PC - Item 3B - Exhibit F - Appendix K Trip Generation and VMT Analysis (2)
Urban Planning ■ Due Diligence ■ Entitlements ■ CEQA/NEPA ■ Development Services ■ Management ■ Public Outreach
2355 Main Street, Suite 100 ■ Irvine, Calif. 92614
949.794.1180 ■ info@epdsolutions.com
Date: September 8, 2022
Prepared by: Meghan Macias, TE
To: Lily Valenzuela, Planning & Economic Development Manager, City of Rosemead
Jana Robbins, Contract Traffic Engineer, City of Rosemead
Site: 8601 Mission Drive
Subject: Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis
This technical memorandum evaluates the trip generation and need to prepare a level of service (LOS) or
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for the proposed 8601 Mission Drive Project. The project is located on
Mission Drive east of Walnut Grove Avenue in the City of Rosemead. This memo will evaluate the project
using the attached City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines for VMT and LOS Assessment.
Project Description
The project proposes to construct 29 single family dwelling units and eight townhome dwelling units. Access
to the project would be provided by one driveway on Mission Drive. The project vicinity map is shown in
Figure 1 and the project site plan is shown in Figure 2.
Project Trip Generation and LOS Analysis Screening
The project trip generation was prepared using trip rates for Single-Family Detached Housing (Land Use
Code 210) and Multifamily Housing Low Rise (Land Use Code 220) from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE)1. Table 1 presents the trip generation estimate for the proposed project. As shown in Table
1, the project is forecast to generate 327 daily trips, including 23 trips during the AM peak hour and 31
trips during the PM peak hour.
Generally, a LOS analysis may be required if a project generates over 50 peak hour trips. The Project
generates 23 AM peak hour trips and 31 PM peak hour trips; therefore, LOS analysis is not warranted for
the project as the peak hour trip generation is minimal.
VMT Screening Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating
Transportation impacts. SB 743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. The bill
also specified that delay-based level of service could no longer be considered an indicator of a significant
impact on the environment. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines beginning
January 1, 2019. Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts states that
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and provides lead
agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT.
City of Rosemead VMT Screening
The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines provides VMT screening thresholds to identify projects that
would be considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT and therefore could be screened out
1 Trip Generation, 11th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2021.
8601 Mission Drive Project
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
2 | P a g e
from further analysis. If a project meets one of the following criteria, then the VMT impact of the project
would be considered less than significant and no further analysis of VMT would be required:
1. The project is in a Transit Priority Area (TPA).
2. The project is in a low VMT area.
3. The project proposes one of the following local-serving land uses:
o Local-serving retail less than 50,000 sf in size, including:
▪ Gas stations
▪ Banks
▪ Restaurants
▪ Shopping Center
o Local serving K-12 school
o Local park
o Daycare centers
o Local-serving hotel (e.g., non-destination hotel)
o Student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus
o Local-serving assembly use (places of worship, community organizations)
o Community institutions (public libraries, fire stations, local government)
o Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing
o Assisted living facilities
o Senior housing (as defined by Housing and Urban Development)
o Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the
RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy)
o Project generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips. This generally corresponds to the
following “typical” development potentials:
▪ 11 single family housing units
▪ 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units
▪ 10,000 SF of office
▪ 15,000 SF of light industrial
▪ 63,000 SF of warehousing
▪ 79,000 SF of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse
o Public parking garages and public parking lots
The applicability of each criterion to the project is discussed below.
Screening Criteria 1 – TPA: According to the City’s guidelines, projects within one-half mile of an existing or
planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor may be presumed to have
a less than significant impact. The project is not located in a TPA; therefore, the project does not satisfy
Screening Criteria 1 - TPA.
Screening Criteria 2 – Low VMT Area: The City’s guidelines define low VMT areas as traffic analysis zones
(TAZs) with a total daily VMT/Service Population (employment plus population) that is 15% less than the San
Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) baseline. If the proposed project is residential, the
project is considered “screened out” if it is located within the Low VMT areas of the “PA/Residential Home-
Based VMT per Capita”. Alternatively, if the predominant land uses in the vicinity are nominally of the same
type as the proposed project and the proposed project is reasonably expected to generate similar VMT as
the existing land uses, the project is considered screened out if it is in the low VMT area for the “Total Daily
VMT per Service Population”.
The project proposes 29 single family dwelling units and eight townhome dwelling units. As shown on Figure
3, the project is surrounded by other residential uses, including single family and multifamily residential. As
stated in the City’s guidelines, projects that are located in areas with predominately similar land uses can
8601 Mission Drive Project
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
3 | P a g e
utilize the SGVCOG screening tool. Therefore, the SGVCOG screening tool is appropriate to use for the
project.
As shown in the attached SGVCOG screening analysis, the project is in a low VMT area; therefore, the
project would meet Screening Criteria 2 – Low VMT Area.
Screening Criteria 3 – Land Use: The project proposes to construct 29 single family housing units and eight
townhome housing units, which is above the 11 single family housing unit threshold and would not meet the
local serving or low trip generating land use criteria. Therefore, the project would not meet Screening Criteria
3 – Land Use.
Summary
As shown in Table 1, the project is forecast to generate 349 daily trips, including 26 trips during the AM
peak hour and 35 trips during the PM peak hour. The project trip generation would not warrant evaluation
of the LOS as the project would generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips.
The project was evaluated using the City of Rosemead VMT screening thresholds to determine if the project
would require a VMT analysis. The project would meet the City’s screening criteria for Low VMT Area;
therefore, the project VMT impacts would be considered less than significant and further analysis of VMT
would not be required.
If you have any questions about this information, please contact me at (949) 794-1186 or
meghan@epdsolutions.com.
8601 Mission Drive Project
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
4 | P a g e
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
8601 Mission Drive Project
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
5 | P a g e
Figure 2: Project Site Plan
8601 Mission Drive Project
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
6 | P a g e
Figure 3: Surrounding Land Uses
8601 Mission Drive Project
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
7 | P a g e
Table 1: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Single-Family Detached Housing DU 9.43 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94
Multifamily Housing (Low Rise)DU 6.74 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51
Project Trip Generation
8601 Mission Drive SF 29 DU 273 5 15 20 17 10 27
8601 Mission Drive TH 8 DU 54 1 2 3 3 1 4
Total Trip Generation 327 6 17 23 20 11 31
DU = Dwelling Units
2 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low Rise)
Not Close to Transit.
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 210 - Single-Family Detached
Housing.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Units
8601 Mission Drive Project
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
8 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A – CITY OF ROSEMEAD TRANSPORTATION STUDY
GUIDELINES FOR VMT AND LOS ASSESSMENT
1493504.1
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment
October 2020
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
2
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Background Information .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines ....................................................................... 4
Application of Guidelines ................................................................................................................................. 5
Organization Guidelines .................................................................................................................................. 6
Non-CEQA Transportation Assessment 7
Level of Service Analysis Procedure ............................................................................................................. 7
On-Site Parking Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 10
Access and Circulation Analysis .................................................................................................................. 11
CEQA Transportation Assessment - VMT Analysis 12
VMT Analysis Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 12
CEQA VMT Impact Thresholds .................................................................................................................... 18
VMT Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................. 18
CEQA Assessment - Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis 20
Transportation Impact Study Format 21
Attachments 23
Attachment A: VMT Analysis Flowchart ................................................................................................... 23
Attachment B: SGVCOG VMT Assessment Tool User Guide ........................................................... 24
Attachment C: Detailed VMT Forecasting Information ..................................................................... 25
Attachment D: VMT Mitigation Strategies ............................................................................................. 28
Attachment D: VMT Mitigation Strategies ............................................................................................. 28
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
3
Introduction
These guidelines describe the transportation analysis requirements for land development, roadway
projects, and specific plans in the City of Rosemead. Guidelines are provided for evaluating a
project’s environmental transportation impacts and effects on the local transportation system.
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance on how to prepare transportation studies
in the City of Rosemead in conformance with all applicable City and State regulations.
Background Information
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), signed by the Governor in 2013, has changed the way transportation
impacts are identified. Specifically, the legislation directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to look at different metrics for identifying transportation impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Final OPR guidelines were released in December 2018 and
identified Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the preferred metric moving forward. The Natural Resources Agency completed the rule making process to modify the CEQA guidelines in December
of 2018. The CEQA Guidelines identify that, by July 1, 2020 all lead agencies must use VMT as the
new transportation metric for identifying transportation impacts for land use and transportation
projects.
In anticipation of the change to VMT, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) undertook the SGVCOG SB 743 Implementation Study to assist with answering important
implementation questions about the methodology, thresholds, and mitigation approaches for VMT
impact analysis in its member agencies. The study includes the following main components.
• Analysis Methodologies Memorandum – Identification of potential thresholds that can be
considered when establishing thresholds of significance for VMT assessment and
recommendations of analysis methodologies for VMT impact screening and analysis
• Mitigation Memorandum – Types of mitigation that can be considered for VMT mitigation
• VMT Assessment Tool – A web-based tool that can be used for VMT screening and mitigation recommendation
The City of Rosemead utilized the information produced through the Implementation Study to
adopt a methodology and significance thresholds for use in CEQA compliance. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) below, lead agencies are encouraged to formally adopt their
significance thresholds and this is a key part of the SB 743 implementation process.
(b) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses
in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. Thresholds of significance to be adopted for
general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance,
resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial
evidence. Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis as provided in Section 15064(b)(2).
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
4
The City has produced these Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to outline the specific
steps for complying with the new CEQA expectations for VMT analysis and the applicable general
plan consistency requirements related to Level of Service (LOS).
It should be noted that CEQA requirements change as the CEQA Guidelines are periodically updated
and/or legal opinions are rendered that change how analysis is completed. As such, the City may
continually review the guidelines for applicability and consultants should contact the City to ensure
that they are applying the City’s most recent guidelines for project impact assessment.
CEQA Changes
A key element of the changes brought about by SB 743 is the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and
other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining
significant environmental impacts. This change is intended to assist in balancing the needs of
congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
SB 743 includes amendments to current congestion management law that allows cities and counties
to effectively opt-out of the LOS standards that would otherwise apply in areas where Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) are still used. Further, SB 743 required OPR to update the CEQA
Guidelines and establish criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. In
December 2018, OPR released their final recommended guidelines based on feedback from the public, public agencies, and various organizations and individuals. OPR recommended VMT as the
most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts for land use projects and land use
plans. For transportation projects, lead agencies may select their own preferred metric but must be
prepared to support their decision with substantial evidence that complies with CEQA expectations.
SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS outside of CEQA review for other transportation planning or analysis purposes (i.e., general plans, impact fee
programs, corridor studies, congestion mitigation, or ongoing network monitoring).
Level of Service Policy
The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan has established Policy goal 1.3 which states that every feasible effort should be made to provide LOS D operations or better at intersections.
The LOS standards apply to discretionary approvals of new land use and transportation projects.
Therefore, these guidelines also include instructions for vehicle LOS analysis consistent with City requirements.
Purpose of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
State and Federal laws require the correlation of Land Use Element building intensities in a General
Plan with the Circulation Element capacity. A TIA is required by the City so that the impact of land
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
5
use proposals on the existing and future circulation system can be adequately assessed and to
ensure that CEQA and Congestion Management Program laws and guidelines are met.
The following TIA Guidelines identify CEQA based requirements and non-CEQA based requirements intended for any person or entity who is proposing development in the City and should be used in
coordination with the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines and Municipal Code to guide the development
review process.
For the past several decades, the preparation of a TIA was integrated into the CEQA process, in
which the TIA was used primarily to analyze a project’s impacts using intersection and/or roadway segment LOS. However, with the passage of SB 743, changes to the TIA process are necessary.
Specifically, a TIA may be needed as a stand-alone document which is a requirement of project
approval and will include information for the decision makers that is not required as part of the CEQA process.
The purpose of these TIA guidelines is to provide general instructions for analyzing the potential
transportation impacts of proposed development projects. These guidelines present the recommended format and methodology that should generally be utilized in the preparation of
TIA’s.
Application of Guidelines
An applicant seeking project approval will submit the proposed project to the City with a planning and land use application. After a preliminary review of the project by City Staff, the applicant will
be notified by the project planner as to whether or not a Level of Service based TIA or a Focused
Traffic Analysis is required. If a project is not eligible for project screening and is required to complete a Level of Service based TIA, then the TIA should consider changes in both LOS and VMT.
A TIA which includes LOS analysis may be required for a proposed project when the trips generated by a proposed development will add more than 50 project trips during either the AM or PM peak hours to any signalized intersection. The project study area will be determined by City staff during preliminary application review.
Furthermore, a TIA or Focused Traffic Analysis must include a VMT assessment for a proposed project that does NOT satisfy one or more of the following project screening criteria:
• Transit Priority Areas Screening
• Low VMT-generating Areas Screening
• Project Type Screening
See Section, “CEQA Assessment - VMT Analysis” for details on this screening criteria.
Projects may be screened from VMT analysis and require level-of-service analysis, or vice-versa. In cases where insufficient information is available to make a preliminary assessment of a proposal’s effect on traffic, the City shall determine, at its discretion, whether a TIA will be required.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
6
Organization Guidelines
This document is organized to provide background information, assessment for congestion management/General Plan Consistency (e.g. LOS analysis), and CEQA assessment (e.g. VMT
analysis). The following sections are included:
• Introduction
• Non-CEQA Transportation Assessment
• CEQA Assessment - VMT Analysis
• CEQA Assessment - Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis
• Transportation Impact Analysis Format
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
7
Non-CEQA Transportation Assessment
Level of Service Analysis Procedure
Traffic analysis should be prepared under the direction and/or by a registered traffic engineer,
registered civil engineer, or qualified transportation planner. To establish a mutually agreeable
scope of work for the traffic analysis, the analyst and project applicant should consult with Planning Department staff and Public Works staff to identify study area, assumptions, and methodologies of
the traffic analysis. All assumptions and methodologies of the LOS analysis are subject to review
and approval of City staff.
Traffic Counts
The traffic analysis should not use any traffic counts that are more than two years old without
approval of City staff. If traffic counts taken within the last two years are not available, then new
traffic counts should be collected by a qualified data collection firm. Turning movement data at the study intersections should be collected in 15-minute intervals during the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00
AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, unless City Staff specifies other hours (e.g., for a signal warrant determination, school traffic or weekend analysis). Unless otherwise required, all traffic counts
should generally be conducted when local schools or colleges are in session, on days of good
weather, on Tuesdays through Thursdays during non-Summer months, and should avoid being taken on weeks with a holiday.
Trip Generation
The City will accept the trip generation rate of the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In addition, with City approval, analysis for a proposed project with trip generation rates not provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, may
use rates from other agencies or locally approved studies for specific land uses or driveway counts
at similar facilities with the same characteristics of the proposed project. Documentation supporting the use of these trip generation rates will be required.
The traffic analysis should include justification for trip generation credits such as existing uses,
transit, and internal capture. The pass-by traffic credit should be calculated based upon the Institute
of Transportation Engineer data or city approved special studies. Analysis at project driveways will
require the assumption of full project trips prior to pass-by credits.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Documentation should be provided for the trip distribution and assignment for vehicle trips to and
from the site along specific roadways that will be utilized by project generated traffic. The basic
methodology and assumptions used to develop trip distribution and assignments must be clearly
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
8
stated and approved by City staff. The basis for trip distribution should consider any available
demographic or market data in the area as well as the project’s location relative to the regional
roadway system.
The trip assignment for the project should be based on existing and projected travel patterns and
the future roadway network and its travel time characteristics.
Traffic Forecasts
The traffic analysis should include the total traffic which is expected to occur at buildout of the proposed project. This means that the analyst preparing the transportation study should include all
the cumulative effects of the project. The analyst may obtain the ambient growth rate in the project
vicinity from the City’s General Plan, the latest version of the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Travel Demand Model or another appropriate sub-area travel demand model.
Projects which have been approved or planned, but not built in the vicinity of the proposed project should be verified as included in the analysis and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
Analysis Methodologies
The City uses the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology to evaluate AM and PM peak
hour LOS at signalized intersections. The latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology will be used to evaluate the AM and PM peak hour LOS at unsignalized intersections.
The peak hour will be identified as the highest one-hour period in both AM and PM counted
periods, as determined by four consecutive 15-minute count intervals. The following parameters should be used in determining the LOS at the intersections within the City.
ICU Methodology (signalized intersections)
• A minimum clearance interval of 0.10 of green time.
• Lane capacities of 1,800 per hour per lane for through and turn lanes.
• Lane capacities of 3,240 per hour for dual turn lanes
HCM Methodology (unsignalized intersections)
• A peak hour factor (PHF) based on observed conditions shall be used for existing conditions.
• A PHF of 0.95 shall be used for future conditions.
Pedestrian activity should be considered on a case by case basis using reductions in saturation flow
rates for affected lanes as determined by sound engineering judgement. The HCM is the best source of guidance for assessment of pedestrian influences on flow rates.
Table 1 summarizes the range of values and LOS designations.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
9
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria
LOS
LOS Criteria
Description Signalized Intersection (v/c) Unsignalized Intersection (delay)
A ≤0.600 ≤10.0 EXCELLENT. Operations with very low delay and most vehicles do not stop.
B >0.600 and ≤0.700 >10.0 and ≤15.0 VERY GOOD. Operations with good progression
but with some restricted movements.
C >0.700 and ≤0.800 >15.0 and ≤25.0
GOOD. Operations where a significant number of
vehicles are stopping with some backup and light
congestion.
D >0.800 and ≤0.900 >25.0 and ≤35.0
FAIR. Operations where congestion is noticeable,
longer delays occur, and many vehicles stop. The
proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
E >0.900 and ≤1.000 >35.0 and ≤50.0 POOR. Operations where there is high delay,
extensive queueing, and poor progression.
F >1.000 >50.0
FAILURE. Operations that are unacceptable to most
drivers, when the arrival rates exceed the capacity
of the intersection.
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
Analysis Scenarios
The following identifies the analysis scenarios that should be evaluated for LOS analysis (at the
discretion of City staff).
• Existing Conditions:
Existing traffic conditions analysis based on current traffic data, typically collected within
the previous 2-year period.
• Existing plus Project:
Existing traffic conditions plus traffic generated by the proposed project.
• Opening Year:
Existing traffic conditions plus ambient growth and traffic from all the development within
the study area for which an application has been submitted (“pending projects”), or that have been approved but not yet constructed. There may be multiple opening years if the
project is proposed in phases.
• Opening Year plus Project:
Traffic conditions of existing plus ambient growth and approved and pending
developments, plus traffic generated by the proposed project.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
10
Projects that are to be constructed in more than one phase will require interim year future analysis
to address each phase of the development and its associated traffic effects. The year(s) to be analyzed will coincide with the scheduled phasing and will be approved by City staff.
A table is to be included which identifies the forecast LOS for each intersection within the defined study area. This summary table shall present LOS for all scenarios evaluated-including
improvements.
Transportation Effects
The acceptable LOS for intersections in the City is D or better as established in the City’s General
Plan. Any intersection operating at a LOS of E or F is considered deficient. The project-related
increase in volume-to-capacity (V/C) is equal to or greater than 0.020 at an intersection that degrades from acceptable operations (LOS D or better) to unacceptable operations (LOS E or F).
For signalized intersections, the City’s non-CEQA thresholds for volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) are
met if the following is met, and the City at its discretion may require improvements or other strategies to reduce the V/C ratio to acceptable levels:
• The project-related increase in V/C is equal to or greater than 0.020 at an intersection
that is already operating at LOS E or F.
For unsignalized intersections, the City’s non-CEQA thresholds for Level of Service (LOS) are met if
both of the following conditions are met, and the City at its discretion may require improvements or other strategies to reduce the Level of Service (LOS) to acceptable levels:
• The addition of project traffic to an intersection results in the degradation of overall
intersection operations from acceptable operations (LOS D or better) to unacceptable operations (LOS E or F).
• The project-related increase in traffic contributes 10 percent or more to the total peak hour volume at an intersection that is already operating at LOS E or F.
On-Site Parking Analysis
This analysis will address the on-site parking supply versus parking required per City code. If the
proposed development is of mixed-use type, a table should be included presenting each land use, its size, and the code parking requirement. This table should clearly indicate how the code parking
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
11
was calculated and include the proposed on-site parking supply together with the resultant surplus
or deficit from code requirements.
Should the on-site parking supply be less than required by the City code, a detailed explanation justifying a reduction to the code requirement must be included. Note that this does not eliminate
the need for any zoning code variance. Shared parking evaluations will be considered when
appropriate.
Access and Circulation Analysis
The project’s effect on access points and on-site circulation shall be analyzed. The analysis shall, as appropriate, include the following:
• Number of access points proposed for the project site.
• If a project is proposing full access at project driveways, then it must be demonstrated that
striping and lane widths on adjacent streets will allow for full movements in and out.
• Spacing between driveways and intersections.
• Potential signalization of driveways.
• On-site stacking distance. (Including uses with a drive thru.)
• If project includes a restaurant with a drive-thru, a queueing analysis may be required addressing available on-site stacking and demonstrate that no drive thru stacking will spill
onto adjacent public streets.
• Shared access.
• Turn conflicts/restrictions.
• Adequate sight distance at project driveways.
• Driveway improvements.
• Pedestrian connections.
• Show truck turning templates for truck deliveries and trash trucks on site.
• If the project involves large trucks (industrial, manufacturing, warehouse use), then a truck
turning template will be required at each project driveway showing truck paths to docking
and delivery zones.
• Any other operational characteristics (as identified by City staff).
If the proposed project is a residential or commercial use with privacy gates, the applicant shall
provide a stacking analysis for review and approval. The adequacy of the interface with the arterial
network will need to be demonstrated and necessary improvements to adjacent intersections may
be required.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
12
CEQA Transportation Assessment - VMT
Analysis
VMT Analysis Methodology
For purposes of SB 743 compliance, a VMT analysis should be conducted for land development
projects subject to CEQA and would apply to projects that have the potential to increase the baseline VMT per service population (e.g. population plus employment) for the City. Normalizing
VMT per service population (e.g. creating a rate by dividing VMT by service population) provides a
transportation efficiency metric that the analysis is based on. All assumptions and methodologies of the VMT analysis are subject to review and approval by the City Staff.
A flowchart of the VMT analysis process is attached to these guidelines. See Attachment A, “VMT
Analysis Flowchart”. A web-based tool that is included with this implementation study to assist with VMT assessment screening and mitigation recommendations. A user guide for use of this tool is
attached to these guidelines. See Attachment B, “SGVCOG VMT Assessment Tool Users Guide.”
Project Screening
There are three types of screening that may be applied to effectively screen projects from project-
level assessment. These screening steps are summarized below:
Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
Projects located within a TPA1 may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent
substantial evidence to the contrary. This presumption may NOT be appropriate if the project:
1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than
required by the City;
1 A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor per the definitions below. Public Resources Code § 21099(a)(7)
Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 - ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 - For purposes of this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
13
3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by
the lead agency, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments
[SCAG]); or
4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income
residential units.
To identify if the project is in a TPA, the analyst may review TPA map included in the SGVCOG
VMT assessment tool. Additionally, the analyst should confirm with all local transit providers that
no recent changes in transit service have occurred in the project area (e.g. addition or removal of
transit lines, addition or removal of transit stops, or changes to service frequency).
Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, other
employment-related and mixed-use land use projects may qualify for the use of screening if the
project can reasonably be expected to generate VMT per resident, per worker, or per service
population that is similar to the existing land uses in the low VMT area.
• If the proposed project is residential, the project is considered “screened out”, if it is located within the Low VMT areas of the “PA/Residential Home-Based VMT per Capita”.
Alternatively, if the predominant land uses in the vicinity are nominally of the same type
as the proposed project and the proposed project is reasonably expected to generate similar VMT as the existing land uses, the project is considered screened out if it
is in the low VMT area for the “Total Daily VMT per Service Population”.
• If the proposed project is office, commercial or industrial, the project is considered “screened out”, if it is located within the Low VMT areas of the “PA/Daily Home-Based
Work VMT per Employee”. Alternatively, if the predominant land uses in the vicinity are nominally of the same type as the proposed project and the proposed project is reasonably expected to generate similar VMT as the existing land uses, the project is
considered screened out if it is in the low VMT area for the “Total Daily VMT Service per Population”.
• If the proposed project is retail, the project is considered “screened out” if it is located
within the low VMT areas of the “Total Daily VMT per Service Population”.
• If the proposed project is a mixed-use development, all components of the project should
be analyzed against the low VMT maps for either the dominant project land use (if applicable) or for each individual land use (if there is no dominant project land use).
Reductions in VMT may be applied to account for internal trips that would occur within the
project site. The project must be analyzed as a whole and all elements must screen out to qualify for Low VMT screening.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
14
For this screening, the SCAG travel forecasting model was used to measure VMT performance for
individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons similar to Census block
groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. Total daily VMT per service population was estimated for each TAZ. This presumption may not be appropriate if the project
land uses would alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length
of vehicle trips. The project applicant should document whether or not any increase to the trip generation rate or length of vehicle trips is expected.
To identify if the project is in a low VMT-generating area, the analyst should use the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool at: https://apps.fehrandpeers.com/SGVCOGVMT/. There are two VMT Metrics for
each Land Use Type built into the tool as shown in the figure below:
Either one of these two options may be used to screen a project. To use the tool for a proposed
project, the land use type must be either an existing or future land use within the Tier 1 Traffic
Analysis Zone (TAZ) for Total VMT per Service Population, or within the Tier 2 TAZ for Home-based VMT per capita or Home-based Work VMT per employee. Additionally, if using the Total VMT per
Service Population metric, the analyst must verify that the project is consistent with the existing
land use (i.e. if the project is proposing housing, there should be existing housing within that TAZ) and use professional judgment that there is nothing unique about the project that would otherwise
misrepresent utilizing the data from the VMT Tool.
Step 3: Project Type Screening
Some project types have been identified as having the presumption of a less than significant impact.
The following uses can be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial
evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature:
• Local serving retail (retail establishments less than 50,000 square feet in size), including:
o Gas stations
o Gas Stations
o Banks
o Restaurants
o Shopping Center
• Local-serving K-12 schools
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
15
• Local parks
• Day care centers
• Local-serving hotels (e.g. non-destination hotels)
• Student housing projects on or adjacent to a college campus
• Local-serving assembly uses (places of worship, community organizations)
• Community institutions (public libraries, fire stations, local government)
• Affordable, supportive, or transitional housing
• Assisted living facilities
• Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
• Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy)
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips2,3This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials:
o 11 single family housing units
o 16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units
o 10,000 sq. ft. of office
o 15,000 sq. ft. of light industrial4
o 63,000 sq. ft. of warehousing3
o 79,000 sq. ft. of high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse3
• Public parking garages and public parking lots
Local serving retail projects with a total square footage less than 50,000 square feet may be
presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local
serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of
reducing vehicle travel. Any project that uses the designation of “local-serving” should be able to
demonstrate that its users (employees, customers, visitors) would be existing within the community. The project would not generate new “demand” for the project land uses but would meet the existing
2 Note that a redevelopment project replacing an existing use would estimate the net increase in trips above trips what already exists.
3 This threshold ties directly to the OPR technical advisory and notes that CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-124 trips per 10,000 square feet. Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact.
4 This number was estimated using rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. Some industrial and warehousing tenants may generate traffic differently than what is documented in ITE. In these cases, documentation of the project generating less than 110 daily trips will be required for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
16
demand that would shorten the distance existing residents, employees, customers, or visitors would
need to travel.
VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development
Projects not screened through the steps above should complete VMT analysis and forecasting through the SCAG model, appropriate sub-area model, or VMT analysis tool to determine if they
have a significant VMT impact. This analysis should include ‘project generated VMT’ for the project
TAZ (or TAZs) and ‘project effect on VMT’ estimates under the scenarios below. Project generated VMT shall include the VMT generated by the site compared back to the CEQA threshold of
significance. The project effect on VMT is the link based VMT for a geographic region which is more
appropriate to review to evaluate how these developments change travel behavior in the region.
• Baseline conditions:
This data is available from the SCAG model or appropriate sub-area model approved by the City Staff. This data is also available in the SGVCOG VMT Assessment Tool. Baseline
conditions typically represent the year of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). Interpolation
between the base and future year model will be required to identify the VMT representative of the baseline year.
• Baseline plus Project:
The project land use would be added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ would be created
to contain the project land uses. A full base year model run would be performed and VMT changes would be isolated for the project TAZ and across the full model network. The
model output must include reasonableness checks of the production and attraction
balancing to ensure the project effect is accurately captured. These reasonableness checks are subject to City Staff’s review. If this scenario results in a less-than-significant impact,
then additional cumulative scenario analysis may not be required (more information about
this outcome can be found in the Thresholds Evaluation discussion later in this chapter). The SGVCOG VMT assessment tool provides an estimate of the Baseline plus project
conditions. This data could be presented in lieu of results from the full model run. However,
it is recommended that a base year plus project run be performed as a check for reasonableness and consistency with the cumulative year results.
• Cumulative no Project:
This data is available from the SCAG model or appropriate sub-area model approved by
the City Staff.
• Cumulative plus project:
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
17
The project land use would either be added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ would be
created to contain the project land uses. The addition of project land uses should be
accompanied by a reallocation of a similar amount of land use from other TAZs; especially if the proposed project is significant in size such that it would change other future
developments. Land use projects are often represented in the assumed growth of the
cumulative year population and employment. It may be appropriate to remove land use growth that represents a project from the cumulative year model to represent the
cumulative no project scenario If project land uses are simply added to the cumulative no project scenario, then the analysis should reflect this limitation in the methodology and
acknowledge that the analysis may overestimate the project’s effect on VMT.
The model output should include total VMT, which includes all vehicle trips and trip purposes, and VMT per service population. Total VMT (by speed bin) is needed as an input for air quality,
greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy impact analysis while total VMT per service population is
recommended for transportation impact analysis5.
The baseline and cumulative “plus project” scenarios noted above will summarize project generated
VMT per service population and comparing it back to the appropriate benchmark noted in the thresholds of significance. The cumulative “plus project” scenario noted above will summarize the
project effect on VMT, comparing how the project changes VMT on the network looking at citywide
VMT per service population comparing it to the no project condition.
Project-generated VMT should be extracted from the travel demand forecasting model using the
origin-destination trip matrix and should multiply that matrix by the final assignment skims. The
project-effect on VMT should be estimated using the City boundary6 and extracting the total link-
level VMT for both the no project and with project condition. The TAZ identification numbers within
the study area shall be included in the report.
In some cases, it may be appropriate to extract the Project-generated VMT using the production-attraction trip matrix. This may be appropriate when a project is entirely composed of retail or office
uses, and there is a need to isolate the home-based-work (HBW) VMT for the purposes of isolating commute VMT. The City should evaluate the appropriate methodology based on the project land
use types and context.
A detailed description of this process is attached to these guidelines. See Attachment C, “Detailed VMT Forecasting Information”.
5 The City has selected VMT per service population for its impact threshold. However, the City will allow for use of VMT to be isolated by trip purpose with review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
6 Note – for projects near the City boundary, a different boundary may be more applicable to make sure that VMT effects are not artificially truncated at the City boundary.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
18
CEQA VMT Impact Thresholds
VMT Impacts
VMT thresholds provided below are to be applied to determine potential project generated VMT impacts and project’s effect on VMT impacts.
A project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact if either of the
following conditions are satisfied4:
1. The baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds the 15% below
the SGVCOG baseline VMT per service population, or
2. The cumulative project generated VMT per service population exceeds 15% below the SGVCOG baseline VMT per service population
The project’s effect on VMT would be considered significant if it resulted in the following
condition being satisfied:
1. The cumulative link-level boundary Citywide VMT per service population increases
under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition.
Please note that the cumulative no project should reflect the adopted RTP/SCS; as such, if a project
is consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS, then the cumulative impacts (project effect on VMT) shall be
considered less than significant subject to consideration of other substantial evidence.
VMT Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation strategies are available to reduce VMT impacts:
1. Modify the project’s-built environment characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the
project. 2. Implement transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT
generated by the project.
3. Participate in a VMT fee program and/or VMT mitigation exchange/banking program (if available) to reduce VMT from the project or other land uses to achieve acceptable levels.
As part of the Implementation Study, key TDM measures that are appropriate to the region were
identified. Measures appropriate for most of the City are summarized in a table attached to these guidelines. See Attachment D, “VMT Mitigation Strategies”.
VMT reductions should be evaluated as part of the VMT impact analysis using state-of-the-practice
methodologies recognizing that many of the TDM strategies are dependent on building tenant
performance over time. As such, actual VMT reduction cannot be reliably predicted and monitoring
may be necessary to gauge performance related to mitigation expectations.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
19
When a Project is found to have a significant impact under CEQA, the City requires developers and
the business community to assist in reducing peak hour and total vehicular trips by implementing
Transportation Demand Management Plans (TDMs). The potential of a proposed project to reduce VMT through the use of a TDM plan should be addressed in the traffic study.
If a TDM plan is proposed as a mitigation measure for a project, and the traffic study attributes a
reduction in peak and total traffic to the TDM plan, the following information must be provided:
1. A detailed description of the major components of the TDM plan and how it would be implemented and maintained on a continuing basis.
2. Case studies or empirical data that supports the anticipated reduction of traffic attributed to the TDM plan.
3. Additional Volume/Capacity ratio calculations that illustrate the circulation benefits of the TDM plan.
4. Enforcement Measures – how it will be monitored and enforced.
5. How it complies with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulations.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
20
CEQA Assessment - Active
Transportation and Public Transit
Analysis
Potential impacts to public transit, pedestrian facilities and travel, and bicycle facilities and travel
can be evaluated using the following criteria:
• A significant impact occurs if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the
performance or safety of such facilities.
Therefore, the TIA should evaluate whether a project is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding active transportation or public transit facilities, or otherwise increases or decreases the performance or safety of such facilities and make a determination as to whether it
has the potential to conflict with existing or proposed facilities supporting these travel modes.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
21
Transportation Impact Study Format
Each TIA submitted to the City should contain each of the following elements unless the topic is
not applicable. However, items omitted there as “not applicable” must first be approved by the City.
1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction
3. Project Description and Location
4. Methodology and Thresholds 5. LOS Analysis
6. On-site Parking, Access, and Circulation Analysis
7. Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis 8. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
9. Appendix
1. Executive Summary
This portion of the report shall present factual and concise information relative to the major issues identified in the report. The Executive Summary shall include a brief overview of the project, a short
discussion of the project’s traffic generation potential, the expected VMT impacts of the project,
and a summary of mitigation measures. It should also summarize any deficiencies in roadway LOS and the corresponding proposed improvements.
2. Introduction
The introduction of the report shall include a detailed description of study procedures, a general overview of the proposed project site and study area boundaries, existing and proposed site uses,
and existing and proposed roadways and intersections within the defined study area (defined study
area to be determined by the City). Exhibits required for this section shall include a regional map
showing the project vicinity and a site layout map.
3. Project Description and Location
This section shall expand on information presented in the introduction and shall provide a detailed
development scenario and specific project location. Exhibits in this section shall include, at a
minimum, a clear illustration of the project in terms of a site plan, its density, adjacent roadways, on-site parking supply, proposed traffic circulation within the project, gross square footage, number
of rooms/units, and other descriptors as appropriate.
4. Methodology and Thresholds
Identify the methodology used to calculate LOS and VMT. Include the criteria used for screening
projects from project-level VMT analysis, if applicable. Identify the impact threshold for VMT, and
the City’s LOS standards for roadways and intersections.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
22
5. LOS Analysis
This should include the Traffic Generation Forecast, Traffic Distribution and Assignment, Traffic
Analysis, and identify required improvements described about in “Level of Service Analysis Procedure”.
6. On-site Parking, Access, and Circulation Analysis
Refer to On-Site Parking Analysis section and Access and Circulation Analysis section.
7. Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis
Refer to Active Transportation and Public Transit Analysis section.
8. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Present the Project VMT per service population for all analysis scenarios and the Project effect on
VMT for all analysis scenarios. Data should be presented in tabular format. If the project meets the City’s VMT screening criteria, this should be documented. All VMT impacts should be identified in
accordance with the VMT Impact Thresholds described above. Proposed VMT mitigation measures
should be identified.
9. Appendix
Detailed appendix material shall be supplied as part of the report. If the main report is too large to
include an appendix, such material shall be provided under a separate and identifiable cover. Typical
material in this regard includes VMT and TDM calculations, traffic counts, LOS calculation sheets,
fully completed signal warrants, accident diagrams at high accident locations, sketches of proposed roadway improvements, and other information necessary for the City's review of the report.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
23
Attachments
Attachment A: VMT Analysis Flowchart
Step 1
Screening
ProjectQuestions ProceduralFlowchart
Step 3
Developing
Mitigation
Measures
Step 2
VMT
Assessment
1. Is the project in a Transit Priority Area?
2. Are the following requirements met?
• Must have a total FAR greater than or equal to 0.75
• Cannot provide more parking than the City Municipal
Code Requirement
• Must be consistent with SCAG RTP/SCS
• Cannot replace affordable units with a smaller
number of moderate- or high-income residential units
What is the project-level VMT and its effect on VMT assessment?
Does the project have a less than significant impact?
CAPCOA = California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
FAR = Floor Area Ratio
PA = Production-Attraction
RTP = Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments
SCS = Sustainable Communities Strategy
SGVCOG = San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
TDM = Transportation Demand Management
TPA = Transit Priority Area
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
What are the options to mitigate VMT impacts?
Abbreviations
1. Is the project located in a low VMT area?
2. Are the following requirements met?
• The project is composed of similar land use types and
of a similar density to the land uses within the project TAZ
• The project is assumed to generate VMT per person
similar to those existing uses
Steps
Is the project a local-serving project as noted in the Project Type
Screening project list in the Transportation Study Guidelines?
These projects include but are not limited to:
• Local serving K-12 schools
• Local-serving retail uses less than 50,000 square feet
• Community and Religious Assembly Uses
• Public Services
• Affordable or supportive housing
• Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips
• Other projects as approved by the City Traffic Engineer
Type A
TPA Screening
Type B
Low VMT Area
Screening
Type C
Project Type
Screening
Note: Review jurisdiction's thresholds of
significance for definition of low VMT area.
Note: VMT reductions associated with proposed TDM mitigation
measures can be estimated with:
• CAPCOA reduction equations
• Use of OCTAM and the PA Methodology to isolate commute VMT
• The SGVCOG VMT Assessment Tool TDM module can be utilized to
estimate VMT reduction potential associated with TDM measures
*Please note that a Mitigation Bank or Mitigation Exchange program
may not be readily available. Check with your local agency.
Details for VMT Assessment are provided in Transportation Study Guidelines.
Modify the project’s
built environment
characteristics to
reduce VMT generated
by the project
Implement TDM
measures to reduce VMT
generated by the project
Participate in
Mitigation Bank or
Mitigation Exchange
to offset impact*MITIGATIONTDMPROJECT
Note: If the project
fulfills Type A, B or C
screening, the project is
presumed to result in a
less-than-significant
transportation impact.
Note: If the project is
not screened from
assessment in Step 1, the
project will require a full
VMT assessment to
disclose potential
significant impacts.
Use SGVCOG VMT Assessment Tool
Use latest version of the SCAG
model or local subregional model to
conduct VMT Assessment consistent
with Procedural Notes on VMT
Assessment on next page
Process Complete
Process Complete
Process Complete
Use SGVCOG VMT Assessment Tool
Decision Analytical process or procedural outcome
SGVCOG VMT Assessment Flowchart
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
Process Complete
NOYES
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
24
Attachment B: SGVCOG VMT Assessment Tool User
Guide
1
SGVCOG VMT Tool:
Quick Start Guide
(August 18, 2020)
Led by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) at the direction of 27 of the 30
member cities that constitute SGVCOG, this tool is an outcome of the VMT implementation process
whereby the participating cities adopted new significance thresholds for analyzing transportation
impacts pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). The tool covers the following SGVCOG cities:
Alhambra Industry Rosemead
Arcadia Irwindale San Dimas
Azusa La Canada Flintridge San Gabriel
Baldwin Park La Puente San Marino
Claremont Laverne Sierra Madre
Covina Monterey Park South El Monte
Diamond Bar Montebello Temple City
Duarte Monrovia Walnut
El Monte Pomona West Covina
The tool can be accessed at https://apps.fehrandpeers.com/SGVCOGVMT/. Each of the cities has
unique thresholds of significance, and the methodologies for VMT screening may vary slightly due to
the different development patterns and geographic location of each community. Please coordinate
with the respective city when using this tool for development purposes.
WHAT DOES THIS TOOL DO?
The SGVCOG VMT Tool is designed to assist you in screening and estimating project‐generated VMT for
certain types of land use projects in the San Gabriel Valley and calculating VMT reductions associated
with certain VMT‐reducing measures. The tool is intended for use on four primary land uses:
Residential
Office
Industrial
Commercial (e.g. retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses)
The tool evaluates projects with one or a combination of these uses.
LIMITATIONS OF THE VMT EVALUATION TOOL
The VMT Evaluation Tool only covers some of the possible screening criteria that a city or county may
establish for land use project VMT analysis per California Senate Bill 743. The Tool is limited to providing
estimates based on data provided in the model, whereby if a proposed project is of a land use type that
is not reflected in the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) either now or in the future, the Tool is not capable of
estimating the VMT efficiency rate for that land use type. Other land uses types, large, complex and/or
2
mixed‐use projects, or long‐range land use plans should be analyzed using the Boundary Method, which
requires running the SCAG RTP Model. Before making any decisions based on the information provided
by the VMT Evaluation Tool, it is recommended that you contact the city in which the proposed
development is located.
RUNNING THE VMT EVALUATION TOOL – 4 BASIC STEPS
The following are the four basic steps involved in running the VMT Evaluation Tool:
Page 1: Select Project Area
Step 1: Jurisdiction
Using the drop‐down box, select the city where the project is located. This is required.
Step 2: Select Parcel(s)
There are three ways to locate the parcels associated with a proposed project:
1. Type in the Assessor Parcel Number(s) (APN). The APN requires a dash between each
grouping of numbers (XXXX‐XXX‐XXX).
2. Type in the Project Address; or,
3. Zoom into the map
To select the parcel, click on “Add”.
Page 2: Determine Screening Inputs
Project Information
o Project Name: Must type in a project name (required field) – max 250 characters
o Project Description: Required field – max 250 characters
o APNs: Auto‐populated from Page 1
3
Select Base Data: Auto‐populated
Analysis Methodology: Auto‐
populated
Select Baseline Year: The tool has
the capability of providing baseline
VMT between 2012 and 2040
pursuant to the 2016 SCAG RTP
Model. To select a baseline year,
click on the timeline and slide the
point to the preferred baseline year.
VMT Metric Specification for Land
Use 1‐3: The tool is capable of
evaluating up to three land use types
per project. The tool is also capable
of evaluating the difference in VMT
Metrics for one land use type. For
the latter, select the same land use
type for Land Use 1 and Land Use 2
and select different VMT Metrics.
Land Use Type: Select 1) Residential, 2) Office, 3) Industrial, or 4) Commercial.
VMT Metric: Select Home‐based VMT per Capita/Home‐based VMT per Worker or Total VMT per
Service Population
Jurisdictional Average for Baseline: Pre‐set (based on City preferences)
Threshold: Pre‐set (based on City preferences)
Project Screening Only versus Continue to VMT Reduction Factors: Option to screen first without
VMT reductions. The tool provides a mechanism to return to this page and select reductions.
4
Page 4: Project Screening Results (without VMT Reduction Strategies)
Page 4 (VMT Screening Results): From this page with Project Screening Results, there is an option at the top
left of the page to “Edit Inputs”. Click this to return to Page 3.
Page 3: Click on Continue to VMT Reduction Strategies to test VMT reduction strategies. Details about the
VMT Reduction Strategies are provided in Appendix D of the Transportation Assessment Guidelines.
Page 4 (Land Use Info and VMT Reduction Strategies): On this page, populate the project details. Note that
the light blue “i" in a circle can be clicked on for additional information, as demonstrated below.
Project Land Use Information
o The left‐hand entry boxes contain up/down arrows for increasing/decreasing values, but by
clicking to the left of the up/down
arrows, you may also type in a value, as
shown below. Please note that all
square‐footage values are calculated in
5
the tool in terms of one thousand square feet (KSF) so for a 6,000 square‐foot office, the field
would be populated with a “6”, as shown below.
VMT Reduction Strategies
o Select the desired VMT Reduction Strategies by first clicking the box next to the strategy. In
some cases, additional inputs will be required, such as the example below for Tier 3 Parking
(PK01 Limit Parking Supply)
A number of reduction strategies overlap with each other. For instance, a strategy may consist of a
basket of measures which may overlap with some of the measures in another strategy. Therefore, the
SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool logic has been coded to reflect these dependencies, so that if one
measure is chosen, other overlapping measures are not allowed. The dependencies in the tool are
summarized below and are shown in the Tool by greying out certain reductions so that they cannot be
selected.
6
If this strategy is chosen… This strategy is not allowed…
PK 02 Provide Bike Facilities TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 04 CTR Marketing and Education
TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 15 Travel behavior Change
TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
TP 05 Implement CTR Program
PK 02 Provide Bike Facilities
TP 04 CTR Marketing and Education
TP 08 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules
TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
TP 15 Behavioral Intervention
TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
TP 06 Employee Parking Cash-Out TP 10 Price Workplace Parking
TP 07 Subsidized Transit Program TP 11 Alternative Transportation Benefits
TP 08 Telecommuting and Alternative Work
Schedules TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
TP 10 Price Workplace Parking TP 06 Employee Parking Cash-Out
TP 11 Alternative Transportation Benefits TP 07 Subsidized Transit Program
TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet
TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
TP 15 Behavioral Intervention
TP 04 CTR Marketing and Education
TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet
TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change
Program
TP 04 CTR Marketing and Education
TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 15 Behavioral Intervention
Project Screening Results (with VMT Reduction Strategies): The results of the Project Screening are
summarized in this report. The Tool does not screen based on 110‐daily trips. Screening for this
factor must be completed outside of the tool using the ITE Trip Generation Manual. This Tool screens
projects based on their location within a TPA and/or a Low VMT Area. The Screening Results provides
the following information about these two screening criteria.
7
1. Transit Priority Area (TPA): Page 1 of the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report
2. Low VMT Area: Page 2 of the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report provides details about the
VMT generation in the area of the proposed project. The table in the figure below indicates
the Home‐based VMT per Employee Baseline (20.4), and the dark blue line indicated in the
bar chart (17.34) indicates the threshold of 15 percent below the Baseline. The gray dotted
line in the bar chart indicates the maximum potential VMT reduction (16.22) that could be
available through the strategies in the tool.
READING THE REPORT & EXPORT FILES
The VMT Evaluation Tool produces two types of outputs: a formatted report, which shows up on the
Results screen and can be downloaded as a PDF file, and data tables including all the user‐provided
inputs and the back‐end data which can be downloaded as CSV files.
Key things to look for in the report / PDF:
Whether the project falls in proximity to transit (within ½
mile of a Major Transit Stop, or ½ mile of a stop along a High‐
Quality Transit Corridor as defined in state law):
Look for the ‘Inside TPA?’ question on Page 1 of the report.
8
Whether the project falls in a low‐VMT area (i.e., below the VMT threshold specified by the
city/town/county): Look for the ‘Low VMT Screening Analysis’ row on the Screening Results page(s) of
the report, starting on page 2. There will be Low‐VMT Screening results for each land use you select.
The CSV files are intended to help the user understand how the VMT reduction results were obtained; the
data in the files, along with the formulas in forthcoming User Manual, should help confirm the results.
TIPS FOR SUCCESS
Look for the “tool‐tips” across the tool to help understand fields where inputs are required.
The tool may take 1 ‐ 2 minutes to run a report; if it takes much longer, refresh and try again.
If you are running variations on the same site and project, use the back arrows in the upper‐left of
the screen (such as ) to go back, vary some inputs, and run the report again.
To start a completely new analysis while staying in the tool, use the button in the upper‐right of the
Results screen.
The tool is optimized for Chrome, Firefox, Edge or Safari on a Windows or Mac computer, although
you may also access it from a tablet or another browser. If you encounter unexpected issues, try
clearing your browser cache and cookies and running again.
Please fill out the short feedback form by clicking on the link in the upper‐right
of the tool. You may report errors, rate the tool, and offer suggestions for future improvements.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
SGVCOG will be providing further documentation of the VMT Evaluation Tool in Fall 2020, including a
User Manual and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet.
If you have questions about the VMT Evaluation Tool, you may email j.hayes@fehrandpeers.com.
For any inquiries about how the tool may be applied in a land use review and approval process, please
contact staff at the city/town/county in which the project is located.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
25
Attachment C: Detailed VMT Forecasting Information
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
26
This section provides detailed VMT forecasting instructions for use with the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) Travel Demand Model. Please note that SCAG periodically
updates the travel demand model and the latest version available should be utilized for VMT assessment in the City.
The SCAGT travel demand model is a trip-based model that generates daily person trip-ends for
each traffic analysis zone (TAZ or zone) across various trip purposes (Home-based-work, home-
based-other, and non-home-based for example) based on population, household, and employment
variables. This may create challenges for complying with the VMT guidance because trip generation is not directly tied to specific land use categories. The following methodology addresses this
particular challenge among others.
Production and attraction trip-ends are separately calculated for each zone, and generally: production trip-ends are generated by residential land uses and attraction trip-ends are generated
by non-residential land uses. Focusing on residential and employment land uses, the first step to
forecasting VMT requires translating the land use into model terms, the closest approximations are:
• Residential: home-based production trips
• Employment: home-based work attraction trips
Note that this excludes all non-home-based trips.
The challenges with computing VMT for these two types of trips in a trip-based model are 1)
production and attraction trip-ends are not distinguishable after the productions/attractions (PA)
to origins/destinations (OD) conversion process and 2) trip purposes are not maintained after the mode choice step. For these reasons, it not possible to use the VMT results from the standard
vehicle assignment (even using a select zone re-assignment). A separate post-process must be
developed to re-estimate VMT for each zone that includes trip-end types and trip purposes. In order to provide the most accurate estimates possible, the recommended approach to estimating
VMT is outlined below. Deviating from this approach will require justification and approval from
the City Staff.
VMT Forecasting Instructions
This approach will calculate total Origin/Destination (OD) VMT using standard SCAG model output
files. The OD method for calculating total VMT includes all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone, and all vehicle trips that end in a specific traffic analysis zone. The major steps of this
approach are listed as follows:
• Re-skim final loaded congested networks and adjust the external skim for each mode and
time period to account for truncated trips
• Multiply appropriate distance skim matrices by OD trip matrices to estimate VMT by time
period
• Sum matrices by time period and mode to calculate daily automobile VMT
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
27
• Calculate automobile VMT for individual TAZs
Appropriateness Checks
The number of vehicle trips from the total VMT estimation should match as closely as possible with
the results from the traditional model process. The estimated results should be checked against the results from a full model run to understand the degree of accuracy. Note that these custom
processes may or may not include full lengths of IX/XI trips (trips with origins or destinations outside
of the model roadway network) or special generator trips (airport, seaport, stadium, etc.).
When calculating VMT for comparison at the study area, citywide, or regional geography, the same
methodology that was used to estimate project specific VMT should be used. The VMT for these
comparisons can be easily calculated by aggregating the row or column totals for all zones that are
within the desired geography.
City of Rosemead Transportation Study Guidelines October 2020
28
Attachment D: VMT Mitigation Strategies
101 Pacifica | Suite 300 | Irvine, CA 92618 | (949) 308-6300 www.fehrandpeers.com
1. SGVCOG VMT Reduction Calculations
This section describes the SCGCOG VMT Evaluation Tool’s approach to calculating the
effectiveness of VMT reduction strategies that are built into the tool. While a long list of potential
VMT reduction measures are made available to users, care must be taken by the analyst to
understand and carefully consider the research supporting each VMT reduction measure to
determine the efficacy of the potential VMT mitigation.
1.1 Neighborhood Place Types
Based on empirical research that used quantitative methods to classify the census tracts of
California into neighborhood place types, a place type is assigned to each parcel in the SGVCOG.1
These place types, described in Table 1, categorize the neighborhood surrounding specific
parcels in terms of density, general accessibility and access to transit, and land use. These factors
have been shown to have a substantial effect on a location’s ability to support low-VMT travel. To
reflect this, the place types are used to identify maximum potential VMT reductions for projects,
based on research studies. Where supported by research, the neighborhood place types are also
used to identify the effectiveness of specific VMT reduction strategies.
Table 1. Neighborhood Place Types
Neighborhood Place Types Description
Central City Urban Very high density, excellent accessibility, high public transit access, low single-family homes, older high-value housing stock
Urban High Transit Use High density, good accessibility, high public transit access, low single-family homes, middle-aged and older housing stock
Urban Low Transit Use Good accessibility, low vacancy, middle-aged housing stock
Suburb with Multifamily Housing Average on most indicators, low single-family homes, and relatively lower housing values
Suburb with Single-Family Homes Low density and accessibility, low vacancy, high newer single-family homes, and relatively higher housing values
Rural in Urbanized Area Slightly better accessibility than the truly “rural” tracts, more likely to have multifamily housing
Rural Very low access, high vacancy, high newer single-family homes with lower housing values (mainly outside population centers of any kind)
Notes: Neighborhood place type coding used in script: 1) Urban Low Transit Use, 2) Suburb with Multifamily Housing, 3) Central City Urban, 4) Rural, 5) Suburb with Single Family Homes, 6) Urban High Transit Use, and 7) Rural in Urbanized Area.
1 Neighborhood types from Salon, Deborah. February 2014. Quantifying the effect of local government actions on VMT. California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency.
August 27, 2020 Page 2 of 32
1.2 VMT Reduction Strategies
Each strategy for the four different VMT mitigation categories is supported by evidence from a
previous literature review prepared by Fehr & Peers, and from our work in VMT reduction
strategies. This documentation also includes rural in Urbanized Area and Rural neighborhood
place types.2 The mitigation categories (or tiers) are:
• Tier 1: Project Characteristics • Tier 2: Multimodal Infrastructure • Tier 3: Parking • Tier 4: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs
Strategies and their corresponding evidence and calculations in the tool are described below.
(Shortened versions of these descriptions are presented in the tooltips (information buttons)
within the tool itself.) Matrices of reductions and elasticities are provided below for each of the
four strategy categories (Table 2 to Table 5). Strategy names are listed in the order in which they
appear in the tool.
1.2.1 Standards of Evidence
While a long list of potential VMT reduction measures are made available to users of the SGVCOG
VMT Evaluation Tool, care must be taken by the analyst to understand what VMT reduction
strategies may have already been captured in the SCAG travel model to avoid double counting.
Furthermore, the analyst should carefully consider the research supporting each VMT reduction
measure to determine the efficacy of the potential VMT mitigation. For example, the analyst may
consider whether the supporting studies were based on a statistical model (such as a regression
analysis, logit model, etc.) or another type of study, such as a synthesis of available research or a
model that provides inferential support for a VMT reduction. The analyst may also look at the
geographic location(s) and setting(s) covered in the study or studies that support a
VMT reduction.
1.2.2 Tier 1: Project Characteristics
This category is composed of strategies that change land use characteristics, such as density, mix
of uses, and housing affordability. These strategies reduce VMT by increasing access to amenities
or by attracting residents who generate lower VMT than the average household. Reductions and
elasticities for the four strategies are in Table 2.
2 These neighborhood place types were added for completeness and allows reductions similar to suburban with single family neighborhood place type to provide flexibility in testing VMT reductions in rural settings. Many VMT reduction measures are not as effective in rural settings and the analyst should consider available research and supplement that research with local data on VMT reductions in rural settings when evaluating VMT reductions in a rural setting.
August 27, 2020 Page 3 of 32
1.2.2.1 PC 01 Increase Residential Density
Increased residential density, measured in dwelling units per existing residential acreage in a
given area, affects the distances people travel and provides greater options for the mode of travel
they choose. This measure provides a foundation for implementing other measures that would
benefit from increased densities. This strategy applies to residential land uses only.
This study used a large sample of data from Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco
metropolitan areas to model the relationship between the VMT and urban design variables.3 The
study found that households per residential acre (Hh/RA) provided the greatest explanatory
power for VMT variation across an area. VMT per household is estimated as a function of the ratio
of households to residential acreage in the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) or the half-mile buffer
around a parcel under the existing condition and under the with project condition. The VMT
reduction is based on the estimated change in calculated VMT per household without the project
and with the project.
% 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=�𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇𝐻𝐻ℎ 𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟−𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟�𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
The study’s VMT per household equation for the Los Angeles metropolitan area is shown below.
Data from the Los Angeles metropolitan area was incorporated into the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation
Tool as shown below.
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇𝐻𝐻ℎ=19749(4.814 +𝐻𝐻ℎ𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅4.814 +7.140)−0.639
1.2.2.2 PC 02 Increase Development Diversity (and PC 05)
Increasing the amount of space dedicated to a less common or nonexistent use in the area
surrounding the land use development project leads to a reduction in VMT. Having different types
of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter
and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport. For example, when residential areas
are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, residents do not need to travel
outside of the neighborhood to run errands and may be able to live and work in the same
neighborhood. This strategy applies to residential and employment land uses.
The land use diversity of the TAZ or half-mile buffer around a parcel is measured using an activity
mix index. The activity mix index is a proportion of the number of people in the TAZ or parcel
buffer participating as residents or employees in retail, office, industrial and other jobs to the
number of possible land uses on the TAZ or parcel buffer. The activity mix index for the TAZ or
3 Holtzclaw, et al. 2002. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.” Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1–27.
August 27, 2020 Page 4 of 32
parcel buffer without the development is compared with the activity mix with the development to
estimate the VMT reduction accomplished by improving the mix of activities in the neighborhood.
The elasticities of per capita VMT and VMT per worker by neighborhood place type with respect
to the activity mix index are estimated based on the empirical research supporting the strategy.4
The study used multiple statistical modeling methods to estimate the effect of land use variables
on VMT by neighborhood place type, using data from travel surveys conducted between 2001
and 2009. PC 05 is the Employment portion of strategy PC 02, which is not shown explicitly in the
tool but is activated when the user selects strategy PC 02 for a project that includes employment
land uses.
𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴 𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀= �𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖× ln(𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖)ln (𝑁𝑁)𝑁𝑁
𝑖𝑖=1
𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖=𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 (𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟) 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑁𝑁=𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 % 𝐶𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎= 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟× % ∆ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀
1.2.2.3 PC 03 Affordable Housing
This strategy encourages building a greater percentage of affordable and below market rate
(BMR) housing to allow for lower income families to live at the project. Research has shown that
households with incomes at or below 80 percent of the regional median income make fewer trips
by automobile than households with higher incomes, resulting in lower per capita VMT in some
jurisdictions. BMR housing can also provide opportunities for lower income families to live closer
to job centers and to use transit for their commutes. This strategy applies to residential land
uses only.
This VMT reduction is based on a study that used data from the 2010-2012 California Household
Travel Survey (CHTS) to determine a relationship between VMT and low-income households. The
study reported the estimated VMT reductions of three lower income household groups when
compared to the VMT of median family income (MFI) households.5 The research that is available
is based on the behavior of lower incomes households but not on the behavior of lower income
households living in BMR housing. The reductions by income group are listed below. 𝐸𝐸𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 𝐿𝐿𝑟𝑟𝑤𝑤 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 (𝐻𝐻𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟 30% 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑉𝑉𝑀𝑀𝐼𝐼)= −32.5% 𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴 𝐿𝐿𝑟𝑟𝑤𝑤 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 (𝐻𝐻𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 30% 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 50% 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑉𝑉𝑀𝑀𝐼𝐼)= −25.2% 𝐿𝐿𝑟𝑟𝑤𝑤 𝐼𝐼𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 (𝐻𝐻𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 50% 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 80% 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑉𝑉𝑀𝑀𝐼𝐼)= −10.2%
4 Salon, Deborah. 2013. Quantifying the effect of local government actions on VMT. California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency. 5 Newmark, G. and Haas, P. 2015. Income, Location Efficiency, and VMT: Affordable Housing as a Climate Strategy. The California Housing Partnership.
August 27, 2020 Page 5 of 32
1.2.2.4 PC 04 Increase Employment Density
Like increasing residential density, increasing employment density affects the distances people
commute and provides greater options for the modes of travel they choose. Employment density
is measured as the ratio of the number of employees to the net commercial and industrial
acreage in a given area. Employment includes office, retail, industrial, and other employment. This
strategy applies to employment land uses only.
The study used to support this strategy reported VMT decreases in lower density locations, such
as suburban places, with an increase in employment density.6 The study is based on results from a
linear regression model of cross-sectional data collected from Austin’s Capital Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization to determine the differences in VMT associated with employment density.
For suburban neighborhood place types (suburban with multifamily home and single-family
homes), a 0.03 percent reduction in VMT was observed for a 1 percent increase in employment
density. In higher-density locations (urban neighborhood place types), VMT was observed to
increase in response to employment density. This increase could be related to the replacement of
housing with employment uses in an already job-rich environment. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟)=−0.03 × % 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴
6 Zhou, B. and K. M. Kockelman. 2008. Self-selection in home choice: use of treatment effects in evaluating relationship between built environment and travel behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2077(1): 54-61. Cited in Circella, Giovanni et al. 2014. Impacts of Employment Density on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Policy Brief and Technical Background Document). California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency.
August 27, 2020 Page 6 of 32
Table 2. Project Characteristics Strategy Elasticities and Reductions
Strategy ID Strategy Development Input Type of Elasticity or Reduction1
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
PC 01 Increase Residential Density Project Density (Dwelling Units)
% change in VMT / % change in household density See strategy methods for reduction.
PC 02 PC 05
Increase Development Diversity (Residential and Employment)
Land Use Types (Dwelling Units and 1,000 square feet)
% change in residential VMT / % change in the activity mix index % change in employment VMT / % change in the activity mix index
-0.191 -0.14
0 -0.144
0 0
-0.0325 -0.0329
0 0
0 0
0 0
PC 03 Affordable Housing BMR Units by income type VMT / capita Extremely Low Income (Household earns less than 30% of MFI) = -32.5% Very Low Income (Household earns between 30% and 50% of MFI) = -25.2% Low Income (Household earns between 50% and 80% of MFI) = -10.2%
PC 04 Increase Employment Density
Project Density (Jobs)
% change in VMT / % change in employment density 0.074 0.074 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03
Note: 1. Elasticities are expressed as a decimal less than 1 while reductions are expressed as a percentage or a constant.
August 27, 2020 Page 7 of 32
1.2.3 Tier 2: Multimodal Infrastructure
These strategies require project developers to provide funding for and/or construct
improvements to the surrounding transportation network that encourage the use of biking,
walking, and transit instead of driving. Reductions and elasticities for the five strategies are in
Table 3.
1.2.3.1 MI 01 Increase Bike Access
This strategy requires the project developer to provide funding for or construct bicycle facilities
that close gaps in the bicycle network and/or lower the level of traffic stress on the existing
bicycle network (e.g., construct a barrier or buffer for an existing bike lane). Improving bike access
to project sites encourages people to bike instead of drive, thus reducing VMT. This strategy only
applies to bicycle facilities that provide a dedicated lane for bicyclists or a completely separated
right-of-way for bicycles and pedestrians. This includes the construction of or improvements to
Class I (trail), Class II (bike lane), and Class IV (protected bike lane) bikeways. This measure would
not be applicable if the resulting gap between the project and the external bikeway exceeds 1/3
mile. This strategy applies to residential and employment land uses,
The research supporting this reduction used a large sample of travel data within the city limits of
Montreal to investigate the link between bicycle infrastructure accessibility and cycling modal
share.7 The study reports a 3.71 percent increase in bicycle mode share for a 1 percent decrease in
distance to cycling infrastructure for the urban with low transit neighborhood place type. The
same study reports different elasticities for urban (central city urban and urban high transit) and
suburban (suburban multifamily housing and single-family homes) neighborhood place types.
These elasticities are shown in Table 3. % 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=0.371 × % 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
The shift from vehicle trips to bicycle trips is expected to occur for vehicle trips that are of
bikeable length. Thus, the actual VMT reduction is prorated by the ratio of the average bicycle trip
length to the average vehicle trip length. Average trip lengths are derived from California
Household Travel Survey (CHTS) data. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=(% 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟× 𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟)(𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇× 𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟)
7 Zahabi, S., Chang, A., Miranda-Moreno, L., and Patterson, Z. 2016. Exploring the link between the neighborhood typologies, bicycle infrastructure and commuting cycling over time and the potential impact on commuter GHG emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 47:89–103.
August 27, 2020 Page 8 of 32
1.2.3.2 MI 02 Improve Connectivity – Network Connectivity/Design Improvements
Building a new street connection and/or connecting cul-de-sacs to provide pedestrian and bicycle
access enhances walkability, connectivity, and street accessibility within a neighborhood. VMT
reductions are based on the change to intersection densities within a quarter mile buffer of the
project and on internal connections within the project site. Intersection density is a calculated as
the number of intersections per square mile within a quarter mile buffer around the project site.
The user can estimate existing intersection density manually or using Geographic Information
System (GIS) software. The strategy applies to residential and employment land uses.
The study synthesized the results of nine studies to determine the effect of intersection and street
density on VMT reductions.8 The study reports a -0.12 elasticity of VMT reduction with respect to
a one percent increase in intersection density. This reduction only applies to suburban
neighborhood place types, as the relative improvement to pedestrian accessibility is greater in
suburban areas than in urban areas that already have dense street networks. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟= −0.12 × % 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴
1.2.3.3 MI 03 Increase Transit Accessibility
Building the project within a proximity to a transit station or stop with high-quality service
enhances access to transit which facilities the use of transit for people traveling to/from the
project site. Facilitating transit use results in a mode shift from driving to transit and thereby
reduces VMT. In the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool, this strategy is applied by taking the distance
between the project site and the closest transit stop without project improvements and the
distance to the closest transit stop with project improvements and applying an elasticity factor;
therefore, the project can reduce its VMT by relocating a transit stop closer to the site. Proposed
changes to transit stop locations should be negotiated with the Lead Agency and the applicable
transit operator. The strategy applies to residential and employment land uses.
The study supporting this strategy provides results on the effect of urban form, including distance
to transit, on VMT through modeling data from the 1990 National Personal Transportation Survey
data.9 The associated reduction in VMT with the reduction in distance to transit (elasticity) is
reported as -0.08. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟= −0.08 × % 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝
8 Ewing, R., and Cervero, R. 2010. Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association. 9 Bento, A.M., Cropper, M.L., Mobarak, A.M., and Vinha, K. 2003. The Impact of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in The United States. World Bank policy research working paper, 3007.
August 27, 2020 Page 9 of 32
1.2.3.4 MI 04 Traffic Calming
This strategy requires the project design to include pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming
measures both on-site and in the surrounding neighborhood. Providing traffic calming measures
encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle, resulting in decreased VMT. VMT
reductions are based on whether the project will be providing at a minimum median refuges,
bulb-outs, and/or other pedestrian crossing enhancements beyond the frontage of the
development. This strategy applies to residential and employment land uses.
The study supporting this strategy quantified the effects of traffic calming on VMT by comparing
the change in VMT in suburban and urban neighborhood place types with same pedestrian
environment conditions with and without traffic calming improvements.9 The study found that
traffic calming improvements yield higher VMT reductions in suburban places than in urban
places, as the relative reduction in traffic speeds is greater in suburban areas than in urban areas
where traffic already tends to move slowly. If the project provides traffic calming improvements
beyond the project site frontage, the reduction from the evidence is applied based on the
neighborhood place type of the project site. These reductions are shown in Table 3. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟= 𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟
1.2.3.5 MI 05 Pedestrian Networks
This strategy requires the project design to include pedestrian improvements both on-site and in
the surrounding neighborhood. Providing a pedestrian accessible network encourages people to
walk instead of drive, thereby reducing VMT. The pedestrian improvements include but are not
limited to buffered sidewalks on both sides of the street, marked or signalized pedestrian
crossings at intersections (enhanced crosswalks), lighting, and curb ramps. This strategy applies to
both residential and employment land uses.
The study supporting this strategy quantified the effects of the pedestrian environment on VMT
by comparing the change in VMT in suburban and urban neighborhood place types with same
pedestrian environment conditions with and without pedestrian improvements.10 The study found
that pedestrian improvements yield higher VMT reductions in suburban places than in urban
places, since suburban places tend to have less developed pedestrian networks to begin with. If
the project provides pedestrian network improvements beyond the project site frontage, the
reduction is then applied based on neighborhood place type of the project site. These reductions
are shown in Table 3. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟= 𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟
10 Cambridge Systematics. 2009. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute.
August 27, 2020 Page 10 of 32
Table 3. Multimodal Infrastructure Strategy Elasticities and Reductions
Strategy ID Strategy Development Input Type of Elasticity or Reduction1
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
MI 01 Bike Access Improvements
Distance to nearest existing bicycle facility
% change in bicycle mode share / % decrease in distance to cycling infrastructure
-0.371 -0.371 -0.371 -0.371 -0.371 -0.371 -0.371
MI 02
Improve Connectivity (Network Connectivity/ Design Improvements)
Intersection Density
% change in VMT / % change in intersection density -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12
MI 03 Increase Transit Accessibility
Distance to closest transit stop
% change in VMT / % reduction in distance to transit -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.08
MI 04 Traffic Calming Measures Binary Answer VMT / capita VMT/worker -0.6% -0.6% -2% -2% -2% -2% -2%
MI 05 Pedestrian Networks Binary Answer VMT / capita VMT/worker -0.6% -0.6% -2% -2% -2% -2% -2%
Note: 1. Elasticities are expressed as a decimal less than 1 while reductions are expressed as a percentage or a constant.
August 27, 2020 Page 11 of 32
1.2.4 Tier 3: Parking
Strategies in this category reduce automobile parking supply, making driving less attractive, and
provide high-quality bicycle parking, making biking more attractive. Reductions and elasticities for
the two strategies are in Table 4.
1.2.4.1 PK 01 Limit Parking Supply
This strategy would require the development to decrease parking supply at the project site to
rates lower than those documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking
Generation manual or to those documented by the municipal code if that is what the jurisdiction
has chosen. Decreasing parking supply encourages employees to choose an alternative
transportation mode for their commutes. This measure only applies if street parking is not free or
unrestricted during typical working hours. Surrounding street parking must be metered, have time
limits during typical working hours, and/or be available to residential parking permit (RPP) holders
only. The strategy applies to employment land uses only.
VMT reductions for this strategy are based on the project's parking supply compared to the
minimum parking supply requirement from municipal or ITE code. The parking supply reduction is
limited to 25 percent from minimum required by municipal code. The strategy uses an equation
derived from the URBEMIS model parking mitigation component. The URBEMIS model is used to
calculate air quality impacts for development projects based on VMT reduction and other
emissions reduction approaches.11 % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=% 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐼𝐼𝑇𝑇𝐸𝐸 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟× 0.5
1.2.4.2 PK 02 Provide Bike Facilities
This strategy requires the project developer to provide and maintain facilities for bicycle users at
the project site. Providing end of trip facilities encourages people to bike instead of drive, thereby
reducing VMT. Examples of end of trip facilities include bike parking, bicycle lockers, showers, and
personal lockers. The extent of the VMT reduction is based on whether the project provides only
secure bike parking or secure bike parking and additional facilities. This strategy applies to
employment land uses only and overlaps with the TP 05 Commute Trip Reduction
Program strategy.
The VMT reduction for this strategy is based on evidence from a study that examined the effects
of bicycle infrastructure on the probability of cycling to work using a multivariable regression
analysis of 2010 travel survey data collected by the Metropolitan Washington Council of
11 Nelson\Nygaard. 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments: Adjusting Site-Level Vehicle Trip Generation Using URBEMIS.
August 27, 2020 Page 12 of 32
Governments.12 From a final sample of 4,711 households, the study determined that employees
are 1.78 times more likely to commute by bicycle when secure bicycle parking is provided than
when it is not, and that employees are 4.86 times more likely to commute by bicycle when bicycle
parking and additional end of trip facilities are provided than when they are not. These odds
ratios are multiplied by the existing bicycle mode share of the TAZ or half-mile buffer around a
parcel to determine the new bicycle mode share for the TAZ or parcel buffer.
The shift from vehicle trips to bicycle trips is expected to occur for vehicle trips that are of
bikeable length. Thus, the actual VMT reduction is prorated by the ratio of the average bicycle trip
length to the average vehicle trip length. Average trip lengths are derived from California
Household Travel Survey (CHTS) data. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=(% 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟× 𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟)(𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇× 𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟)
12 Buehler, R. 2012. Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC region: The role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work. Transportation Research Part D, 17: 525-531.
August 27, 2020 Page 13 of 32
Table 4. Parking Strategy Elasticities and Reductions
Strategy ID Strategy Development Input Type of Elasticity or Reduction
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
PK 01 Limit Parking Supply Total Employee Parking Spaces Maximum VMT / worker reduction -12.5% -12.5% -12.5% -12.5% -12.5% -12.5% -12.5%
PK 02 Provide Bike Facilities Binary Answer
bicycle commuters when bicycle parking is available / bicycle commuters when bicycle parking is not available bicycle commuters when bicycle end trip facilities are available / bicycle commuters when bicycle end trip facilities are not available
1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78
4.86 4.86 4.86 4.86 4.86 4.86 4.86
Note: 1. Elasticities are expressed as a decimal less than 1 while reductions are expressed as a percentage or a constant.
August 27, 2020 Page 14 of 32
1.2.5 Tier 4: TDM Programs
Included in this category are programmatic strategies that reduce VMT by providing alternatives
to driving alone, as well as incentives, such as ride sharing programs, transit subsidies, and shuttle
services. These strategies would be implemented on an ongoing basis once the project is
occupied. Reductions and elasticities for the 18 strategies are in Table 6.
1.2.5.1 TP 01 School Pool Programs
The strategy would require the organization of a program that matches families in carpools for
school pick-up and drop-off. The program would be open to all families in the development.
Organizing a School Pool Program helps match parents who transport students to schools
without a bussing program, including private schools, charter schools, and neighborhood schools
where students cannot walk or bike. School pools reduce the total number of vehicle trips
traveling to and from schools, thereby reducing VMT. This strategy is supported by evidence from
2012 California Household Travel Survey where 2.3% of the home-based VMT is generated by
home-based K-12 school trips. According to American Community Survey (ACS 2017), about
27.85% of the households have kids in K-12 school. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=8.25%× % 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.2 TP 02 Bike Sharing Programs
This strategy requires the project developer to dedicate space for or provide subsidies to a bike
sharing system, ideally one with high penetration in a larger area, such as Bay Wheels. Bike share
substitutes for some driving trips and provides a first/last-mile connection for transit users,
reducing auto trips and thereby reducing VMT. This reduction only applies if a bike share station
is eventually built on site. This strategy applies to residential and employment land uses.
This strategy is supported by a study that reported the effects of a pilot bicycle share system on
bicycle usage in London.13 Online surveys of existing customers were used to assess mode shifts
due to bike share use. The study reported that 6 percent of users shifted from driving to using
bike share for work or school trips.
The shift from vehicle trips to bicycle trips is expected to occur for vehicle trips that are of
bikeable length. Thus, the actual VMT reduction is prorated by the ratio of the average bicycle trip
length to the average vehicle trip length. Average trip lengths are derived from California
Household Travel Survey (CHTS) data.
13 Noland, R.B., and Ishaque, M.M. 2006. Smart bicycles in an urban area: Evaluation of a pilot scheme in London. J. Public Transportation. 9 (5), 71–95.
August 27, 2020 Page 15 of 32
% 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=(−6% 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟× 𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟)(𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑇𝑇𝑅𝑅𝑇𝑇× 𝑎𝑎𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟ℎ 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟)
1.2.5.3 TP 03 Car Sharing Programs
The strategy requires the project to provide subsidies and promotions, as well as dedicated
parking spaces, for car sharing services such as ZipCar, Car2Go, and/or GetAround. Supporting a
car sharing program allows people to have on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles. Car
sharing helps support the use of walking, biking, carpooling, and transit by providing access to
vehicles for occasional trips and a guaranteed ride home option, allowing for overall reductions in
auto use which results in reduced VMT. This strategy applies to residential and employment land
uses.
Evidence supporting this strategy is from a study that examined the impact of car sharing on
household VMT in the Bay Area.14 Travel diary surveys were collected from 527 members and 45
non-members at five points between 2001 and 2005. Members reported reducing their
household VMT by 32.8 percent. The expected participation rate of 2 percent is derived from
report by UCLA documenting commuting characteristics of faculty, staff, and students.15 % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=32.8%× % 𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 × % 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟/𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.4 TP 04 Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Marketing and Education
This strategy requires implementing a marketing campaign, targeting all project employees and
visitors, that encourages the use of transit, shared rides, and active modes and thereby reducing
VMT. Marketing strategies may include new employee orientation on alternative commute
options, event promotions, and publications. The strategy applies to employment land uses only.
This strategy overlaps with the TP 05 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program and TP 18
Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program strategies.
The strategy is based on a study that synthesizes evidence from four studies on the link between
TDM strategies and travel behavior.16 The study documents 82 case studies of employer and
institutional TDM programs from different locations in the US. Programs that primarily offered
commute trip reduction marketing/education yielded an average 4 percent reduction of commute
vehicle trips. This strategy assumes a 1:1 ratio of vehicle trips to vehicle miles traveled. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=4% × 1(𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟)× % 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟
14 Cervero, R., Golub, A., and Nee, B. 2007. City CarShare: Longer-term travel demand and car ownership impacts. Transportation Research Record, 1992: 70-80. 15 UCLA Transportation. 2011 State of the Commute Report. 16 Transit Cooperative Research Program. 2010. TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies.
August 27, 2020 Page 16 of 32
1.2.5.5 TP 05 Implement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program
This strategy requires providing a comprehensive program to reduce the number of drive-alone
commute trips to the project and to actively monitor and react to changes in mode share. The
program includes encouraging and assisting employees to use an alternative commute mode.
Tools may include carpooling encouragement, ride share assistance, flexible/alternative work
schedules, vanpool assistance, bicycle end of trip facilities, and other measures. The strategy
applies to employment land uses only. This strategy overlaps with the PK02 Provide Bike Facilities,
TP04 Commute Trip Reduction Marketing and Education, TP08 Telecommuting and Alternative
Work Schedules, TP13 Ride-Sharing Programs, TP15 Behavioral Intervention, TP17 Vanpool
Incentives, and TP18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program strategies.
The strategy’s evidence is from research that used a multivariable model to estimate the effects of
TDM measures on VMT for various neighborhood place types.17 VMT reductions by
neighborhood place type are shown in Table 6. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟× % 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.6 TP 06 Employee Parking Cash-Out
This strategy requires project employers to offer employee parking "cash-out,” which gives
employees the choice to forgo subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost
that the employer would otherwise pay for the parking space. Providing an alternative to
subsidized/free parking encourages commuters to travel via walking, biking, carpooling, and
transit, thereby reducing VMT. This strategy applies to employment land uses only and overlaps
with the TP10 Price Workplace Parking strategy.
The strategy is supported by a study that used a multivariable model to estimate the effects of
TDM measures, such as providing a parking “cash-out,” on VMT for various neighborhood place
types.18 The strategy is less effective in suburban and low transit neighborhood place types than
in urban and high transit neighborhood place types. The VMT reductions by neighborhood place
type are shown in Table 6. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=% 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟× % 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟
17 Cambridge Systematics. 2009. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. 18 Cambridge Systematics. 2009. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute.
August 27, 2020 Page 17 of 32
1.2.5.7 TP 07 Subsidized Transit Program
This strategy requires project employers or building operators to provide either partially or fully
subsidized transit passes for all project affiliates (employees and/or residents). Providing subsidies
for transit use encourages people to use transit rather than driving, thereby reducing VMT.
The VMT reduction for this strategy is based on a study that synthesizes five studies documenting
the effects of transit service strategies on transit ridership.19 % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=% 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟1 −% 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟× 0.43 × % 𝑜𝑜𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴× % 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.8 TP 08 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules
This strategy requires project employers to allow and encourage employees to telecommute from
home when possible, or to shift work schedules such that travel occurs outside of peak
congestion periods. This strategy reduces commute trips, thereby reducing VMT. This strategy
applies to employment land uses only and overlaps with the TP05 Implement Commute Trip
Reduction Program strategy.
The VMT reduction for this strategy is based on a study that uses a multivariable model that
provides the effects of specific TDM measures on VMT.20 VMT reductions are quantified for
telecommuting 1.5 days a week, a 9/80 schedule, and a 4/40 schedule. The VMT reductions for
the different telecommuting and alternative work schedule approaches are shown in Table 6. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟× % 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.9 TP 09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet
This strategy requires project employers to provide direct shuttle service to the project site from
areas with high concentrations of employees. This strategy reduces drive-alone commute trips,
thereby reducing VMT. This strategy applies to employment land uses only and overlaps with the
TP13 Ride-Sharing Program and TP17 Vanpool Incentives strategies.
The VMT reduction for this strategy is based on a study from San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA).21 The commuter Shuttle Pilot Program Evaluation Report
reported that 47 percent of users would have driven if the shuttle were not available. The
evidence is used to estimate the shift from vehicle commuting to shuttle commuting, thereby
19 Handy, Susan et al. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency. 20 Cambridge Systematics. 2009. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. 21 SFMTA. 2015. Commuter Shuttle Pilot Program Evaluation Report.
August 27, 2020 Page 18 of 32
reducing vehicle commute trips. Assuming a one-to-one adjustment factor for commuter trips to
commute miles the operating shuttle service could achieve about 47% reduction in
commute VMT. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=47%× % 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.10 TP 10 Price Workplace Parking
This strategy would require commuters to pay for parking on-site. This strategy provides a
disincentive to driving and encourages commuters to use other modes, thereby reducing VMT.
The strategy applies to employment land uses only and overlaps with the TP 06 Employee Parking
Cash-Out strategy.
The VMT reduction for this strategy is based on a study that used a multivariable model to
determine the effects of TDM measures on VMT, and on a synthesis of research documenting the
effects of annual vehicle costs on VMT.22,23 Pricing on-site workplace parking contributes to
annual vehicle operating costs, which reduces driving and thus reduces VMT. The parking charges
documented in the research have been updated to 2017 dollars. Table 5 documents the VMT
reductions by neighborhood place type and parking charge. Users should select the daily parking
fee closest to the per-day cost to commuters, whether it is paid on a daily, monthly, or annual
basis. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=% 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 5 × % 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒
22 Cambridge Systematics. 2009. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. 23 Todd Litman. 2017. Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf. Accessed July 2017.
August 27, 2020 Page 19 of 32
Table 5. VMT Reduction by Daily Parking Fee and Neighborhood Place Type
Daily Parking Fee
Place Type
Central City Urban Urban High Transit Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
$1.14 6.9% 6.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%
$2.28 12.5% 12.5% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%
$3.42 16.8% 16.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%
$4.56 17.8% 17.8% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
$5.70 18.8% 18.8% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2%
$6.85 19.8% 19.8% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
1.2.5.11 TP 11 Alternative Transportation Benefits
This strategy requires the project employers to provide general commute benefits to employees,
which may include financial subsidies or pre-tax deductions for transit, carpooling, and
vanpooling activities.
The strategy’s evidence is from a study that contains several case studies on the influence of
commuter benefits on employee travel.24 The one most fitting for this category is that travel
impacts are affected by the magnitude of the benefit and the quality of travel options available.
Mode shifts tend to be greatest if current transit use is low. In New York City, where transit
commute rates are already high, transit benefits only increased transit use 16% to 23%, while in
Philadelphia, transit commuting increased 32% (Schwenk, 1995). Similarly, only 30% of employees
who received transit benefits who work in San Francisco increased their transit use, while 44% of
those in other parts of the region commuted by transit more (Oram Associates, 1995). The 44%
figure was used in the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool and an assumption was made of a one-to-
one relationship between increased transit use and reduced commute VMT. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=44% 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇× % 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.12 TP 12 Neighborhood Schools
This strategy requires the project to contribute to the development of a neighborhood school
that would serve families living in the development. Neighborhood schools primarily serve the
neighborhoods immediately surrounding the school and allow students to walk or bike to school,
24 Litman, Todd. 2017. Understanding Transport Demands and Elasticities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf. Accessed July 2017.
August 27, 2020 Page 20 of 32
reducing the use of automobiles for drop-off and pick-up trips and thereby reducing VMT. This
strategy applies to residential land uses only.
The strategy’s evidence is from a study that investigated the effects of school choice on
walkability and mode choice for schools in St. Paul, Minnesota.25 The study reported a 78 percent
decrease in vehicle miles traveled by households traveling to a neighborhood school compared to
a citywide school. This reduction only affects home-based school VMT, which makes up 2.3% of
all home-based VMT per the California Household Travel Survey. The decrease in VMT is
estimated by multiplying the decrease in VMT for school trips by the share of home-based VMT
made up by school trips and by the user’s estimate of total households with school-aged children
in the project. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=77.7%× 2.3% × 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.13 TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
This strategy would require project employers or building operators to organize a carpool
matching program for individuals who have similar commute patterns. This strategy encourages
the use of carpooling, reducing the number of vehicle trips and thereby reducing VMT. The
strategy applies to employment land uses only. This strategy overlaps with three strategies: TP05
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program, TP09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet, and TP17
Vanpool Incentives.
The effect of ride-sharing programs on VMT is derived from a study by United States
Environmental Protection Agency.26 The study found that ride-sharing programs had an average
occupancy of 2.2 people per car and could achieve a 54.5% VMT reduction. This assumed
reduction is multiplied by the expected participation rate, which typically ranges between 2%
and 10%. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=54.5% 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 × 𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.14 TP 14 Transit Service Expansion
This strategy requires the project developer to subsidize transit service through fees and other
contributions to the transit provider, thereby improving transit service to the project, resulting in
increased use of transit and reduced VMT. The VMT reduction is based on the contribution’s
effect on transit frequency and the number of routes affected by the contribution. This strategy
25 Wilson, Elizabeth J., Ryan Wilson, and Kevin J. Krizek. 2007. "The Implications of School Choice on Travel Behavior and Environmental Emissions." Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 12.7: 506-518. 26 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Implementing Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation's Best Workplaces for Commuters.
August 27, 2020 Page 21 of 32
differs from TP07 Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program in that subsidies are provided to the
public transit agency, not to transit riders. This strategy applies to both residential and
employment land uses. Proposed changes to transit service should be negotiated with the Lead
Agency and the applicable transit operator.
A synthesis of research documenting the effects of transit service strategies on transit ridership
and VMT found that a 1 percent increase in service frequency leads to a ridership increase of 0.5
percent.27 The user-input change in transit frequency is multiplied by this elasticity, and the route
contribution proxy.
The route contribution proxy is an adjustment factor to account for the share of transit ridership
increases that reflect ridership shifting from other lines. It is determined by the percentage of
routes affected by the improvement. If less than half are affected, 50 percent of riders are
assumed to come from other lines. If more than half are affected, 15 percent are assumed to
come from other lines.25
The resulting increase in ridership is multiplied by the existing transit mode share for the TAZ or
half-mile buffer around the parcel and an adjustment factor prorating VMT to transit trips (0.67)28
to yield the percent VMT reduction. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=0.5 × 0.67 × % 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴× 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴× 𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴=50% (𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟 50% 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟);
85% (𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 50% 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟)
1.2.5.15 TP 15 Behavioral Intervention
This strategy requires project to provide intensive one-on-one counseling and encouragement,
along with subsidies, to encourage individuals to use non-drive alone modes. Implementing this
program encourages the use of transit, shared ride modes, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting,
reducing drive-alone trips and thereby reducing VMT. This strategy applies to residential and
employment land uses. This strategy overlaps with TP04 Commute Trip Reduction Marketing and
Education, TP05 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program, and TP18 Voluntary Travel
Behavior Program.
27 Handy, Susan et al. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency. 28 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhous Gas Mitigation Measures.
August 27, 2020 Page 22 of 32
The strategy is based on the study that analyzed the effects of a targeted behavioral intervention
treatment (UCLA Transportation Guide) on travel behavior of incoming graduate students in
UCLA. The study included 3,166 admitted students, half of whom received the guide and half of
whom where in the control group.29 The treatment guide provides detailed information on how to
use alternative modes of transportation to access campus. Students in the treatment group drove
23.6 miles per week on average compared to 33.6 miles for the control group, representing an
approximately 30% decrease. The study noted that the treatment was only effective among
students who moved within the past six months and was also only effective among students who
have automobile resources. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=30% 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 × 𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒/𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟
1.2.5.16 TP 16 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost (On Site Parking)
The strategy requires project developers or building operators to unbundle the cost of parking
spaces from the price of the property. Residents must rent or purchase parking spaces separately
from their residential units. This increases the cost of auto ownership, thereby discouraging auto
ownership and use, which reduces VMT. Surrounding streets must have parking restrictions in
place, such as metered parking, time limits restricting overnight parking, and residential parking
permits (RPP) for which project residents are not eligible. This strategy applies to residential land
uses only.
The -0.4 elasticity of vehicle ownership with respect to vehicle costs is derived from a study that
provides inferential support on the effect of vehicle costs on vehicle ownership.30 Charging for
parking separately increases the cost of vehicle ownership, which makes owning a car less
attractive, thus reducing automobile use and VMT. The estimated reduction in vehicle ownership
is estimated by multiplying the percent change in vehicle cost (based on monthly parking fees
and the cost of vehicle ownership) by the elasticity of demand. The average base vehicle
ownership cost is $8,849, as reported by the American Automobile Association in 2018.31 Since
reducing vehicle ownership does not eliminate driving or use of taxis and ride-hailing apps, the
reduction in vehicle ownership is multiplied by 85 percent to produce the percent VMT reduction
generated by this strategy.32
29 Brown, Anne, et al. 2016. The Right Time and Place to Change Travel Behavior: An Experimental Study. 30 Litman, Todd. 2009. Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 31 American Automobile Association. August 2018. Your Driving Costs. http://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/driving-cost-per-mile/. Accessed October 2018. 32 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhous Gas Mitigation Measures. 2010
August 27, 2020 Page 23 of 32
% 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=𝐶𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟× 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴× 𝑅𝑅 𝑊𝑊ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟: 𝐶𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = (𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑏𝑏𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟)/(($8,849/12)) 𝑅𝑅 = 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟 𝑂𝑂𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 = 0.85
1.2.5.17 TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
The strategy requires project employers or building operators to provide subsidies for individuals
forming new vanpools for their commute. This encourages the use of vanpools, reducing drive-
alone trips and thereby reducing VMT. This strategy applies to employment land uses only. This
strategy overlaps with the TP05 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program, TP09 Free Door-
to-Door Transit Fleet, and TP13 Ride-Sharing Program strategies.
The strategy’s evidence is from a study that used 1999 survey data from the Commute Trip
Reduction Program of the Puget Sound region to analyze the relationship of demand for vanpool
services to fare changes using a conditional discrete choice model.33 The study found a -0.73
elasticity of vanpool demand in response to a change in fares (or costs to driver). This elasticity is
multiplied by the percent reduction in vanpool fare as well as the percent of employees who are
expected to participate in vanpooling, An adjustment factor of 82.1% is applied to adjust the
vanpool demand to VMT, reflecting an average occupancy of 5.6 commuters per vanpool
including the driver.34 % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴 × % 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝐴𝐴𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟× 82.1%× % 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
33 Concas, S. Winters, F. 2005. Fare Pricing Elasticity, Subsidies and The Demand for Vanpool Services. Via Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Online TDM Encyclopedia. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/. Accessed July 2017. 34 Way to Go program Annual Report, Denver Regional Council of Governments, 2015.
August 27, 2020 Page 24 of 32
1.2.5.18 TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
This strategy requires project employers or building operators to administer a program that
targets individual attitudes and behaviors towards travel and provides tools for individuals to
analyze and alter their travel behavior. Voluntary Travel Behavior Change programs include
communication campaigns, marketing and promotions, and travel feedback programs, such as
travel diaries or feedback on calories burned from activities and travel. This strategy encourages
the use of shared ride modes, transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT. This strategy
applies to residential and employment land uses. This strategy overlaps with the TP04 Commute
Trip Reduction Marketing/Education, TP05 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program, and
TP15 Behavioral Intervention strategies.
The VMT reduction is based on a synthesis of research that reviewed five studies reporting the
impact of Voluntary Travel Behavior Change programs on VMT.35 A 4% reduction in VMT, which
represents a lower-end figure from the range of VMT reductions among the United States
examples in the study, is used in the calculation for this strategy. % 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=4%× % 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
35 Spears, Steven et al. 2013. Policy Brief on the Impacts of Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Programs Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature. California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency.
August 27, 2020 Page 25 of 32
Table 6. TDM Program Strategy Elasticities and Reductions
Strategy ID Strategy Development Input Type of Elasticity or Reduction1
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
TP 01 School Pool Programs Binary Input VMT / participating household -8.25% -8.25% -8.25% -8.25% -8.25% -8.25% -8.25%
TP 02 Bike Sharing Programs Binary Input Percent change in bicycle trips -6% -6% -6% -6% -6% -6% -6%
TP 03 Car Sharing Programs
Percent of eligible residents or employees
VMT / member -32.8% -32.8% -32.8% -32.8% -32.8% -32.8% -32.8%
TP 04
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Marketing and Education
Percent of eligible employees
VMT / worker -4% -4% -4% -4% -4% -4% -4%
TP 05
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program
Percent of eligible employees
VMT / worker 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2%
TP 06 Employee Parking Cash-Out
Percent of eligible employees
VMT / worker 7.7% 7.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%
TP 07 Subsidized Transit Program Percent of Transit Subsidy VMT / worker -43% -43% -43% -43% -43% -43% -43%
TP 08 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules
Alternative Work Schedule and Percent of eligible employees
VMT / worker
Telecommuting 1.5 days per week: -0.22 4/40 schedule: -0.15 9/80 schedule: -0.07
TP 09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet
Percent of eligible employees
VMT / worker 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47% 47%
August 27, 2020 Page 26 of 32
Strategy ID Strategy Development Input Type of Elasticity or Reduction1
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
TP 10 Price Workplace Parking
Percent of eligible employees and parking fee
VMT / worker Varies based on price of parking. See strategy method, Table 5.
TP 11 Alternative Transportation Benefits
Percent of reduction in commute VMT Percent of eligible employees
VMT / worker 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44%
TP 12 Neighborhood Schools
Type of school serving project and percent of households with school aged children
VMT / household 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%
TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
Percent of eligible employees
VMT / worker 54.5% 54.5% 54.5% 54.5% 54.5% 54.5% 54.5%
TP 14 Transit Service Expansion
Percent of increase in transit frequency and Percent of routes affected by upgrade
% change in transit ridership / % change in frequency 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
TP 15 Behavioral Intervention
Percent individuals participating / eligible
VMT / worker 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
August 27, 2020 Page 27 of 32
Strategy ID Strategy Development Input Type of Elasticity or Reduction1
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
TP 16
Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost (On Site Parking)
Monthly Parking Costs
% change in vehicle ownership / % change in annual vehicle cost -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4
TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
Percent of employer subsidized vanpool costs and percent of eligible employees
% change in vanpool demand / % change in vanpool costs -0.73 -0.73 -0.73 -0.73 -0.73 -0.73 -0.73
TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
Percent of eligible employees
VMT / worker 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Note: 1. Elasticities are expressed as a decimal less than 1 while reductions are expressed as a percentage or a constant.
August 27, 2020 Page 28 of 32
1.2.6 Category, Cross Category, and Global Maxima
To provide reasonable estimates of VMT reduction effectiveness, maximum VMT reductions are
set for the category, cross-category, and global levels. These maxima ensure that 1) strategies that
target travel behavior in similar ways are not over-counted and 2) combined reductions are
reasonable given a project’s context (neighborhood place type). The maxima applied in the
SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool are derived from the 2010 CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures report.36
1.2.6.1 Category Maxima
Each category has a maximum allowable per capita VMT or per worker VMT reduction for the
combination of measures in the category. The maxima vary depending on the project’s
neighborhood place type. (Neighborhood place type definitions and assignments to specific
parcels are informed by research, as summarized in Section 1.1 and Table 1.)
The effects of multiple measures within a category are combined using multiplicative dampening,
which reduces the effect of individual strategies as new strategies are added. Since multiple
measures may affect the same user populations, this approach is used to ensure that reductions
are not over-counted. For example, a transit-related measure and a bicycle-related measure may
target the same person, but that person cannot switch from driving to both using transit and
bicycling. As a result, the overall per capita VMT that can be affected by added strategies is lower
than for any strategy implemented on its own. The equation for multiplicative dampening is
shown below:
𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑎𝑎 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴=1 − �(1 −𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖)𝐾𝐾
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖= 𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟ℎ𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴
Per capita and per worker VMT reductions should be multiplied using the above multiplicative
dampening equation across all mitigation measures in that category up to the maxima shown in
Table 7.
36 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. 2010.
August 27, 2020 Page 29 of 32
Table 7. Project Characteristics Maxima
Category
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
Project Characteristics 65% 30% 30% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Multimodal Infrastructure 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Parking 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Program 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
1.2.6.2 Physical Cross-Category Maxima
A cross-category maximum is provided for the combination of project characteristics, multimodal
infrastructure, and parking strategies. Like the method used for the category maxima, the effect of
multiple categories is combined using multiplicative dampening to ensure that reductions are not
over-counted.
𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃ℎ𝐴𝐴𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑉𝑉𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=1 − �(1 −𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖)𝐾𝐾
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖= 𝑃𝑃𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝐴𝐴 𝑟𝑟
The development’s per capita VMT and per worker VMT reduction across these three categories
should be capped at the levels shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Physical Cross-Category Maxima
Cross-Category Maximum
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
Per Capita / Employee VMT Reduction 70% 35% 35% 15% 15% 15% 15%
August 27, 2020 Page 30 of 32
1.2.6.3 Programmatic Cross-Category Maxima
For the programmatic measures, per capita and per employment VMT reductions are capped to a
25 percent maximum.
1.2.6.4 Global Maxima
Across physical and programmatic categories, per capita and per worker VMT reductions are
capped to maxima based on neighborhood place type, as shown in Table 9. Like the category
maximums, the physical and programmatic categories are combined using multiplicative
dampening to ensure reductions are not double counted. The reductions are calculated as noted
below.
𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑜 𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟=1 − �(1 −𝑅𝑅𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖)𝐾𝐾
𝑖𝑖=1
Table 9. Global Maxima
Cross-Category Maximum
Neighborhood Place Type
Central City Urban
Urban High Transit
Urban Low Transit
Suburb w/ Multifamily Housing
Suburb w/ Single Family Homes
Rural in Urbanized Area Rural
Per Capita / Employee VMT Reduction 75% 40% 40% 20% 20% 20% 20%
August 27, 2020 Page 31 of 32
2. VMT Reduction Strategies
Dependencies
As noted in the descriptions of the individual VMT reduction strategies in Section 1.2, a number of
reduction strategies overlap with each other. For instance, a strategy may consist of a basket of
measures which may overlap with some of the measures in another strategy. Therefore, the
SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool logic has been coded to reflect these dependencies, so that if one
measure is chosen, other overlapping measures are not allowed. The dependencies in the tool are
summarized below and are shown in the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool by greying out certain
reductions so that they cannot be selected.
If this strategy is chosen… This strategy is not allowed…
PK 02 Provide Bike Facilities • TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 04 CTR Marketing and Education
• TP 05 Implement CTR Program
• TP 15 Travel behavior Change
• TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
TP 05 Implement CTR Program
• PK 02 Provide Bike Facilities
• TP 04 CTR Marketing and Education
• TP 08 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules
• TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
• TP 15 Behavioral Intervention
• TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
• TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
TP 06 Employee Parking Cash-Out • TP 10 Price Workplace Parking
TP 07 Subsidized Transit Program • TP 11 Alternative Transportation Benefits
TP 08 Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules • TP 05 Implement CTR Program
TP 09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet • TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
• TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
TP 10 Price Workplace Parking • TP 06 Employee Parking Cash-Out
TP 11 Alternative Transportation Benefits • TP 07 Subsidized Transit Program
August 27, 2020 Page 32 of 32
If this strategy is chosen… This strategy is not allowed…
TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs • TP 05 Implement CTR Program
• TP 09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet
• TP 17 Vanpool Incentives
TP 15 Behavioral Intervention
• TP 04 CTR Marketing and Education
• TP 05 Implement CTR Program
• TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
TP 17 Vanpool Incentives • TP 05 Implement CTR Program
• TP 09 Free Door-to-Door Transit Fleet
• TP 13 Ride-Sharing Programs
TP 18 Voluntary Travel Behavior Change Program
• TP 04 CTR Marketing and Education
• TP 05 Implement CTR Program
• TP 15 Behavioral Intervention
8601 Mission Drive Project
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis
9 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT B – SGVCOG SCREENING ANALYSIS
SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report Page 1
Project Details
Timestamp of Analysis: January 20, 2022, 11:49:33 PM
Project Name: 8601 Mission Drive
Project Description: 37 Single Family Homes
Project Location
Jurisdiction:
Rosemead
Inside a TPA?
No (Fail)
APN TAZ
5389-009-030 22180100
5389-009-031 22180100
Analysis Details
Data Version: SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model
2016 RTP Base Year 2012
Analysis Methodology: TAZ
Baseline Year: 2022
Project Land Use
Residential:
Single Family DU:
Multifamily DU:
Total DUs: 0
Non-Residential:
OKce bSF:
Local Serving Retail bSF:
Industrial bSF:
Residential Affordaxility (percent of all units):
Ewtremely Lo% Income: 0 k
Very Lo% Income: 0 k
Lo% Income: 0 k
ParWing:
Motor Vehicle ParWing:
Bicycle ParWing:
SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool Report Page 2
Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Results
Land Use Type 1: Residential
VMT .ithout Project 1: Total VMT per Service Population
VMT Baseline Description 1: SGVCOG Average
VMT Baseline Value 1: 34/9
VMT Threshold Description 1: -15k
Land Use 1 has xeen Pre-Screened xy the Local Jurisdiction: N&A
.ithout Project .ith Project F Tier 1-3 VMT
Reductions
.ith Project F All VMT Reductions
Project Generated Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Rate
26/78 null null
Lo% VMT Screening Analysis Yes (Pass) null null