Matthew Esquivel
La Sierra and Victoria VMT Analysis
July 16, 2024
TJW Engineering, Inc.
WRI24002 La Sierra and Victoria VMT Analysis 07162024
Another improvement involves the conversion of standard crosswalks to ladder crosswalks at the intersection of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Boulevard. While the westbound leg of this intersection currently has a ladder crosswalk, the project proposes the standard crosswalks of the other three legs be painted with the ladder pattern. The higher visibility of ladder-style crosswalks versus the two parallel lines of a standard crosswalk leads to improved pedestrian safety, thus encouraging walking over driving.
CONCLUSION
The
project VMT per resident was determined to be 15.3, which is 46.15% higher than the City threshold for residential projects. The project design elements include the following measures:
Increase Residential Density
Provide a Transit-Oriented Development
Integrate Affordable Housing
Limit the Parking Supply
Pedestrian Network Improvements
These five measures result in a decrease in VMT of 47.01% which places the project under the City threshold by 0.85%. Additionally, improvements to the trail along the eastbound side of Victoria Avenue bordering the project site, as well as the crosswalk improvements at the intersection of La Sierra Avenue and Victoria Boulevard, encourage multi-modal transportation and has the potential to further reduce VMT.
It should be noted, at the time of this analysis, a VMT fee program and/or VMT mitigation program does not exist within the City. However, coordination with City staff has indicated a VMT Mitigation Bank Program is currently being established.
Please contact us at (949) 878-3509 if you have any questions regarding this analysis.
Sincerely,
Thomas Wheat, PE, TE David Chew, PTP
President Transportation Planner
Registered Civil Engineer #69467
Registered Traffic Engineer #2565
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWPR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Legend
Proposed Sidewalk
- Existing Sidewalk
~ Exhibit 1: Proposed and Existing Pedestrian Sidewalk
~ La Sierra and Victoria VMT Analysis WR/-24-002 e
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies Legend
Trail Extension
Exhibit 2: Trail Extension
La Sierra and Victoria VMT Analysis WRI-24-002
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies TRANSPORTATION | 70
T-1. Increase Residential Density
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 30.0% of GHG
emissions fr
om project VMT
in the study area
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increased density can put people closer to
resources they may need to access during
an extreme weather event. Increased density
can also shorten commutes, decreasing the
amount of time people are on the road and
exposed to hazards such as extreme heat
or flooding.
Health and Equity Considerations
Neighborhoods should include different
types of housing to support a variety of
household sizes, age ranges, and incomes.
Measure Description
This measure accounts for the VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of dwelling units (du) compared to the average residential density in the U.S. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. This measure is best quantified when applied to larger developments and developments where the density is somewhat similar to the surrounding area due to the underlying research being founded in data from the
neighborhood level.
Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure is most accurately quantified when applied to larger developments and/or developments where the density is
somewhat similar to the surrounding neighborhood.
Cost Considerations
Depending on the location, increasing residential density may increase housing and development costs. However, the costs of providing public services, such as health care, education, policing, and transit, are generally lower in more dense areas where things are closer together. Infrastructure that provides drinking water and electricity also operates more efficiently when the service and transmission area is reduced. Local governments may provide approval streamlining benefits or financial incentives for infill and high-density residential projects.
Expanded Mitigation Options
When paired with Measure T-2, Increase Job Density, the cumulative densification from these measures can result in a highly walkable and bikeable area, yielding increased co-benefits in VMT reductions, improved public health, and social equity. 30%
~fs70£B
{IJ@
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-1. Increase Residential Density TRANSPORTATION | 71
GHG Reduction Formula
A = B − C
C × D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from project
VMT in study area
0–30.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Residential density of project development [ ] du/acre user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Residential density of typical development 9.1 du/acre Ewing et al. 2007
D Elasticity of VMT with respect to residential density -0.22 unitless Stevens 2016
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – The residential density of typical development is based on the blended average density of residential development in the U.S. forecasted for 2025. This estimate includes apartments, condominiums, and townhouses, as well as detached single-family housing on both small and large lots. An acre in this context is defined as an acre of developed land, not including streets, school sites, parks, and other undevelopable land. If reductions are being calculated from a specific baseline derived from a travel demand forecasting model, the residential density of the relevant transportation analysis zone should be used instead of the value for a typical development.
▪ (D) – A meta-regression analysis of five studies that controlled for self-selection found that a 0.22 percent decrease in VMT occurs for every 1 percent increase in residential density (Stevens 2016).
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 30 percent. The purpose for the 30 percent cap is to limit the influence of any single built environmental factor (such as density). Projects that implement multiple land use strategies (e.g., density, design, diversity) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single built environment factor.
----
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-1. Increase Residential Density TRANSPORTATION | 72
Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-1 through T-4 ≤65%) This measure is in the Land Use subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-1 through T-4. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 65 percent.
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by increasing the residential density of the project study area. In this example, the project’s residential density would be 15 du per acre (B), which would reduce GHG emissions from project VMT by 14.2 percent.
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
Sources
▪ Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, and D. Chen. 2007. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. October. Available:
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cit_07092401a.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Stevens, M. 2016. Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? Journal of the American Planning Association 83:1(7–
18), DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1240044. November. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309890412_Does_Compact_Development_Make_People_ Drive_Less. Accessed: January 2021.
A =
15 du
ac − 9.1 du
ac
9.1 du
ac
× -0.22 = -14.2%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies TRANSPORTATION | 76
T-3. Provide Transit-Oriented Development
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 31.0% of GHG
emissions from project VMT
in study area
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Providing TOD puts a large number of
people close to reliable public
transportation, diversifying their
transportation options during an extreme
weather event.
Health and Equity Considerations
TOD may increase housing prices, leading
to gentrification and displacement. Please
refer to the Accountability and Anti-
Displacement and Housing section in
Chapter 5, Measures for Advancing Health
and Equity, for potential strategies to
minimize disruption to existing residents.
TOD coupled with affordable housing
options can help to support equity by
helping to lower transportation cost s for
residents and increase active mobility.
Measure Description
This measure would reduce project VMT in the study area relative to the same project sited in a non-transit-oriented development (TOD) location. TOD refers to projects built in compact, walkable areas that have easy access to public transit, ideally in a location with a mix of uses, including housing, retail offices, and community facilities. Project site residents, employees, and visitors would have easy access to high-quality public transit, thereby encouraging transit ridership and reducing the number of single- occupancy vehicle trips and associated GHG emissions.
Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban and suburban. Rural only if adjacent to commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center.
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
To qualify as a TOD, the development must be a residential or office project that is within a 10-minute walk (0.5 mile) of a high frequency transit station (either rail, or bus rapid transit with headways less than 15 minutes). Ideally, the distance should be no more than 0.25 to 0.3 of a mile but could be up to 0.5 mile if the walking route to station can be accessed by pedestrian-friendly routes. Users should confirm “unmitigated” or “baseline” VMT does not already account for reductions from transit proximity.
Cost Considerations
TOD reduces car use and car ownership rates, providing cost savings to residents. It can also increase property values and public transit use rates, providing additional revenue to municipalities, as well as open new markets for business development. Increased transit use will likely necessitate increased spending on maintaining and improving public transit systems, the costs of which may be high.
Expanded Mitigation Options
When building TOD, a best practice is to incorporate bike and pedestrian access into the larger network to increase the likelihood of transit use.
31%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-3. Provide Transit-Oriented Development TRANSPORTATION | 77
GHG Reduction Formula
A = (B × C)
-D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
project VMT in study area
6.9–31.0 % calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
B Transit mode share in surrounding city Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a C Ratio of transit mode share for TOD area with
measure compared to existing transit mode
share in surrounding city
4.9 unitless Lund et al.
2004
D Auto mode share in surrounding city Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017b Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and D) – Ideally, the user will calculate transit and auto mode share for a Project/Site at a scale no larger than a census tract. Ideally, variables B and D will reflect travel behavior in locations that are not already within 0.5 mile of a high-quality transit stop and may instead substitute data from nearby tracts further from transit if such locations exist.
Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the mode share for one of the six most populated core-based statistical areas (CBSAs) in California, as presented in Table T-3.1 in Appendix C, Emission Factors and Data Tables. Transit mode share is likely to be smaller for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the most transit- accessible areas of the state. Conversely, auto mode share is likely to be larger. ▪ (C) – A study of people living in TODs in California found that, on average, transit shares for TOD residents exceed the surrounding city by a factor of 4.9 (Lund et al. 2004).
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
((B×C)max) The transit mode share in the project study area with the measure is capped at 27 percent. This is based on the weighted average transit commute mode share of five surveyed sites in California where residents lived within 3 miles of rail stations (Lund et al. 2004). As transit mode share is typically higher for commute trips compared to all trips, 27 percent represents a reasonable upper bound for expected transit mode share in a TOD PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-3. Provide Transit-Oriented Development TRANSPORTATION | 78
area. Projects in the CBSAs of San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward and San Jose-Sunnyvale- Santa Clara would have their transit mode share capped at 27 percent in the formula. (Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-3.1 in Appendix C, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 31.0 percent. This is based on a project in the CBSA of San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward with a transit mode share that reaches the cap ((B×C)max). This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.
Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-1 through T-4 ≤65%) This measure is in the Land Use subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-1 through T-4. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 65 percent.
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by locating their project in a TOD location. Project site residents, employees, and visitors would have easy access to high-quality public transit, thereby encouraging transit use and reducing single occupancy vehicle travel. In this example, the project is within the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CBSA with an existing transit mode share (B) of 6.69 percent. Applying a 4.9 ratio of transit mode share for TOD area with the measure compared to existing transit mode share in the surrounding city yields 33 percent, which exceeds the 27 percent cap ((B × C)max). Therefore, 27 percent is used to define (B × C). The existing vehicle mode share is 86.96 percent (D). The user would reduce GHG emissions from project study area VMT (as compared to the same project in a non-TOD location) by 31 percent.
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
A = 27%
-86.96% = -31%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-3. Provide Transit-Oriented Development TRANSPORTATION | 79
VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration. 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer.
Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Federal Highway Administration. 2017b. National Household Travel Survey – 2017 Table Designer.
Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Lund, H., R. Cervero, and R. Wilson. 2004. Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California. January. Available: https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community- wealth.org/files/downloads/report-lund-cerv-wil.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies TRANSPORTATION | 80
T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate
Housing
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 28.6% of GHG
emissions from project/site
multifamily residential VMT
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increasing affordable housing creates the
opportunity for a greater diversity of people
to be closer to their desired destinations and
the resources they may need to access during
an extreme weather event. Close proximity to
destinations allows for more opportunities to
use active transportation and transit and to
be less reliant on private vehicles. Alleviating
the housing-cost burden also enables more
people to remain housed, and increases
people’s capacity to respond to disruptions,
including climate impacts.
Health and Equity Considerations
Neighborhoods should include different types
of housing to support a variety of household
sizes, age ranges, abilities, and incomes.
Measure Description
This measure requires below market rate (BMR) housing. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to job centers and achieve a jobs/housing match near transit. It is also an important strategy to address the limited availability of affordable housing that might force residents to live far away from jobs or school, requiring longer commutes. The quantification method for this measure accounts for VMT reductions achieved for multifamily residential projects that are deed restricted or otherwise permanently dedicated as affordable housing.
Subsector
Land Use
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Multifamily residential units must be permanently dedicated as affordable for lower income families. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (2021) defines lower- income as 80 percent of area median income or below, and affordable housing as costing 30 percent of gross household income or less.
Cost Considerations
Depending on the source of the affordable subsidy, BMR housing may have implications for development costs but would also have the benefit of reducing costs for public services, similar to Measure T-1, Increase Residential Density.
Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure T-1, Increase Residential Density,
and Measure
T-2, Increase Job Density, to achieve gr eater population and employment diversity.
28.6%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing TRANSPORTATION | 81
GHG Reduction Formula
A = B × C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
Project/Site VMT for multifamily residential
developments
0–28.6 % calcu
lated
User Inputs
B Percent of multifamily units permanently
dedicated as affordable
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent reduction in VMT for qualified units
compared to market rate units
-28.6 % ITE 2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – This refers to percent of multifamily units in the project that are deed restricted or otherwise permanently dedicated as affordable.
▪ (C) – The 11th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (ITE 2021) con tains daily vehicle trip rates for market rate multifamily housing that is low-rise and not close to transit (ITE code 221) as well as affordable multifamily housing (ITE code 223). While these rates do not account for trip length, they serve as a proxy for the expected difference in vehicle trip generation and VMT generation presuming similar trip lengths for both types of land use. If the user has information about trip length differences between market rate and affordable housing, then adjusting the percent reduction accordingly is recommended.
Users should note that the ITE trip rate estimates are based on a small sample of studies for the affordable housing rate and that no stratification of affordable housing by number of stories was available. This is an important distinction since the multifamily low-rise vehicle trip rate applies to four or fewer stories. Therefore, this measure may not apply to affordable housing projects with more than four stories.
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum GHG reduction from this measure is 28.6 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing TRANSPORTATION | 82
Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-1 through T-4 ≤65%) This measure is in the Land Use subsector. This subsector includes Measures T-1 through T-4. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 65 percent.
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces project VMT by requiring a portion of the multifamily residential units to be permanently dedicated as affordable. In this example, the percent of units (B) is 100 percent, which would reduce GHG emissions from VMT by 28.6 percent.
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
Sources
▪ California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2021. Income Limits. Available:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-
limits/index.shtml#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAffordable%20housing%20cost%E2%80%9D%20for%20lowe r,of%20gross%20income%2C%20with%20variations. Accessed; November 2021. ▪ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2021. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. Available:
https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/. Accessed; November 2021.
A = 100% × -28.6% = -28.6%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies TRANSPORTATION | 122
T-15. Limit Residential Parking Supply
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 13.7% of GHG
emissions fr
om resident
vehicles accessing the site
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Limiting residential parking supply could
incentivize increased use of public transit
and thus result in less traffic, potentially
reducing congestion or delays on major
roads during peak AM and PM traffic
periods. When this reduction occurs during
extreme weather events, it better allows
emergency responders to access a hazard
site. Evacuation plans and plans for
transport to cooling/heating/clean air
centers during power outages or unhealthy
air quality events, however, would need to
consider needs of households without access
to private vehicles.
Health and Equity Considerations
Limiting parking supply can reduce the cost of
housing development and, potentially,
increase housing supply and decrease
housing expenses. However, this may
negatively impact residents that do not have a
viable alternative to personal vehicle travel.
Measure Description
This measure will reduce the total parking supply available at a residential project or site. Limiting the amount of parking available creates scarcity and adds additional time and inconvenience to trips made by private auto, thus disincentivizing driving as a mode of travel. Reducing the convenience of driving results in a shift to other modes and decreased VMT and thus a reduction in GHG emissions. Evidence of the effects of reduced parking supply is strongest for residential developments.
Subsector
Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure is ineffective in locations where unrestricted street parking or other offsite parking is available nearby and has adequate capacity to accommodate project-related vehicle parking demand.
Cost Considerations
Reducing residential parking supply, especially in high density residential areas, can have high-cost savings if it reduces the need for additional investment in parking infrastructure. Some of these savings may be offset by investments in alternative transport solutions, which will need to be robust to ensure that residents can effectively travel to work and all other destinations without a car.
Expanded Mitigation Options
When limiting parking supply, a best practice is to do so at sites that are located near high quality alternative modes of travel (such as a rail station, frequent bus line, or in a higher density area with multiple walkable locations nearby). Limiting parking supply may also allow for more active uses on any given lot, which may support Measures T-1 and T-2 by allowing for higher density construction.
13.7%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-15. Limit Residential Parking Supply TRANSPORTATION | 123
GHG Reduction Formula
A = - B − C
B × D × E × F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from resident
vehicles accessing the site
0–13.7 % calculat
ed
User Inputs
B Residential parking demand [ ] parking spaces user input C Project residential parking supply [ ] parking spaces user input D Percentage of project VMT generated by residents [ ] % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E Percent of household VMT that is commute based 37 % Caltrans 2012
F Percent reduction in commute mode share by
driving among households in areas with scarce
parking
37 % Chatman
2013
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The user can calculate the parking demand in the ITE Parking Generation Manual based on the project building square footage or number of du. For residential projects, this demand varies based on the size of each unit, and ranges from 1.0 spaces/unit for one-bedroom apartments to 2.6 spaces/unit for single-family homes with 3+ bedrooms. ▪ (D) – Available research on changes in parking supply focuses on residential land uses.
Therefore, reductions are applied only to the share of VMT generated by residents of a project. For most residential projects, this will be 100 percent; however, for mixed-use projects, the user will need to provide project-specific data. ▪ (E) – The percent of household VMT that is commute-based varies from location to location; the statewide average is 37 percent (Caltrans 2012). If the user can provide a project-specific value based on their project type and area, they should replace the default in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (F) – A study found that among households with limited off-street parking (<1 space per adult), there
was a 37 percent decrease in auto mode share for commute trips. The method above pro-rates this reduction based on how much the project’s parking supply is reduced from demand rates calculated in the ITE Parking Generation Manual (ITE 2019). In addition, this reduction is applied to commute trips only due to the limitations of the research.
----
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-15. Limit Residential Parking Supply TRANSPORTATION | 124
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions is capped at 13.7 percent. This occurs for projects that have no onsite parking (C), 100 percent of VMT arising from residential land use (D), and 37 percent of all VMT arising from commute trips (E). This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.
(C>B) Parking supply is considered to be limited when demand (C) exceeds supply (B). If demand is equal to or less than supply, then implementation of this measure would not result in a GHG reduction.
Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-14 through T-16 ≤35%) This measure is in the Parking or Road Pricing/Management subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-14 through T-16. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 35 percent.
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by reducing a project’s parking supply. In this example, the parking demand per ITE is 100 parking spaces (B) and the project would not supply any parking spaces (C). The user would reduce GHG emissions from VMT by 13.7 percent.
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
A = - 100 spaces − 0 spaces
100 spaces × 100% × 37% × 37% = -13.7%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-15. Limit Residential Parking Supply TRANSPORTATION | 125
Sources
▪ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012. California Household Travel Survey (CHTS).
Available: https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/secure-transportation-data/tsdc-california-travel- survey.html. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Chatman, D. 2013. Does TOD need the T? On the importance of factors other than rail access.
Journal of the American Planning Association 79(1). Available: https://trid.trb.org/view/1243004.
Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2019. Parking Generation Manual. 5th Edition. February.
Available: https://ecommerce.ite.org/IMIS/ItemDetail?iProductCode=PG5-ALL. Accessed: May 2021.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies TRANSPORTATION | 133
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 6.4% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Improving pedestrian networks increases
accessibility of outdoor spaces, which can
provide health benefits and thus improve
community resilience. This can also improve
connectivity between residents and
resources that may be needed in an
extreme weather event.
Health and Equity Considerations
Ensure that the improvements also include
accessibility features to allow for people of
all abilities to use the network safely and
conveniently. Ensure that sidewalks connect
to nearby community assets, such as
schools, retail, and healthcare.
Measure Description
This measure will increase the sidewalk coverage to improve pedestrian access. Providing sidewalks and an enhanced
pedestrian network encourages people to walk instead of drive.
This mode shift results in a reduction in VMT and GHG emissions.
Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban, rural
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The GHG reduction of this measure is based on the VMT reduction associated with expansion of sidewalk coverage expansion, which includes not only building of new sidewalks but also improving degraded or substandard sidewalk (e.g., damaged from street tree roots). However, pedestrian network enhancements with non- quantifiable GHG reductions are encouraged to be implemented, as discussed under Expanded Mitigation Options.
Cost Considerations
Depending on the improvement, capital and infrastructure costs may be high. However, improvements to the pedestrian network will increase pedestrian activity, which can increase businesses patronage and provide a local economic benefit. The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.
Expanded Mitigation Options
When improving sidewalks, a best practice is to ensure they are contiguous and link externally with existing and planned pedestrian facilities. Barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity, such as walls, landscaping buffers, slopes, and unprotected crossings should be minimized. Other best practice features could include high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other pedestrian signals, mid-block crossing walks, pedestrian refuge islands, speed tables, bulb-outs (curb extensions), curb ramps, signage, pavement markings, pedestrian- only connections and districts, landscaping, and other
improvements to pedestrian safety (see Measure T-35, Provide Traffic Calming Measures).
6.4%
·-
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 134
GHG Reduction Formula
A = (C
B − 1) × D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
household vehicle travel in plan/community
0–6.4 % calculated
User Inputs
B Existing sidewalk length in study area [ ] miles user input C Sidewalk length in study area with measure [ ] miles user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Elasticity of household VMT with respect to the
ratio of sidewalks-to-streets
-0.05 unitless Frank et al.
2011
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – Sidewalk length should be measured on both sides of the street. For example, if one 0.5-mile-long street has full sidewalk coverage, the sidewalk length would be 1.0 mile. If there is only sidewalk on one side of the street, the sidewalk length would be 0.5 mile. The recommended study area is 0.6 mile around the pedestrian network improvement. This represents a 6- to
10-minute walking time.
▪ (D) – A study found that a 0.05 percent decrease in household vehicle travel occurs for every 1 percent increase in the sidewalk-to-street ratio (Frank et al. 2011; Handy et al. 2014).
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is capped at 3.4 percent, which is based on the following assumptions:
▪ 35.2 percent of vehicle trips are short trips (2 mile or less, average of 1.29 miles) and thus could easily shift to walking (FHWA 2019).
▪ 64.8 percent of vehicle trips are longer trips that are unlikely to shift to walking (2 miles or more, average of 10.93 miles) (FHWA 2019).
▪ So Amax=
35.2% × 1.29 miles
64.8% × 10.93 miles = 6.4%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 135
Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This meas ure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces household VMT by improving the pedestrian network in the study area. In this example, the existing sidewalk length (B) is 9 miles, and the sidewalk length with the measure (C) would be 10 miles. With these conditions, the user would reduce GHG emissions from household VMT within the study area by 0.6 percent.
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in household VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).
Improved Public Health
Users are directed to the Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model (ITHIM) (CARB et al. 2020). The ITHIM can quantify the annual change in health outcomes associated with active transportation, including deaths, years of life lost, years of living with disability, and incidence of community and individual disease.
Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and Nicholas Linesch Legacy Fund. 2020. Integrated Transport and Health Impact Model. Available:
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/HealthyMobilityOptionTool-ITHIM/#Home. Accessed: September 17, 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2019. 2017 National Household Travel Survey Popular Vehicle Trip Statistics. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/vehicle-trips. Accessed: Janua ry 2021.
A = (10 miles
9 miles − 1) × -0.05 = -0.6%
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies
T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement TRANSPORTATION | 136
▪ Frank, L., M. Greenwald, S. Kavage, and A. Devlin. 2011. An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy. WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 765.1, Washington State Department of Transportation. April. Available:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Handy, S., S. Glan-Claudia, and M. Boarnet. 2014. Impacts of Pedestrian Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Policy Brief. September. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Pedestrian_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_P olicy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
PR-2024-001656 (TM) Exhibit 8 - MND and Technical Studies