148
166
32 334
85 53 51
84 72
61 722
601
603
254
132
703 635
705
700
157
137163
720
698 689
693 688
660 631
624 665
127
295 301
258
721
173
198
37 54
344
215
220
242 275 214 175
168 56 65 92
262 140 225 114
266
200
255
97 261
94 28
29 15
36 22
93 299
45 117 246
269
70 190
218
57 310
296
250
634 305 259
44 725
105
684
183
18869
86 197
121
623609
612 610 60859
75 212
95 194
11 174 272 192
280184208
17 60153
6224
156152
123
170
80 239 90 99
66 23 26
196 238 87 150 10852
135
207
82 38
338
312
298
308
27 328
34 297
169
206
64 48145
273
264
63 112
107
118
181
161
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 11
306
9 12
14 8
11 726
672
680
673
695
715
643
343
282
32 334
300
85 53 51
84 72
61 79
706
132
703 635
705
700
691
157
137163
720
28 29
15 36
22 93 299
45 117 246250
634 305 259
44 725
105
684
183
182
696
606 614
600
728
623609
612
610 608
138
729
59 618
75 212
95 194
11 174 272 192
209
206
716
663
712
702 659
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 12
14 11
13 10
736
732
676
653
335
307
340
324
722
698 689
693 688
660 631
624 665
127
295 301
258
721
310
296
338
312
298
308
27 328
273
264
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 13
12 14
11 13
676
726
672
335
307
601
603
254
132
703 635
705
700 691
157
137
163 720
693 688
660 631
624 665
127
295 301
258
218
57 310
296
259
44 725
105
684
183
182
188
169
716
663
273
264
107
\\fpla03\data\Jobs\Active\2900s\2944_Pasadena Travel Demand Model\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Pasadena_Formatted_TAZ.mxd Traffic Analysis Zones
TAZ
Inset
Cities
N
Inset 14
Attachment 1
Pasadena Model Installation Instructions
Extract the contents of the Pasadena.zip file to the directory where the model files will be stored on the computer’s local drive (“C:\Model\Pasadena_TDF\”, for example). o This directory must not contain any spaces or periods. Three model scenarios are included in the zip file: 2017 Existi ng, 2035 Adopted, and 2035 Preferred.
The “GUI” folder contains the graphical user interface (Pasadena_UI.dbd). The “Script” folder contains the model script ( Pasadena_TDF_20181106.rsc) which can be opened in any text editor.
Copy the “Pasadena” folder from inside the “GUI” folder to the “bmp” folder inside the T r a n s C A D i n s t a l l a t i o n d i r e c t o r y (“C:\Program Files\TransCAD 7.0b12410\bmp” ). This folder contains the images used in the graphical user interface (GUI). Check the permissions for the TransCAD installations directory (“C:\Program Files\TransCAD
7.0b12410\”) and ensure that the user has write permission to the folder. Open TransCAD 7.0 b 12410
From the “Tools” menu, select “Setup Add-Ins…” and click the “Add” button. o Select the “Dialog Box” radio button for “Type”.
o The “Description” field can include any text (“Pasadena TDF”, for example). o The “Name” field must be “Pasadena Model”.
o For the “UI Database” , click the “Browse…” b u t t o n a n d t h e s e l e c t t h e G U I f i l e (Pasadena_UI.dbd) from the directory where the model files are stored. Click “OK” to close the setup window.
Open the model GUI by selecting it from the “Tools” menu under “Add-Ins”.
Attachment 1
If prompted to select the model table, when attempting to open the Pasadena add-in for the first time, browse to the Pasadena.bin file in the directory where the model files are stored. o If this step is necessary, open the bin file in TransCAD to che ck that the paths in the bin file match where the files are stored. If they do not, change the paths.