Appendix J
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
PACIFIC PROJECT
San Marcos, California
January 26, 2023
LLG Ref. 3-20-3279
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:
Román Lopez, PTP John A. Boarman, P.E.
Senior Transportation Planner Principal
&
Alejandra Alonso
Transportation Engineer I
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has pr epared the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis to determine and evaluate the CEQA transportation impacts of the proposed Pacific project (proposed Project). The Project site is lo cated at the northwest co rner of the Linda Vista Drive / Las Posas Road intersection in the City of San Marcos. The Project site is currently undeveloped.
The Project consists of 449 resi dential units, including a mix of apartments within a five-story podium building, th ree-story rowhomes, three-st ory villas, and affo rdable flats within a four-story building on approximately 15.09 acres within the 33.2-acre Project site. The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment, Rezo ne, Specific Plan, Tentativ e Map, and Mult i-Family Site Development Plan. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Industrial (I) to Specific Pl an Area (SPA).
The Project is calculated to generate a total of 2,694 ADT with 216 AM peak hour trips (43 inbound / 173 outbound) and 242 PM peak hour trips (169 inbound and 73 outbound).
The SANDAG Series 13 Base Year 2012 regional tr avel demand model was customized with the Project land uses and used to calculate the Pr oject’s VMT per Resident. Based on the results, the Project’s VMT per Resident is less than 85% (62%) of the regi onal average and therefore results in no significant CEQA transportation impact.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 3
2.3.1 Trip Rates ................................................................................................................ 3
2.3.2 Project Trips ............................................................................................................ 3
3.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Approach & Methodology ................................................. 8
3.1 Project Screening ................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 VMT Methodology, Metrics, and Significance Thresholds ............................................... 8
4.0 Project VMT Analysis ............................................................................................................. 10
4.1 Technical Methodology – SANDAG Modeling ............................................................... 10
4.2 Project VMT Model Results ............................................................................................. 10
5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 12
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
iii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. ITE Transportation Capacity and Mobility Task Force White Paper B. SANDAG VMT Model Output
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—F IGURE # P AGE
Figure 2–1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2–2 Project Area Map ............................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2–3 Project Site Plan .............................................................................................................. 7
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—T ABLE # P AGE
Table 2–1 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 4 Table 3–1 VMT Impact Thresholds by Land Use Type ....................................................................... 9 Table 4–1 Project VMT Findings ....................................................................................................... 11
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
1 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
PACIFIC PROJECT
San Marcos, California
January 26, 2023
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared the following Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Pacific project (proposed Project) located at the northwest corner of the Linda Vista Drive / Las Posas Road intersection in the City of San Marcos.
Transportation impact analyses within the City of San Marcos includes two sets of requirements:
CEQA Analysis primarily consisting of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis. Non-CEQA Local Transportation Analysis to evaluate the effects of a development project on the circulation network.
Non-CEQA Local Transportation Analysis is provided under separate cover.
The following items are included in this transportation study:
Project Description
VMT Analysis Approach and Methodology
VMT Analysis
Conclusions
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The 33.2-acre project site is an infi ll site located in the western po rtion of the City of San Marcos (City), at the northwest corner of Las Posas Road and Linda Vista Drive, and comprises Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 219-222-01, 219-222- 02, 219-222-03, and 219-222-04. La Mirada Road abuts the site’s northern boundary, while South Pacific Street abuts the property’s western boundary.
The Grand Plaza shopping center is located directly across Las Posas Road to the east. Light industrial uses are adjace nt to the sites northern, southern, and western boundary, and Bradley Park is located across from the sites southwestern corner . Single- and multi-family residential uses are located to the west and south of Bradley Park.
Figure 2–1 shows the vicinity map. Figure 2–2 shows a more detailed project area map.
2.2 Project Description
The project consists of 449 residential units, incl uding a mix of apartments, rowhomes, villas, and affordable flats on approximately 15.09 acres of th e 33.2-acre project site. Proposed residential units would include a mix of apartments within a fi ve-story podium buildi ng, three-story rowhomes, three-story villas, and affordable flats within a four-sto ry building. The projec t includes a total of 927 parking spaces and 134,985 square feet of common open space area. 68 of the 449 total units (15 percent of the total) would be designated as deed-restricted affordable units (alternatively, the project reserves the option to contribute to the affordable housing fund by paying the in-lieu fee).
The proposed project also includes landscaping, bio -retention areas, and circ ulation improvements.
The remaining approximately 17.94 acres of the 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored as open space and habitat area. The proposed project would have a density of approximately
13.5 dwelling units per acre, including the open space and habitat area.
The project proposes a General Pl an Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan, Tentative Map, and Multi- Family Site Development Plan. The General Pl an Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoni ng from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan has been prepared with the intent to prov ide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a new residentia l community. The Specific Plan se rves as both a policy document and a regulatory document for the systematic implementation of the policies and goals of the General Plan. The Tentative Map presents specific lot configurations for the site. The Multi-Family Site Development Plan will config ure the site for multi -family dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space.
As part of the project, additi onal pedestrian connectivity would be provided along three of the adjacent street frontages. The project would provide a 6-foot sidewalk a nd Class II buffered bike lane along the project’s frontage on Pacific Stree t; the project would provide a 12-foot urban trail (shared use path) along the proj ect’s frontage on Linda Vista Driv e; and the project would also provide a 12-foot urban trail (sha red use path) along the project’s frontage on La Mirada Drive. In addition to the proposed sidewalk and trail connections, the project would add a bus stop and shelter with a bus turnout along South Las Posas Road ad jacent to the development area and would install a
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
3 4-way traffic signal at the inters ection of Linda Vista Drive and Pa cific Street. Furthermore, the project would upsize approximately 1,458-feet of existing water pipe from 8-inches to 12-inches and would convert approximately 1,400-feet of existi ng overhead power lines to underground along La Mirada.
The proposed project would be acc essible from three points on La Mirada Drive, one emergency access only point on S. Las Posas Road, and two access points on Linda Vista Drive. The three access points on La Mirada Driv e would serve the residences of the rowhomes, villas, and apartments, and the two access points on Linda Vi sta drive would serve the residences of the affordable flats.
Figure 2–3 shows the conceptual site plan for the Project.
2.3 Project Trip Generation
As described in Section 2.2 , the proposed Project would provide a maximum of 449 residential dwelling units.
The following is a discussion of the traffic expected to be generated by the Project.
2.3.1 Trip Rates
Trip generation for Project mult i-family housing was estimated using trip rates from SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Gene ration Rates for the San Di ego Region, April 2002 .
The trip generation rate for “Apartment (or any multi-family units more than 20 DU/acre)” was used based on the proposed density.
SANDAG provides for a 5% da ily trip reduction for la nd uses with transit access or near transit stations accessible within ¼ mile. The site is loca ted adjacent to transit service with stops located near both the north and south ends of the site along Las Posas Road. The Project will also upgrade the existing stop along its frontage w ith enhanced amenities and includ e clear and direct access to bus stops in the site design. To provide a conserva tive analysis, however, no transit trip reduction was applied to the trip generation for this analysis.
2.3.2 Project Trips
Table 2–1 tabulates the total Project traffic generation. The Project is calculated to generate a total of 2,694 ADT with 216 AM peak hour trips (43 i nbound / 173 outbound) and 242 PM peak hour trips (169 inbound and 73 outbound).
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
4 TABLE 2–1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Size
Daily Trip Ends
(ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate a ADT Rate In:Out
Split
Volume
Rate In:Out
Split
Volume
In Out Total In Out Total
Apartments
(multi-family
> 20 du/acre)
449 DU 6/DU 2,694 8% 20:80 43 173 216 9% 70:30 169 73 242 Footnotes:
a. Trip generation rate from SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 (“SANDAG Brief Guide”).
General Note:
DU = Dwelling Unit
Vicinity Map
Figure 2-1
N:\3279\Figure
Date: 4/8/2021
Time: 1:38 PM
Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS
Project Site
Project Area Map
Figure 2-2
SPacificSt
La
MiradaDr
S Las Posas
Rd
GrandA v
e
Via Vera Cruz
Linda
Vista D
r
S Ranc
ho Santa Fe R
d
Project
Site
Maxar
N:\3279\Figure
Date: 4/19/2021
Time: 10:52 AM
k
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
8 3.0 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS APPROACH & METHODOLOGY Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis required for CEQA was prepared based on the City of San Marcos Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines , November 16, 2020. This section presents the applicable project screening criteria, VMT met hodology, metrics, and significant impact thresholds per City guidelines.
3.1 Project Screening
The requirement to prepare a detailed transportati on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis applies to all land development projects ex cept for those that meet at le ast one of the provided screening criteria. A project that meets at least one of the screening criteria listed below would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact due to the project or location characteristics.
1. Small Projects (less than 110 daily vehicle trips)
2. Affordable Housing (100% deed restricted)
3. Local Serving Retail and Public Facilities (50,000 square feet gross floor area or less)
4. Adjacency to High-Quality Transit
5. Map-Based Screening (projects located in VMT efficient areas; limited to projects generating fewer than 2,400 ADT)
Project screening was completed based on the Projec t described previously in this report. Based on the project site location, land us e characteristics, and trip ge neration of the Project (see Table 2–1), none of the above listed screening criteria are app licable and therefore a de tailed VMT analysis is required.
3.2 VMT Methodology, Metrics, and Significance Thresholds For new land use development which do not meet a ny of the screening crit eria, the following VMT metrics and thresholds, shown in Table 3–1 , are used to determine a significant transportation impact.
The Project will use a VMT metric of VMT per resi dent, with a significance threshold of 15 percent below the existing countywide average.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
9 TABLE 3–1
VMT IMPACT THRESHOLDS BY LAND USE TYPE
Land Use Type Impact Threshold
Residential Uses A significant impact will occur if the project generates VMT per resident exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing countywide average.
Employment Projects
(including office and industrial)
A significant impact will occur if the project generates VMT per employee exceeding a level of 15 below the existing countywide average.
Retail Uses A significant impact will occur if the project would result in a net increase in existing total citywide VMT.
Mixed-Use Projects Evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significant threshold for each land use type, incorporating internalization reductions.
Redevelopment Projects
(replaces existing uses)
If the project results in a net increase in VMT, apply the appropriate significance threshold for the project land use type(s).
Source: City of San Marcos Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 2020).
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
10 4.0 PROJECT VMT ANALYSIS
As described in the previous section, the Project does not meet any of the screening criteria and a detailed VMT analysis is required to evalua te the Project’s VMT pe r Resident. Project VMT analysis is based on the Project described previous ly in this report. The Project generates greater than 2,400 ADT and therefore the Project’s reside ntial VMT efficiency wa s estimated using the SANDAG regional travel demand model.
4.1 Technical Methodology – SANDAG Modeling
Consistent with City guidelines, the SANDAG re gional travel demand model was used to estimate the Project’s VMT per Resident. The SANDAG Se ries 13 Base Year 2012 Travel Demand Model was customized to reflect the Project land uses as shown in Table 8–1.
The SANDAG Series 13 model (also known as ABM 1) is the latest available model from SANDAG that can be run with land use overrides. SANDAG Series 14 (ABM 2) is the latest published and approved model for VMT data and analysis is recommended to be used whenever possible.
However, the ABM 2 model cannot be run for devel opment projects that requ ire land use overrides to produce project VMT information. Another update to the regional model (ABM 2+) is currently in development that will be able to run land use overrides. This update was adopted in December 2021 but the capability of running land use overrides currently remains unavailable.
According to a white paper prepared by the ITE Transportation Capacity and Mobility Task Force addressing VMT modeling in the in terim period, “the use of ABM 1 for VMT analysis for those projects that require a model r un and involve land use overrides is defensible because it would provide the best available data.”1 The ITE white paper is included in Appendix A.
4.2 Project VMT Model Results
Table 4–1 shows the Project VMT analysis. Based on the model outputs, the Project VMT per Resident is 10.8, or 38% below the regionwide VMT per Resident of 17.5 as calculated from the same model run. The significance threshold of 15% below the regionwide average is therefore 14.9 VMT per Resident. Appendix B contains the VMT model data.
The project VMT results reflect, in part, the moderately high employ ment density in the vicinity based on the surrounding commercial and light industrial land uses. Be yond employment, the well- developed commercial area along Las Posas Road immediately opposite the Pr oject site can also serve the shopping and dining demand of future residents within easy walking distance. As discussed in Section 12.5 , the site is adjacent to bus stops serving two separate routes with connections to SPRINTER service at Paloma r College Station. It should also be noted that the project is providing 75 affordable units, approximately 15% of the total units. Affordable or below market rate housing is associated with reduced VMT relative to market ra te units, and this characteristic was not included in the model run.
1 Use of ABM 1 and ABM 2 for SB 743 Related VMT Analysis in the Interim Until ABM 2+ is Completed [White paper].
San Diego, CA: ITE Transportation Capacity and Mobility Task Force – SB 743 Modeling Subcommittee, 2020.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
11 The results of the Project VMT comparison indicate that the Project VMT per Resident is below the significance threshold. No mitigation measures for VMT impacts are required.
TABLE 4–1
PROJECT VMT FINDINGS
Metric Regionwide
Average a
Significance
Threshold
(15% below
Average)
Project
VMT a
Project
VMT Over
Threshold
% of Project
VMT Over
Significance
Threshold
Transportation
Impact?
(Over
Threshold)
VMT per Resident 17.5 14.9 10.8 — — No
Footnotes:
a. Regionwide Average and Project VMT per Resident from SANDAG Series 13 Base Year 2012 Travel Demand Model, customized to include proposed Project land uses.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
N:\3279\Text\#VMT\3279.VMT.docx
12 5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the model output of the SANDAG regional travel demand model run customized with the Project Project land uses the Project’s VMT per Resident is less than 15% below the regionwide average. The Project therefore has a less than significant CEQA trans portation impact and no mitigation measures are required.
TECHNICAL APPENDICES – VMT
PACIFIC PROJECT
San Marcos, California
January 26, 2023
LLG Ref. 3-20-3279
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
APPENDIX A
ITE TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY AND MOBILITY TASK FORCE WHITE PAPER
ITE Transportation Capacity and Mobility Task Force - SB 743 Modeling Subcommittee
Use of ABM 1 and ABM 2 for SB 743 Related VMT Analysis in the Interim Until ABM 2+ is Completed
Final DRAFT - July 17, 2020
Drafted/Reviewed by: Maureen Gardiner, Phuong Nguyen, Katy Cole, Erik Ruehr
SANDAG Travel Demand Model Versions
For reference, below are the most recent SANDAG travel demand model versions and some relevant information about them. For complete information on SANDAG travel demand models, go to www.sandag.org.
Series 12 (retired from service)
x 2011 Regional Plan
x First Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
x Used the Series 12 Growth Forecast, Base Year 2008
x Based on 2006 travel behavior survey
x Used the old 4-step travel demand model method (trip based)
ABM 1 (previous model version)
x 2015 Regional Plan (RP)
x Second SCS
x Uses the Series 13 Growth Forecast, Base Year 2012
x Based on 2006 travel behavior survey
x Uses the new activity based model method (tour based) x Able to be run with land use overrides.
ABM 2 (current model version)
x 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
x Does not include a SCS
x Uses the network assumptions from the 2015 Regional Plan x Uses a previous version of the Series 14 Growth Forecast, Base Year 2016 x Based on 2016 travel behavior survey
x Not able to be run with land use overrides.
ABM 2+ (under development)
x 2021 Regional Plan (RP) (under development)
x Will include third SCS
x Will include the 5 Big Moves
x Will use networks that are currently under development x Will use an updated version of the Series 14 Growth Forecast, Base Year 2016 x Will be based on 2016 travel behavior survey, 2018 commute behavior survey x Will include a SCS
x Was peer-reviewed in March 2020
2 x Will be able to be run with land use overrides after adoption by November 2021.
Background
SB 743 requires that the metric for CEQA transportation analysis of land development projects be changed from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Local agencies are required to implement this change by July 1, 2020. SANDAG’s regional travel demand model is the best tool available to produce the needed VMT data within the San Diego region. SANDAG produced draft VMT data from the ABM 1 Series 13 Base Year (2012) model and published draft maps that provide resident VMT per capita and employee VMT per employee by census tract, as well as the regional averages.
Since that time, the region has adopted an updated Federal RTP (2019) and is using a new model version (ABM 2 Series 14) with a base year of 2016. SANDAG plans to publish this model resident VMT per capita and employee VMT per employee data in Spring 2020 by census tract, city, City of San Diego community planning area (CPA), and the region.
SANDAG is currently working on another update to the regional model (ABM 2+ with an updated Series 14 growth forecast) and a significant update to the Regional Plan (2021) that will include the Five Big Moves and use the updated ABM 2+ model.
Problem Statement
The current (ABM 2) model cannot be run/used for development projects that require land use overrides to produce project VMT information because the necessary scripts/procedures were not developed due to time, cost, competing work efforts including development of ABM 2+ and the Regional Plan Update, staff capacity, etc. The ABM 2+ model will available in November 2021, after adoption of the 2021 Regional Plan, and will have this capability. This leaves a period of approximately 18 months during which time it may be necessary to use two different models to produce VMT data for project CEQA transportation analysis in the region. This paper outlines a recommended approach to address this issue.
Recommended Approach
1. It is recommended to use the latest published and approved model (soon to be SANDAG ABM 2) for VMT data/analysis whenever possible and use the previously published model (SANDAG ABM 1) only when necessary due to limitations related to the inability to run ABM 2 with land use overrides. This is because ABM 2 would be the most current and arguably most accurate available VMT data for several reasons including that it has a more current base year (2016 verses 2012), is based on a more current travel behavior survey (2016 verses 2006 - which was pre-TNCs and micromobility devices). The use of ABM 1 for VMT analysis for those projects that require a model run and involve land use overrides is defensible because it would provide the best available data. In addition, the following is recommended:
3 a. Only compare VMT data within the same model version. CEQA transportation impact significance thresholds should be based upon percent of regional (or City) averages within same model version. Mixing and matching absolute VMT data values between models would not be appropriate because the underlying assumptions in each model are different.
i. Note that the VMT analysis and significance threshold for land use plans and projects is based on a comparison (expressed as a percentage) of project VMT/capita or VMT/employee to the relevant regional or city1 average. Therefore, regardless of whether projects use ABM 1 or ABM 2 for analysis, they would still use the same significance threshold (i.e. the same percentage). While the underlying data (VMT/capita or VMT/employee) may be different depending on whether ABM 1 or ABM 2 is used, the significance threshold which is based on a percentage relative to the regional or city1 average, is consistent. For most projects following OPR or regional guidelines, the significance threshold will be 15% below the relevant regional or city1 average VMT/capita or VMT/employee for residential and office employment uses.
b. Try to limit model runs. Whenever possible, use published VMT data instead.
Due to the sophistication of the ABM, it requires significant run times (40-70+ hours) to produce results which may have limited or no added value for producing VMT data at the scale of individual project analyses. Exceptions to this may include large projects and projects in areas where there was not sufficient base year activity present to produce reliable data.
c. If an ABM 1 model run is needed for CEQA transportation VMT analysis, the analysis should be based on the comparison of VMT efficiency of the project (as determined from the ABM 1 land use override model run) compared to the relevant average from the SANDAG published ABM 1 data. In these cases, if needed, the “equivalent” project ABM 2 VMT could be estimated by applying this same relationship to the ABM 2 VMT average. [e.g. Fill in with an example once we have both maps and can use real data from ABM 2.] d. If an ABM 1 model run with a land-use override is needed only to determine traffic distribution for a mobility analysis, but not for CEQA transportation VMT analysis, use the VMT per capita or VMT per employee data from ABM 2 even though the project may use an ABM 1 model run to help determine traffic distribution.
e. ABM 1 and ABM 2 will report different forecast traffic volumes. Determining the most appropriate estimates for forecast traffic volumes (when future year analysis is needed) will require engineering judgement, as it always has.
1 For residential land uses the OPR Technical Advisory recommends a significance threshold of 15% below the regional or city average VMT per capita. For office employment uses the recommended threshold is 15% below the regional average VMT per employee.
4 f. VMT and ADT information is often needed for other CEQA impact analysis issue areas such as GHG, air quality, and noise. Practitioners should document sources and rationale when it is appropriate to draw information from multiple models.
Options Considered and Rejected
Several options were evaluated in order to arrive at the recommended approach described in the previous section. Those options considered and rejected are briefly described below along with an explanation of why they were not selected.
Using the Series 13 ABM 1 for all VMT data and modeling for CEQA land use project transportation analysis was one approach that was considered. Although this would provide consistency to use only one model for all CEQA transportation analysis, it would not be the most current and most accurate VMT data available because the base year for ABM 1 is 2012 (verses 2016 for ABM 2) and ABM 1 is not based on the current RTP.
Another approach considered was to use ABM 2 to determine average regional, City, and CPA values for VMT/capita and VMT/employee regardless of which model is used for analysis. This would provide a consistent basis for comparison (i.e. significance threshold VMT value) for all projects, however would be making an “apples to oranges” comparison (by determining VMT/capita and VMT/employee results from one model (ABM 1) and comparing it to averages based on a different model (ABM 2). This would not be appropriate because the base year for ABM 1 is 2012 (verses 2016 for ABM 2) and ABM 1 is based on the 2015 RP (where ABM 2 is based on the 2019 RTP).
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-20-3279 Pacific Project
APPENDIX B
SANDAG VMT MODEL OUTPUT
ScenarioID 1298
VMT Query Type Description VMT
Regionwide 80,064,384 1Z o n e 0
Clip1S A N MARCOS 2 0 0 Ͳ Clip20 3 0 0 Ͳ
40 0 Ͳ
ScenarioID Residents Total Trips PersonMilesof
Travel
VehicleMilesof
Travel
VMTper
Resident
Regionwide 1298 3,130,912 11,194,155 73,056,371 54,777,143 17.5 Jurisdiction SAN MARCOS 1298 87,016 313,052 1,863,136 1,357,538 15.6 Site mgra 18577 1298 1,495 5,361 23,190 16,185 10.8
ScenarioID Employees Total Trips PersonMilesof
Travel
VehicleMilesof
Travel
VMTper
Employee
Regionwide 1298 1,492,074 5,237,648 43,556,491 38,532,178 25.8 Jurisdiction SAN MARCOS 1298 38,849 140,878 1,084,028 938,539 24.2 Site mgra 18577 1298 33 122 618 495 15.0 ReportGenerated: 03/29/21
VehicleMilesofTravelReport
Geography
DistributionVMT
AggregateVMT
UphamͲ2012Ͳmgra18577
Geography
Geography
GrossVMT
SBͲ743VMT
VMTperResident
VMTperEmployee