The new guidelines make it clear about what is expected in the development and application of models. Of particular importance are the specific static and dynamic validation tests for establishing model accuracy and sensitivity. These are formal tests that can be applied to any model so that users will understand whether the model is adequate for intended application purposes.

Further, these guidelines extend to sub‐regional applications such as a development project EIR transportation impact study as noted in the excerpt from the guidelines below. In this respect, the new 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines have clarified the definition of adequate for model development and application in California.

Section 3.4, Page 51
Consistency of RTP Modeling
Recommendations:

1. Agencies that use MPO models for purposes other than regional planning should ensure thatthe model provides the appropriate scale and sensitivity for applications at a sub‐regional levelsuch as corridor, sub‐area, or local planning studies. Below the regional level, model refinements are likely necessary to ensure the model meets the validation targets established in these guidelines and is appropriately sensitive to smaller scale changes associated with sub‐regional studies.

Click here for details of Fehr & Peers’ suggested guidance on travel forecasting for CEQA, and/or traffic operations for CEQA.

Current methods of traffic impact analysis, which rely on rates and adjustments from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), are believed to understate the traffic benefits of mixed-use developments (MXDs) and potentially overstate potential roadway impacts because they don’t fully account for the interactions between land uses or the surrounding built environment. A national study for the US EPA, performed by a team composed of Fehr & Peers and academic researchers developed a new methodology to more accurately predict the traffic impacts of MXDs. The study evaluated household travel surveys from 239 mixed-use developments in Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Houston, Atlanta and Boston and found statistical relationships between site characteristics and the amount of vehicle travel generated in and out of the site. MXDs were found to reduce traffic impacts relative to single-use suburban development, due to the following key factors.

Diverse on-site activities that capture a large share of trips internally.
Placement within walkable areas with good transit access that generate high shares of walk and transit trips.
Central locations that reduce trip lengths.

The potential vehicle trip reductions from MXDs were significant enough to demonstrate that conventional trip generation methods could exaggerate roadway impacts and the need for mitigation including higher impact fees, exactions, and negotiated payments than should be the case. These factors could also contribute to potentially discouraging development of otherwise desirable projects.

What are the BMPs?

The acronym BMP (Best Management Practices) is replacing TSM (transportation system management), TDM (transportation demand management) and TCM (transportation control measures) to describe the familiar list of strategies to minimize transportation impacts, fuel consumption and emissions. It includes the usual network management, auto trip reduction incentives and pricing strategies to reduce VMT while preserving quality of service.

Why are they important?

1. SB375 Requirements: Based on the recommendations of the SB 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) all 18 California MPOs will begin developing a list of integrated land use and transportation BMPs in early 2010 to accompany their GHG target proposals under SB 375.  But it’s more than the simple list. The RTAC recommended to ARB that the BMP be converted into an analytical spreadsheet tool to estimate reductions from a specific strategy or set of strategies in a particular setting. This would allow MPOs and local jurisdictions to make GHG reduction policy choices based on available research and empirical studies on the likely impacts on VMT and GHG reductions.
2. Other Requirements: AQ conformity issues, CEQA review protocols
3. Aspirations: energy conservation, health and safety, mobility vs. v/c ratio, green marketing, market expansion (aging demographics, other “choice” and dependent groups)
4. $$ Motives: state and regional funding incentive programs, federal funding for “livability” criteria, reduced infrastructure

Fehr & Peers BMP Projects
Through conducting a comprehensive literature review, discussing with BMP experts, and coordinating with the Air Resources Board, Fehr and Peers identified a prioritized list of transportation-related GHG reduction measures, assessing the effectiveness of each measure, and quantified the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG reduction potential.  A standard methodology and approach to calculate baseline unmitigated emissions was also developed.  The result of this work is a statewide guidebook for CAPCOA to reference in the review of development projects in the CEQA process.

• One year membership in California Climate Registry (for GHG inventory)
• Third party verification of GHG inventory
• Public relations services provided to communicate environmental leadership to the public
• Strengthens an organization’s voice among industry peers and national policy makers

Cool California

Cool California is a partnership of the State of California Air Resources Board, Energy Commission, Public Utilities, and University at Berkeley.  Its mission is to provide all Californians with the tools they need to take action to protect the climate and keep California cool.  The partnership has developed a Local Government Toolkit to identify cost saving actions, financial resources, and case studies to assist local governments with achieving GHG emission reductions.  Cool California provides resources to local government to establish baseline GHG emission inventories and guide the development of a Climate Action Plan.

Policy in Motion is offering a “Sustainable Community Grant Navigation” package to assist local governments in optimizing successful grant submissions for both the five federal grant opportunities totaling $748 million, and the California Proposition 84 grant awards totaling $22 million this cycle.  Consultancy service for the Navigation package includes:

1. overview of how federal and California policy direction ties into the scoring criteria for federal and California planning grants, and
2. custom consultation for applicant on which grants to pursue and how to prepare grant materials through strategic planning submissions.

For more information contact Lauren Michele at lauren.michele@policyinmotion.com.

Boxer also announced Congress would be including a strategy to fund LA’s “30-10″ transit initiative in the upcoming reauthorization of the federal transportation bill. The 30-10 initiative proposes to build all 12 rail and bus rapid transit projects funded by the 30-year Measure R spending plan and to do it all in the first 10 years of the program. There are a number of loan and bond programs that allow the federal government to fund single transportation projects, but this is the first example of funding an entire program of transit projects.

Observers at the forum were presented additional evidence that the region could achieve an ambitious Sustainable Communities Strategy.  In addition to the positive transit messaging from Washington, the findings of a recent ULI study identified a long list of economic benefits that California’s SB 375 climate law could deliver through its requirements that the region strive toward a more compact and sustainable urban form.  Attendees, primarily developers and real estate investors, also shared perspectives on a future emphasizing rail and non-motorized transportation, and infill and mixed-use development, TOD, and complete streets programs.

The MXD method was developed by Fehr & Peers and a research team for the US EPA through an analysis of about 240 mixed use development sites throughout the US.  In its study for SANDAG, Fehr & Peers validated the method by comparing its estimates to actual traffic counts at six smart growth developments, including Transit Oriented Development (TOD) sites in the San Diego region.  This validation supplements validation that Fehr & Peers had already performed at other sites in California, Florida, Texas and Georgia.

The MXD method is also under review by ITE as a possible supplement in an upcoming release in its Trip Generation Handbook and is undergoing evaluation by panels of experts and practitioners throughout California as part of a Caltrans/ UC Davis study to assess its acceptability for use in CEQA studies throughout the state.

Key Fehr & Peers staff involved in the SANDAG effort were: Rick Lee, Mark Feldman, Chris Gray, McKenzie Watten and Lisa Levasseur.

For more information on the MXD method, click here.

The MXD method was developed by Fehr & Peers and a research team for the US EPA through an analysis of about 240 mixed use development sites throughout the US.  In its study for SANDAG, Fehr & Peers validated the method by comparing its estimates to actual traffic counts at six smart growth developments, including Transit Oriented Development (TOD) sites in the San Diego region.  This validation supplements validation that Fehr & Peers had already performed at other sites in California, Florida, Texas and Georgia.

The MXD method is also under review by ITE as a possible supplement in an upcoming release in its Trip Generation Handbook and is undergoing evaluation by panels of experts and practitioners throughout California as part of a Caltrans/ UC Davis study to assess its acceptability for use in CEQA studies throughout the state.

Key Fehr & Peers staff involved in the SANDAG effort were: Rick Lee, Mark Feldman, Chris Gray, McKenzie Watten and Lisa Levasseur.

For more information on the MXD method, click here.

The announcements followed more than seven months of public outreach and stakeholder discussions, scenario testing and modeling representing the “bottom up process” within the regions to assess their GHG reduction potential.  The process was prescribed by the State’s SB375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) in its September 2009 report California Air Resources Board. The resulting MPO reports will inform the Board’s deliberations on regional GHG targets required under the California’s landmark SB375 climate legislation.

MPOs representing the state’s four major regions Los Angeles (SCAG), San Francisco (MTC), San Diego (SANDAG) and Sacramento (SACOG) submitted a unified report, though the proposed land use and transportation strategies varied from region to region (as shown in the following table), as did each regions’ estimated performance levels.  The MPOs and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies representing Fresno, Kern, Kings, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Butte, and Shasta counties also presented target-setting proposals.

Based on information provided for the May 25 RTAC meeting, the MPO land use and transportation scenarios identified as “ambitious but achievable” would reduce GHG per capita in 2020 to between 5% and 11% below 2005 levels.  Each MPO estimated that its region could double those reductions by 2020 through much more aggressive land use, demand management and transportation investment strategies that they deemed very ambitious, but not necessarily achievable.

Ambitious Enough?

The reported scenarios and performance levels provoked a full day’s public comment and discussion by the RTAC.  Observations by RTAC member Jerry Walters, along with his opinions on unresolved issues appear here. Questions include whether the MPO scenarios and GHG reductions are ambitious enough, including:

• whether assumptions on land use respond to anticipated growth in market demand for compact growth
• whether roadway pricing assumptions were ambitious enough, given the above-mentioned modest escalation in fuel prices projected over the next 25 years
• the reasons for worsening jobs/housing balances in several regions
• differences in the estimated effectiveness of travel demand management (TDM)
• the lack of information on vehicle miles traveled in the MPO reports
• the fact that the achievable 2020 reduction percentages for the three largest MPOs were actually higher than projected reductions in 2035

Questions Remain

In addition to the specific questions on the MPO scenario analysis above, several substantial issues remain for ARB to address in its deliberations in the coming months:

• whether ARB should set a uniform statewide target, as suggested in the September 2009 RTAC findings, or allow that regional variations, matching the individual target proposals submitted last week
• whether to set target ranges, rather than specific targets, that might allow the MPOs to perform within the ranges between “ambitious” and “achievable” as defined by each MPO
• the extent to which MPOs and others might perform technical reasonableness checks on the MPO modeling analysis , using information on typical effectiveness of land use and TDM strategies that the University of California has been preparing for ARB
• how to translate the final SB375 GHG reduction targets  into update goals in the AB 32 Scoping Plan which predicted that the land use and associated changes in transportation emphasis could deliver a 4% reduction in GHG (or 5 million metric tons) relative to 2020 trend-line conditions

ARB workshops and Board hearings on the targets begin on June 24 and through July. For more information, visit:  http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/meetings/meetings.htm

The announcements followed more than seven months of public outreach and stakeholder discussions, scenario testing and modeling representing the “bottom up process” within the regions to assess their GHG reduction potential.  The process was prescribed by the State’s SB375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) in its September 2009 report California Air Resources Board. The resulting MPO reports will inform the Board’s deliberations on regional GHG targets required under the California’s landmark SB375 climate legislation.

MPOs representing the state’s four major regions Los Angeles (SCAG), San Francisco (MTC), San Diego (SANDAG) and Sacramento (SACOG) submitted a unified report, though the proposed land use and transportation strategies varied from region to region (as shown in the following table), as did each regions’ estimated performance levels.  The MPOs and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies representing Fresno, Kern, Kings, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Butte, and Shasta counties also presented target-setting proposals.

Based on information provided for the May 25 RTAC meeting, the MPO land use and transportation scenarios identified as “ambitious but achievable” would reduce GHG per capita in 2020 to between 5% and 11% below 2005 levels.  Each MPO estimated that its region could double those reductions by 2020 through much more aggressive land use, demand management and transportation investment strategies that they deemed very ambitious, but not necessarily achievable.

Ambitious Enough?

The reported scenarios and performance levels provoked a full day’s public comment and discussion by the RTAC.  Observations by RTAC member Jerry Walters, along with his opinions on unresolved issues appear here. Questions include whether the MPO scenarios and GHG reductions are ambitious enough, including:

• whether assumptions on land use respond to anticipated growth in market demand for compact growth
• whether roadway pricing assumptions were ambitious enough, given the above-mentioned modest escalation in fuel prices projected over the next 25 years
• the reasons for worsening jobs/housing balances in several regions
• differences in the estimated effectiveness of travel demand management (TDM)
• the lack of information on vehicle miles traveled in the MPO reports
• the fact that the achievable 2020 reduction percentages for the three largest MPOs were actually higher than projected reductions in 2035

Questions Remain

In addition to the specific questions on the MPO scenario analysis above, several substantial issues remain for ARB to address in its deliberations in the coming months:

• whether ARB should set a uniform statewide target, as suggested in the September 2009 RTAC findings, or allow that regional variations, matching the individual target proposals submitted last week
• whether to set target ranges, rather than specific targets, that might allow the MPOs to perform within the ranges between “ambitious” and “achievable” as defined by each MPO
• the extent to which MPOs and others might perform technical reasonableness checks on the MPO modeling analysis , using information on typical effectiveness of land use and TDM strategies that the University of California has been preparing for ARB
• how to translate the final SB375 GHG reduction targets  into update goals in the AB 32 Scoping Plan which predicted that the land use and associated changes in transportation emphasis could deliver a 4% reduction in GHG (or 5 million metric tons) relative to 2020 trend-line conditions

ARB workshops and Board hearings on the targets begin on June 24 and through July. For more information, visit:  http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/meetings/meetings.htm