department of transportation new transportation performance measures for transportation analysis and...

Department of Transportation

New Transportation Performance

Measures for Transportation Analysis and Thresholds for

CEQACouncil Meeting

November 3, 2014


2

Transportation Performance Measures

• Overview of New Performance Measures• Staff Recommendations on CEQA

Thresholds• Overview of OPR’s Draft CEQA

Guidelines Implementing SB 743 • Summary of Recommendation from the

Planning Commission, TAC and MSC• Implementation of the New Performance

Measures and CEQA Thresholds


3


Recommendation: 1. Find that:

> the adoption of New Transportation Performance Measures and Thresholds of Significance for CEQA is not a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(3) and 15378;

> the thresholds are promulgated pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7;

> the thresholds have been formally subjected to a public review process; and

> the thresholds are supported by substantial evidence as summarized herein; and

2. Adopt a resolution replacing two existing Transportation Performance Measures with five new Transportation Performance Measures and Set Thresholds of Significance for CEQA for the new measures.


4

New Measures Public Review

Draft

Measure

s

• Transportation Advisory Commission (Feb & Mar 2014)

• Municipal Services Committee (March 2014)• Community Meeting (March 2014)• Planning Commission (April 2014)

ProposedMeasure

s

• Transportation Advisory Commission (May, June, Sep 2014)

• Planning Commission (May, June, July, Sep 2014)• Community Meetings (June 2014)• Municipal Services Committee (July & Oct 2014)


5


• The Mobility Element is focused on three main policy objectives, as refined from the 2004 General Plan and extensive community input: • Enhance livability• Encourage walking, biking, transit, and other

alternatives to motor vehicles• Create a supportive climate for economic

viability


6

Current Thresholds

• Intersection Level of Service (LOS) - Volume to capacity ratios are the primary measures.

• Street Segment Analysis - Volume-based analysis of change in traffic on street segments to assess impact.


7

Current Mobility Metrics

Land Use Impact Analysis• Intersection Level of Service (LOS)• Street Segment ImpactsTransportation System Performance• Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) – TRO

Goal of 1.5 for regulated sites• Annual ARTS Ridership• Green City Action Plan – Urban

Environmental Accord Indicators• Arterials average travel time & speeds


• Familiar• Responds to many people’s “hot

button” issues• Established basis for funding and

mitigation• Syncs up with other agencies

What’s right with the present system?

8


• Not-so-good reflection of people’s real experiences

• May be producing unintended consequences

• Not well-aligned with adopted policies

• Not consistent with the vision of Land Use and Mobility Element Update

Why consider changes to the system?

9


10


Five Proposed Measures with CEQA Thresholds

1. Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita

2. Vehicle Trips Per Capita

3. Prox. & Quality of Bike Facilities

4. Prox. & Quality of Transit Facilities

5. Pedestrian Accessibility & Quality


11


Metric

VMT Per Capita

Description

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs).

CEQA Threshold

Any increase in Existing Citywide VMT per Capita22.6


12


Metric

VT Per Capita

Description

Vehicle Trips (VT) in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs).

CEQA Threshold

Any increase in Existing Citywide VT per Capita2.8


13


VMT and VT Per Capita Measures• Not Replacements for LOS• Are Measures of Accessibility and

Sustainability• Projects may reduce VMT by

substituting shorter trips for longer ones


14


Metric

Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network

Description

Percent of dwelling units and jobs within a quarter mile of each of three bicycle facility types.

CEQA Threshold

Any decrease in % of units or employment within a ¼ mile of Level 1 or 2 Bike Facility*

* Bike Path, Protected or Buffered Bike Lane, Bike Boulevard


15


Metric

Proximity and Quality of Transit Network

Description

Percent of jobs located within a quarter mile of each of three transit facility types

CEQA Threshold

Any decrease in % of units or employment within a ¼ mile of Level 1 or 2 Transit Facility*

* Gold Line Station or bus route with service every 15 minutes or less.


16


Metric

Proximity and Quality of Pedestrian Environment

Description

The Pedestrian Accessibility Score within each TAZ. The Pedestrian Accessibility Score uses the mix of destinations, and a network-based walk shed to evaluate walkability.

CEQA Threshold

Any decrease in Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility Score*

* The number of different land use types (destinations) within a five minute walk


17

New Performance Measures

Planning Commission Actions

Motion Passed Supporting the Three Proximity Bases Performance Measures:

• Any decrease in the percentage of units or employment within a ¼ mile of a Level 1 or 2 Bike Facility

• Any decrease in the percentage of units or employment within a ¼ mile of a Level 1 or 2 Transit Facility

• Any decrease in the Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility Score


18


Planning Commission Actions

Motions Passed Supporting:• CEQA Thresholds of Auto LOS D Citywide and LOS E

in TOD Areas• Modified Street Segment Analysis: all street types and

land uses as a CEQA Threshold

Motions Passed Opposing:• VMT and VT per Capita as CEQA Thresholds


19


Transportation Advisory Commission Actions

Motion Passed Supporting all Six Proposed Transportation Performance Measures and CEQA Thresholds

Motion Passed Recommending the Addition of Colorado Blvd. High Quality Transit Corridor as an Infill Opportunity Zone.


20


Municipal Services Committee Actions

Motion Passed Supporting Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Trips per Capita Measures and CEQA ThresholdsSupport for the Bicycle, Transit and Pedestrian Proximity Measures and CEQA Thresholds

Accept that Auto Level of Service (LOS) and Street Segment Analysis will no longer have CEQA Thresholds and directed staff to develop a process by which LOS and Street Segment analysis would be applied to large development projects for purposes of applying standard conditions of approval to address identified effects


21

SB 743 – CEQA Changes to LOS

SB 743 was signed into law in September 2013• Eliminates the use of Auto delay as defined by LOS

(capacity or congestion) for evaluating transportation impacts in Transit Priority Areas and Infill Opportunity Zones

• Allows cities to adopt Infill Opportunity Zones

SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify an alternative method for evaluating transportation impacts• The method must “promote the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses”


22


On August 6, 2014 the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Preliminary Discussion Draft of Updates to CEQA Guidelines Implementing SB 743

The report recommends amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to replace the Level of Service (LOS), auto delay based standard with a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in order to align CEQA analysis more closely with other state goals, most notably the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals contained in the state’s climate change law, AB 32.


23


The OPR report proposes the following amendments to the CEQA Guidelines:

• Eliminate Level of Service (LOS)/Delay as a CEQA Impact

• Proposes use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Metric for CEQA Transportation Analysis

• Continued Analysis of Impacts Resulting from Transportation, such as Noise, Air Quality and Safety

• Required assessment of growth inducing impacts of roadway expansion

• Applies to CEQA Only and Does Not Preclude Addressing Traffic Congestion in Local General Plan Policies, Zoning Codes, Conditions of Approval, Thresholds, or Fee Programs

• Addresses Phase-in of New Guidelines


24


SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set thresholds, but did direct OPR to develop Guidelines for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects.

OPR recommends that a project that results in vehicle miles traveled that is greater than the regional average might be considered to have a significant impact. Average in this case would be measured using an efficiency metric such as per capita, per employee, etc.


25


• OPR has proposed the following phase-in of the New CEQA Guidelines:

• The standards will not be retroactive: >Approved projects will be subject to mitigations

exacted under the old standard• The new standards will only apply to Transit

Priority Areas• Local governments may apply the standard

to other areas on an “opt-in” basis at first• The new standards will apply statewide as

of January 1, 2016


26


Transit Priority Areas• “Transit Priority Area” means an area within one-

half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned

• “Major transit stop” includes rail transit stations, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with frequencies of service intervals of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods

• According to OPR, planned major transit stops contained in a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) comply with the definition above for transit priority areas


27

SB 743 Transit Priority Areas


28

SB 743 High Quality Transit Corridor


29

Modified Performance Measures

• Two existing measures replaced in CEQA>Auto Level of Service>Street Segment Analysis

• Continue to include in Transportation Study Guidelines for Project Review>Consistent with provisions of SB 743

• Modified to be consistent with General Plan goals and Mobility Element objectives

• Methodology updated to current standard


30

Modified Intersection LOS Analysis

• Applied to Projects of Communitywide Significance>50,000 Square Feet and/or 50 Dwelling Units

• LOS Methodology updated to current standard>Defined by 2010 Highway Capacity Manual>Uses intersection control delay to evaluate auto

congestion• Measured for compliance with intersection

LOS caps by location>LOS D outside TOD zones>LOS E inside TOD zones


31


Signalized IntersectionsCitywide – LOS D CapTOD Areas – LOS E Cap


32

Modified Street Segment Analysis

• Response to Planning Commission and TAC support for a modified Street Segment Analysis> Focused on neighborhood protection

• Applied to Projects of Communitywide Significance> 50,000 Square Feet and/or 50 Dwelling Units

• Analysis would be limited to “Access” and “Neighborhood Connector” street types within a residential context

• Project approval conditions would be imposed on developments based on a “Percentage net increase of project Average Daily Traffic (ADT) over Existing ADT”


33


• Conditions of Approval - develop and implement a targeted complete streets plan with input from the affected residents, council districts and Transportation Department

• Plan elements would discourage use of residential streets to-and-from the project site consistent with established Neighborhood Traffic Management Program guidelines


34


• Possible measures for Conditions of Approval:

• Project specific measures:• Establish a more aggressive AVO target than TRO• Project turn-restrictions• Revised project access and circulation

• Complete Streets measures• Curb Extensions• Pedestrian and Bike Traffic signal

upgrades/enhancements• Turn-restrictions• Neighborhood Gateways (raised medians) • Traffic circles • Speed humps• Signal metering


35

Pasadena Street Types Plan


36


Implementation of the New Measures

• Begin General Plan EIR Analysis with New Thresholds • Revise DOT Transportation Review Guidelines

• Stakeholder Outreach on Revised Guidelines

• TAC Review of Revised Guidelines – Dec. 4, 2014

• New Guidelines Take Effect – Dec. 5, 2015


37


Recommendation: 1. Find that:

> the adoption of New Transportation Performance Measures and Thresholds of Significance for CEQA is not a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(3) and 15378;

> the thresholds are promulgated pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7;

> the thresholds have been formally subjected to a public review process; and

> the thresholds are supported by substantial evidence as summarized herein; and

2. Adopt a resolution replacing two existing Transportation Performance Measures with five new Transportation Performance Measures and Set Thresholds of Significance for CEQA for the new measures.


38



Project Approval Pipeline

39

Thresholds apply to:Any new projects which have • Not signed a

MOU to prepare a traffic study

AND/OR• Not been

deemed complete.

Approved by the City Council February 10, 2014


40


Comparison of Existing and Modified Street Segment Analysis

Existing Street Segment Analysis


CEQA Threshold at >4.9% increase in ADT

8% to 10% above 1500 ADT with a minimum of 150 for ADT <=1500

Applied to Commercial and Residential Projects

Applied only to Projects of Communitywide Significance

Applied on All Street Types Applied on “Access” and “Neigh. Con.” with Residential Context

No Minimum ADT Increase Minimum of 150 ADT Increase

Required Measures No Longer Adequate as CEQA Mitigations

Traffic Intrusion into residential areas addressed with NTMP Traffic Calming Measures


41

Case Studies

• Projects with Completed CEQA Documents

• Three Different Types of Projects• Different Areas of the City

• Findings>Existing LOS metric not demonstrably more

sensitive than VMT/Capita and VT/Capita


42

Case Study 1

Existing Metrics• LOS 15 Ints. Studied – No

Impacts• 12 Segs. Analyzed – 2

impacted

880 E Colorado Blvd. • Mixed Use TOD• 156-room hotel• 14,000 SF retail• 8,000 SF personal srvcs • 38,000 SF restaurant• 103,000 SF office space• 5 residential units

Exi

st +

Pro

jP

roj.

Incr


43

Case Study 2

865 N. Fair Oaks Ave. • Office development• 19,000 SF of office space

Existing Metrics• LOS 6 Ints. Analyzed – 0

Impacts• 1 Seg. Analyzed – 0 Impact

Exi

st +

Pro

jP

roj.

Incr


44

Case Study 3

188 S Sierra Madre Blvd. • Residential Mixed-Use TOD• 60 multifamily Units

Existing Metrics• 6 Ints Analyzed – 0 Impacts• 3 Segs. Analyzed – 0

Impacts due to site access modification

Exi

st +

Pro

jP

roj.

Incr


45


The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita measure sums the miles traveled for trips within the City of Pasadena citywide model.

The Citywide VMT is calculated by adding:1) 100% of VMT associated with trips traveling within the

City of Pasadena boundaries that are generated or attracted by the City

2) 50% of VMT associated with trips with an end or origin outside of the City.

The City’s VMT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.


46


Street Project Increase

Segment to Trigger Impact

ADT Current Modified 100 5 150 500 25 150 1,000 49 150 1,500 74 150 2,000 98 200 2,500 123 250 3,000 147 300 3,500 172 350 4,000 196 320 4,500 221 360 5,000 245 400 5,500 270 440 6,000 294 480 6,500 319 520 7,000 343 560 7,500 368 600 8,000 392 640 8,500 417 680 9,000 441 720


47


The OPR report offers guidance in setting the size of the area to be analyzed when calculating VMT per Capita:

• “The area of analysis should be chosen to capture the full VMT effects of the project; it should avoid truncating the analysis.”

• “The area chosen for analysis should cover the full area over which the project affects travel behavior.”

• “…a lead agency generally should not confine its evaluation to its own political boundary.”


48


Specific Plan Buffer Area


49


Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Buffer Area Around Case Study Projects


50


Half Mile Buffer AreaAround Case Study Projects


51


SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA

LEVEL OF

SERVICE

DESCRIPTION DELAY IN

SECONDS

A Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

< 10.0

B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

> 10.0 to 20.0

C Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

> 20.0 to 35.0

D

The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

> 35.0 to 55.0

E This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

> 55.0 to 80.0

F This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels.

> 80.0

Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.


52

Existing Intersection LOS Thresholds


53


All Signalized IntersectionsCitywide 330

High Pedestrian Activity Areas and Existing TOD Areas


54


Signalized IntersectionsSubject to Policy BasedNo CEQA Threshold224 (68% of All Signals)

Originally Proposed High Pedestrian Activity Areas


55


Signalized IntersectionsSubject to No CEQA Threshold per SB 743158 (48% of All Signals)

½ Mile Radii Around Gold Line Stations


158, 168 & 188 S. Sierra Madre Blvd- Town and Country Site

Revised site plan eliminated project access for 158 S. Sierra Madre Blvd from Oswego Street, with 350 daily vehicles, and directed its traffic

onto Sierra Madre Blvd


Access for 158 S. Sierra Madre Blvd Project Original Site Plan

• Original Site Plan

57


Revised Site Plan- Access for both 158 & 168 S. Sierra Madre Blvd

• Revised Site Plan

58


Del Mar Bl Conceptual Drawing

59


60



61


Auto Corridor Travel Time Measure

• Removed from the list of recommended transportation measures and CEQA Threshold

• While this measure, from a technical standpoint, is functional at the General Plan level and can provide insights into the aggregate effect of development on travel times staff was not able to identify substantial technical evidence for establishing a threshold of significance to the extent required by the CEQA Guidelines


62



63


Policy Based LOS Thresholds

LOS may conflict with other community values reflect in General Plan Policies including: • Creating pleasant and safe walking and bicycle

environments • Developing well utilized public transportation systems• A vision for infill development• LOS not the best metric to demonstrate that a project is

consistent with the general plan • The impact analysis will often ignore the effects on

pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and green-house gases.


64


California Cities with Policy Based LOS Thresholds

• San Jose• Sacramento• Roseville• Walnut Creek• El Dorado County• Yolo County• Davis• Citrus Heights• Emeryville• El Cerrito (San Pablo Avenue corridor) – LOS as an

advisory measure, not a requirement


65

Community Workshop Comments

• Support for measures which will result in improved bicycle, transit and pedestrian facilities

• High Pedestrian Activity Area map should include Pasadena City College and Cal Tech campuses

• The definition of Level 1 and 2 Bike Facilities (bike lanes) should related to “low stress” facilities on the City’s Bike Stress Map


66

Street Segment Analysis

Pros• Identifies changes to vehicle volumes on all streets including residential streets. Cons• No minimum threshold for street Average Daily Traffic (ADT) to establish impacts. • Impact tied to a percentage increase in traffic resulting in small increases in traffic triggering

impacts on streets with low ADTs.• Does not accurately reflect perceptible changes to traffic volume on street with low ADT• Metric is not consistent with the land use densities identified in the adopted General Plan and

can cause project alternatives at densities lower than adopted General Plan land use.• Forces projects to place new driveways on streets with higher vehicular traffic and pedestrian

and bike volumes. Introductions of new driveways negatively impacts pedestrian and bicycle environments, and increases congestion on major travel corridors leading to potential cut-through traffic on residential streets.

• Mitigation measures proposed in 2005 for Street Segment impacts are no longer adequate under current CEQA Guidelines.

• Segment metric and impact threshold applies to both residential and commercial projects. Trips associated with residential projects in residential neighborhoods are not cut through traffic per se.


67



68


TABLE 6 – BIKE FACILITIES HIERARCHY

LEVEL DESCRIPTION FACILITIES INCLUDED

1 (A) Advanced Facilities Bike Paths (P1)

Multipurpose Paths (PP)

Cycle Tracks (not planned)

2 (B) Dedicated Facilities Buffered Bike Lanes (not planned)

Bike Lanes (2, P2)

3 (C) Basic Facilities Bike Routes (3, P3)

Enhanced Bike Routes (E3, PE3)

Bike Boulevards (BB)

Emphasized Bikeways (PEB)

Source: City of Pasadena Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2012.


69



70



71


TABLE 7 – TRANSIT FACILITIES HIERARCHY

LEVEL FACILITIES INCLUDED

1 (A) Includes all Gold Line stops as well as corridors with transit service, whether it be a single route or multiple routes combined, with headways of five minutes or less during the peak periods.

2 (B) Includes corridors with transit headways of between six and fifteen minutes in peak periods.

3 (C) Includes corridors with transit headways of sixteen minutes or more at peak periods.

Source: Draft Streets Types Plan, Pasadena Department of Transportation, March 2013.


72
