Follow Marin Events

• Home • Up • 800 Survey • SB 743 Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines • In California 40% live near major roads • Planning & Affordable Housing in Marin • Available Housing for Development 2012 • 12012_Draft_Marin_County_Housing_Element • Marin Audubon buys 63 Acres of Habitat • Prop13 yet huge Tax Revenue • East Bay Commuting • CA_Air_Resources_Board--Climate_Change_Scoping_Plan_May2014 • Marin Water Supply Increase Study • California Air Pollution Control Officers Association • Marin ventures into PUBLIC HOUSING & Rent Regulation • Not so AFFORDABLE NORTHGATE • Marin Homeless Housing Providers • density bonus • MV Affordable Housing demolished • Possible Open Space Development • SR 134 Homes • SR Infill Housing • St Vincent •
•  •

3.0 Transportation

1. Land Use/Location

   1. Increase Density

      Range of Effectiveness: 0.8 – 30.0% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore a 0.8 – 30.0% reduction in GHG emissions.

      Measure Description:

      Designing the Project with increased densities, where allowed by the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance reduces GHG emissions associated with traffic in several ways. Density is usually measured in terms of persons, jobs, or dwellings per unit area. Increased densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. This strategy also provides a foundation for implementation of many other strategies which would benefit from increased densities. For example, transit ridership increases with density, which justifies enhanced transit service.

      The reductions in GHG emissions are quantified based on reductions to VMT. The relationship between density and VMT is described by its elasticity. According to a recent study published by Brownstone, et al. in 2009, the elasticity between density and VMT is 0.12. Default densities are based on the typical suburban densities in North America which reflects the characteristics of the ITE Trip Generation Manual data used in the baseline estimates.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

        • Negligible impact in a rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Transportation
        CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4 MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1	Land Use / Location

        
         

        

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        % VMT Reduction = A * B [not to exceed 30%]

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        A = Percentage increase in housing units per acre or jobs per job acre33 = (number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre – number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) / (number of housing units per acre or jobs per job acre for typical ITE development) For small and medium sites (less than ½ mile in radius) the calculation of housing and jobs per acre should be performed for the development site as a whole, so that the analysis does not erroneously attribute trip reduction benefits to measures that simply shift jobs and housing within the site with no overall increase in site density. For larger sites, the analysis should address the development as several ½-mile-radius sites, so that shifts from one area to another would increase the density of the receiving area but reduce the density of the donating area, resulting in trip generation rate decreases and increases, respectively, which cancel one another.

        B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to density (from literature)

        
         

        Detail:

      • A: [not to exceed 500% increase]

        • If housing: (Number of housing units per acre – 7.6) / 7.6 (See Appendix C for detail)

        • If jobs: (Number of jobs per acre – 20) / 20 (See Appendix C for detail)

      • B: 0.07 (Boarnet and Handy 2010)

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

      • Boarnet, Marlon and Handy, Susan. 2010. “DRAFT Policy Brief on the Impacts of Residential Density Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature.” http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm; Table 1.

        
         

        

        
         

        1. This value should be checked first to see if it exceeds 500% in which case A = 500%.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4 MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

           

           

           Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions34 CO2e 1.5-30% of running

           PM 1.5-30% of running

           CO 1.5-30% of running

           NOx 1.5-30% of running

           SO2 1.5-30% of running

           ROG 0.9-18% of total

           

           
            

           Discussion:

           The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in density versus the typical suburban residential and employment densities in North America (referred to as “ITE densities”). These densities are used as a baseline to mirror those densities reflected in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT.

           
            

           There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of housing units or jobs per acre (variable A) and a cap of 30% on

           % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing residential density by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as density). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.

           
            

           Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below for housing:

           
            

           Low Range % VMT Reduction (8.5 housing units per acre)

           = (8.5 – 7.6) / 7.6 *0.07 = 0.8%

           High Range % VMT Reduction (60 housing units per acre)

           

            60  7.6  6.9

           7.6

           
            

           or 690% Since greater than 500%, set to 500%

           
            

           = 500% x 0.07 = 0.35 or 35% Since greater than 30%, set to 30%

           
            

           

           
            

        2. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-1 & D-4 MP# LU-1.5 & LU-2.1.8 LUT-1	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Sample calculations are provided below for jobs:

           
            

           Low Range % VMT Reduction (25 jobs per acre)

           = (25 – 20) / 20 *0.12 = 3%

           High Range % VMT Reduction (100 jobs per acre)

           

            100  20  4 or 400%

           20

           =400% x 0.12 = 0.48 or 48% Since greater than 30%, set to 30%

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

           • -0.07 = elasticity of VMT with respect to density

             
              

             Boarnet and Handy’s detailed review of existing literature highlighted three individual studies that used the best available methods for analyzing data for individual households. These studies provided the following elasticities: -0.12 - Brownstone (2009), -0.07 – Bento (2005), and -0.08 – Fang (2008). To maintain a conservative estimate of the impacts of this strategy, the lower elasticity of -0.07 is used in the calculations.

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

           • -0.05 to -0.25 = elasticity of VMT with respect to density

             
              

             The TRB Special Report 298 literature suggests that doubling neighborhood density across a metropolitan area might lower household VMT by about 5 to 12 percent, and perhaps by as much as 25 percent, if coupled with higher employment concentrations, significant public transit improvements, mixed uses, and other supportive demand management measures.

             
              

             Alternative Literature References:

             TRB, 2009. Driving and the Built Environment, Transportation Research Board Special Report 298. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr298.pdf . Accessed March 2010. (p. 4)

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             MP# LU-3.3	LUT-2	Land Use / Location

             
              

             

   2. Increase Location Efficiency

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 10-65% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 10-65% reduction in GHG emissions

      
       

      Measure Description:

      This measure is not intended as a separate strategy but rather a documentation of empirical data to justify the “cap” for all land use/location strategies. The location of the Project relative to the type of urban landscape such as being located in an urban area, infill, or suburban center influences the amount of VMT compared to the statewide average. This is referred to as the location of efficiency since there are synergistic benefits to these urban landscapes.

      
       

      To receive the maximum reduction for this location efficiency, the project will be located in an urban area/ downtown central business district. Projects located on brownfield sites/infill areas receive a lower, but still significant VMT reduction. Finally, projects in suburban centers also receive a reduction for their efficient location. Reductions are based on the typical VMT of a specific geographic area relative to the average VMT statewide.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in a rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        VMT = vehicle miles traveled

        EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions

        
         

        Inputs:

      • No inputs are needed. VMT reduction ranges are based on the geographic location of the project within the region.

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        % VMT reduction =

        
         

        Transportation
        MP# LU-3.3	LUT-2	Land Use / Location

        
         

        

      • Urban: 65% (representing VMT reductions for the average urban area in California versus the statewide average VMT)

      • Compact Infill: 30% (representing VMT reductions for the average compact infill area in California versus the statewide average VMT)

      • Suburban Center: 10% (representing VMT reductions for the average suburban center in California versus the statewide average VMT)

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

      • Holtzclaw, et al. 2002. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Chicago.” Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1– 27.

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions35 CO2e 10-65% of running

        PM 10-65% of running

        CO 10-65% of running

        NOx 10-65% of running

        SO2 10-65% of running

        ROG 6-39% of total

        

        
         

        Discussion: Example:

        N/A – no calculations needed

        
         

        Alternative Literature:

      • 13-72% reduction in VMT for infill projects

        
         

        Preferred Literature:

        Holtzclaw, et al., [1] studied relationships between auto ownership and mileage per car and neighborhood urban design and socio-economic characteristics in the Chicago, Los

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           MP# LU-3.3	LUT-2	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Angeles, and San Francisco metro areas. In all three regions, average annual vehicle miles traveled is a function of density, income, household size, and public transit, as well as pedestrian and bicycle orientation (to a lesser extent). The annual VMT for each neighborhood was reviewed to determine empirical VMT reduction “caps” for this report. These location-based caps represent the average and maximum reductions that would likely be expected in urban, infill, suburban center, and suburban locations.

           
            

           Growing Cooler looked at 10 studies which have considered the effects of regional location on travel and emissions generated by individual developments. The studies differ in methodology and context but they tend to yield the same conclusion: infill locations generate substantially lower VMT per capita than do greenfield locations, ranging from 13 - 72% lower VMT.

           
            

           Literature References:

           [1] Holtzclaw, et al. 2002. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and

           Socioeconomic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Chicago.” Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 25, pp. 1–27.

           
            

           [2] Ewing, et al, 2008. Growing Cooler – The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute. (p.88, Figure 4-30)

           
            

           Other Literature Reviewed:

           None

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 LUT-3 MP# LU-2	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

   3. Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use)

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 9-30% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 9-30% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      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, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. A description of diverse uses for urban and suburban areas is provided below.

      
       

      Urban:

      The urban project will be predominantly characterized by properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. The mixed-use development should encourage walking and other non-auto modes of transport from residential to office/commercial/institutional locations (and vice versa). The residential units should be within ¼-mile of parks, schools, or other civic uses. The project should minimize the need for external trips by including services/facilities for day care, banking/ATM, restaurants, vehicle refueling, and shopping.

      
       

      Suburban:

      The suburban project will have at least three of the following on site and/or offsite within

      ¼-mile: Residential Development, Retail Development, Park, Open Space, or Office. The mixed-use development should encourage walking and other non-auto modes of transport from residential to office/commercial locations (and vice versa). The project should minimize the need for external trips by including services/facilities for day care, banking/ATM, restaurants, vehicle refueling, and shopping.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in a rural context (unless the project is a master-planned community)

      • Appropriate for mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        Transportation
        CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 LUT-3 MP# LU-2	Land Use / Location

        
         

        
         

        Where:

        

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Percentage of each land use type in the project (to calculate land use index)

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        % VMT Reduction = Land Use * B [not to exceed 30%]

        Where

        Land Use = Percentage increase in land use index versus single use development

        = (land use index –

        1. /0.15 (see Appendix C for detail)

           
            

           
            

           (from [2])

           
            

           6

           a = ai

           i1

           
            

            lnai 

           Land use index = -a / ln(6)

           ai = building floor area of land use i / total square feet of area considered

           • a1 = single family

             residential

           • a2 = multifamily residential

           • a3 = commercial

           • a4 = industrial

           • a5 = institutional

           • a6 = park

        if land use is not present and ai is equal to 0, set ai equal to 0.01

        
         

        B = elasticity of VMT

        with respect to land use index (0.09 from [1])

        
         

        increase

        not to exceed 500%

        
         

        Transportation
        CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 LUT-3 MP# LU-2	Land Use / Location

        
         

        

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

        [1] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta- Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4.

        [2] Song, Y., and Knaap, G., “Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 34 (2004) 663-680. (p. 669)

        http://urban.csuohio.edu/~sugie/papers/RSUE/RSUE2005_Measuring%20the

        %20effects%20of%20mixed%20land%20use.pdf

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions36 CO2e 9-30% of running

        PM 9-30% of running

        CO 9-30% of running

        NOx 9-30% of running

        SO2 9-30% of running

        ROG 5.4-18% of total

        

        
         

        Discussion:

        In the above calculation, a land use index of 0.15 is used as a baseline representing a development with a single land use (see Appendix C for calculations).

        
         

        There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of land use index (variable A) and a cap of 30% on % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing the land use index by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as diversity). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 LUT-3 MP# LU-2	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

           90% single family homes, 10% commercial

           o Land use index = -[0.9*ln(0.9)+ 0.1*ln(0.1)+ 4*0.01*ln(0.01)] / ln(6) = 0.3

           o Low Range % VMT Reduction = (0.3 – 0.15)/0.15 *0.09 = 9%

           1/6 single family, 1/6 multi-family, 1/6 commercial, 1/6 industrial, 1/6 institutional, 1/6

           parks

           o Land use index = -[6*0.17*ln(0.17)] / ln(6) = 1

           • High Range % VMT Reduction (land use index = 1)

           • Land use = (1-0.15)/0.15 = 5.6 or 566%. Since this is greater than

             500%, set to 500%.

           • % VMT Reduction = (5 x 0.09) = 0.45 or 45%. Since this is greater than 30%, set to 30%.

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

           • -0.09 = elasticity of VMT with respect to land use index

             
              

             The land use (or entropy) index measurement looks at the mix of land uses of a development. An index of 0 indicates a single land use while 1 indicates a full mix of uses. Ewing’s [1] synthesis looked at a total of 10 studies, where none controlled for self-selection37. The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to the land use mix index is -0.09. The methodology for calculating the land use index is described in

             Song and Knaap [2].

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

              Vehicle trip reduction = [1 - (ABS(1.5*h-e) / (1.5*h+e)) - 0.25] / 0.25*0.03

             
              

             Where :

             h = study area housing units, and e = study area employment.

             
              

             Nelson\Nygaard’s report [3] describes a calculation adapted from Criterion and Fehr & Peers [4]. The formula assumes an “ideal” housing balance of 1.5 jobs per household and a baseline diversity of 0.25. The maximum trip reduction with this method is 9%.

             
              

             

             
              

        2. Self selection occurs when residents or employers that favor travel by non-auto modes choose locations where this type of travel is possible. They are therefore more inclined to take advantage of the available options than a typical resident or employee might otherwise be.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-9 & D-4 LUT-3 MP# LU-2	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Alternative Literature References:

           [3] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.12). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAnalysisU singURBEMIS.pdf

           
            

           [4] Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001). Index 4D Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land-Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001.

           
            

           Other Literature Reviewed:

           None

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-3 LUT-4 MP# LU-2.1.4	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

   4. Increase Destination Accessibility

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 6.7 – 20% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 6.7-20% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      The project will be located in an area with high accessibility to destinations. Destination accessibility is measured in terms of the number of jobs or other attractions reachable within a given travel time, which tends to be highest at central locations and lowest at peripheral ones. The location of the project also increases the potential for pedestrians to walk and bike to these destinations and therefore reduces the VMT.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in a rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Distance to downtown or major job center

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        % VMT Reduction = Center Distance * B [not to exceed 30%] Where

        
         

        Transportation
        CEQA# MM D-3 LUT-4 MP# LU-2.1.4	Land Use / Location

        
         

        

        Center Distance = Percentage decrease in distance to downtown or major job center versus typical ITE suburban development = (distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development – distance to downtown/job center for project) / (distance to downtown/job center for typical ITE development)

        
         

        Center Distance = 12 - Distance to downtown/job center for project) / 12 See Appendix C for detail

        
         

        B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown or major job center (0.20 from [1])

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

        [1] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis." Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4.

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions38 CO2e 6.7 – 20% of running

        PM 6.7 – 20% of running

        CO 6.7 – 20% of running

        NOx 6.7 – 20% of running

        SO2 6.7 – 20% of running

        ROG 4 – 12% of total

        

        
         

        Discussion:

        The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in distance to key destinations versus the standard suburban distance in North America. This distance is used as a baseline to mirror the distance to destinations reflected in the land uses for the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT.

        
         

        The purpose for the 30% cap on % VMT reduction is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as destination accessibility). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density,

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-3 LUT-4 MP# LU-2.1.4	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           design, diversity, destination, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.

           
            

           Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

           • Low Range % VMT Reduction (8 miles to downtown/job center) =

             

             12  8  0.20  6.7%

             12

           • High Range % VMT Reduction (0.1 miles to downtown/job center) =

             

             12  0.1 0.20  20.0%

             12

             
              

             Preferred Literature:

           • -0.20 = elasticity of VMT with respect to job accessibility by auto

           • -0.20 = elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown

             
              

             The Ewing and Cervero report [1] finds that VMT is strongly related to measures of accessibility to destinations. The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to job accessibility by auto is -0.20 (looking at five total studies). The weighted average elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to downtown is -0.22 (looking at four total studies, of which one controls for self selection39).

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

           • 10-30% reduction in vehicle trips

             
              

             The VTPI literature [2] suggests a 10-30% reduction in vehicle trips for “smart growth” development practices that result in more compact, accessible, multi-modal communities where travel distances are shorter, people have more travel options, and it is possible to walk and bicycle more.

             
              

             Alternative Literature References:

             [2] Litman, T., 2009. “Win-Win Emission Reduction Strategies.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI). Website: http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf. Accessed March 2010. (p. 7, Table 3)

             
              

             

             
              

        2. Self selection occurs when residents or employers that favor travel by non-auto modes choose locations where this type of travel is possible. They are therefore more inclined to take advantage of the available options than a typical resident or employee might otherwise be.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-3 LUT-4 MP# LU-2.1.4	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Other Literature Reviewed:

           None

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-2 LUT-5 MP# LU-1,LU-4	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

   5. Increase Transit Accessibility

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 0.5 – 24.6% VMT reduction and therefore 0.5-24.6% reduction in GHG emissions.40

      
       

      Measure Description:

      Locating a project with high density near transit will facilitate the use of transit by people traveling to or from the Project site. The use of transit results in a mode shift and therefore reduced VMT. A project with a residential/commercial center designed around a rail or bus station, is called a transit-oriented development (TOD). The project description should include, at a minimum, the following design features:

      
       

      • A transit station/stop with high-quality, high-frequency bus service located within a 5-10 minute walk (or roughly ¼ mile from stop to edge of development), and/or

        • A rail station located within a 20 minute walk (or roughly ½ mile from station to edge of development)

      • Fast, frequent, and reliable transit service connecting to a high percentage of regional destinations

      • Neighborhood designed for walking and cycling

        
         

        In addition to the features listed above, the following strategies may also be implemented to provide an added benefit beyond what is documented in the literature:

        
         

      • Mixed use development [LUT-3]

      • Traffic calmed streets with good connectivity [SDT-2]

      • Parking management strategies such as unbundled parking, maximum parking requirements, market pricing implemented to reduce amount of land dedicated to vehicle parking [see PPT-1 through PPT-7]

        
         

        Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Appropriate in a rural context if development site is adjacent to a commuter rail station with convenient rail service to a major employment center

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        
         

        

        
         

        1. Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-2 LUT-5 MP# LU-1,LU-4	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

           
            

           CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

           
            

           Where:

           
            

           
            

           traveled

           
            

           for running emissions

           VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

           
            

           Inputs:

           The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

           
            

           • Distance to transit station in project

             
              

             Mitigation Method:

             
              

             % VMT = Transit * B [not to exceed 30%]

             
              

             Where

             
              

             Transit = Increase in transit mode share = % transit mode share for project - % transit mode share for typical ITE development (1.3% as described in Appendix C)

             % transit mode share for project (see Table)

             Distance to transit	Transit mode share calculation equation (where x = distance of project to transit)
             0 – 0.5 miles	-50*x + 38
             0.5 to 3 miles	-4.4*x + 15.2
             > 3 miles	no impact
             Source: Lund et al, 2004; Fehr & Peers 2010 (see Appendix C for calculation detail)

             B = adjustments from transit ridership increase to VMT (0.67, see Appendix C for detail)

             
              

             Assumptions:

             Data based upon the following references:

             [1] Lund, H. and R. Cervero, and R. Willson (2004). Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California. (p. 79, Table 5-25)

             
              

             Transportation
             CEQA# MM D-2 LUT-5 MP# LU-1,LU-4	Land Use / Location

             
              

             

             Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

             

             

             Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions41 CO2e 0.5 – 24.6% of running

             PM 0.5 – 24.6% of running

             CO 0.5 – 24.6% of running

             NOx 0.5 – 24.6% of running

             SO2 0.5 – 24.6% of running

             
              

             ROG 0.3 – 14.8% of total

             

             
              

             Discussion:

             The purpose for the 30% cap on % VMT reduction is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as transit accessibility). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, transit accessibility, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.

             
              

             Example:

             Sample calculations are provided below for a rail station:

             
              

           • Low Range % VMT Reduction (3 miles from station) = [(-4.4*3+15.2) – 1.3%] * 0.67 = 0.5%

           • High Range % VMT Reduction (0 miles from station) = [(-50*0+38) – 1.3%] * 0.67

             = 24.6%

             
              

             Preferred Literature:

           • 13 to 38% transit mode share (residents in TODs with ½ mile of rail station)

           • 5 to 13% transit mode share (residents in TODs from ½ mile to 3 miles of rail station)

             
              

             The Travel Characteristics report [1] surveyed TODs and surrounding areas in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento, and Bay Area regions. Survey sites are all located in non-central business district locations, are within walking distance of a transit station with rail service headways of 15 minutes or less, and were intentionally developed as TODs.

             
              

             

             
              

        2. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM D-2 LUT-5 MP# LU-1,LU-4	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Alternative Literature:

           Alternate:

           • -0.05 = elasticity of VMT with respect to distance to nearest transit stop

             
              

             Ewing and Cervero’s meta-analysis [2] provides this weighted average elasticity based on six total studies, of which one controls for self-selection. The report does not provide the range of distances where this elasticity is valid.

             
              

             Alternate:

           • 5.9 – 13.3% reduction in VMT

             
              

             The Bailey, et al. 2008 report [3] predicted a reduction of household daily VMT of 5.8 miles for a location next to a rail station and 2.6 miles for a location next to a bus station. Using the report’s estimate of 43.75 daily average miles driven, the estimated reduction in VMT for rail accessibility is 13.3% (5.8/43.75) and for bus accessibility is 5.9% (2.6/43.75).

             
              

             Alternate:

           • 15% reduction in vehicle trips

           • 2 to 5 times higher transit mode share

             
              

             TCRP Report 128 [4] concludes that transit-oriented developments, compared to typical developments represented by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, have 47% lower vehicle trip rates and have 2 to 5 times higher transit mode share. TCRP Report 128 notes that the ITE Trip Generation Manual shows 6.67 daily trips per unit while detailed counts of 17 residential TODs resulted in 3.55 trips per unit (a 47% reduction in vehicle trips). This study looks at mid-rise and high-rise apartments at the residential TOD sites. A more conservative comparison would be to look at the ITE Trip Generation Manual rates for high-rise apartments, 4.2 trips per unit. This results in a 15% reduction in vehicle trips.

             
              

             Alternative Literature References:

             [2] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis."

             Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4.

             
              

             [3] Bailey, L., Mokhtarian, P.L., & Little, A. (2008). “The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction.” ICF International. (Table 4 and 5)

             
              

             [4] TCRP, 2008. TCRP Report 128 - Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel.

             http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf (p. 11, 69).

             
              

             Transportation
             CEQA# MM D-2 LUT-5 MP# LU-1,LU-4	Land Use / Location

             
              

             

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             Transportation

             
              

             CEQA# MM D-7

             MP# LU-2.1.8

             
              

             LUT-6 Land Use / Location

             
              

             

   6. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 0.04 – 1.20% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.04-1.20% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      Income has a statistically significant effect on the probability that a commuter will take transit or walk to work [4]. BMR housing provides greater opportunity for lower income families to live closer to jobs centers and achieve jobs/housing match near transit. It also addresses to some degree the risk that new transit oriented development would displace lower income families. This strategy potentially encourages building a greater percentage of smaller units that allow a greater number of families to be accommodated on infill and transit-oriented development sites within a given building footprint and height limit. Lower income families tend to have lower levels of auto ownership, allowing buildings to be designed with less parking which, in some cases, represents the difference between a project being economically viable or not.

      
       

      Residential development projects of five or more dwelling units will provide a deed- restricted low-income housing component on-site.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in a rural context unless transit availability and proximity to jobs/services are existing characteristics

      • Appropriate for residential and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        VMT = vehicle miles traveled for running emissions

        
         

        EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Percentage of units in project that are deed-restricted BMR housing

        Transportation

        
         

        CEQA# MM D-7

        MP# LU-2.1.8

        
         

        LUT-6 Land Use / Location

        
         

        

        Mitigation Method:

        % VMT Reduction = 4% * Percentage of units in project that are deed-restricted BMR housing [1]

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

        [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.15). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAn alysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf

        Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001). Index 4D Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land- Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001.

        Holtzclaw, John; Clear, Robert; Dittmar, Hank; Goldstein, David; and Haas, Peter (2002), “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use – Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco”, Transportation Planning and Technology, 25 (1): 1-27.

        
         

        All trips affected are assumed average trip lengths to convert from percentage vehicle trip reduction to VMT reduction (%VT = %VMT)

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions42 CO2e 0.04 – 1.20% of running

        PM 0.04 – 1.20% of running

        CO 0.04 – 1.20% of running

        NOx 0.04 – 1.20% of running

        SO2 0.04 – 1.20% of running

        ROG 0.024 – 0.72% of total

        

        Discussion:

        At a low range, 1% BMR housing is assumed. At a medium range, 15% is assumed (based on the requirements of the San Francisco BMR Program[5]). At a high range, the San Francisco program is doubled to reach 30% BMR. Higher percentages of BMR are possible, though not discussed in the literature or calculated.

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           Transportation

           
            

           CEQA# MM D-7

           MP# LU-2.1.8

           
            

           LUT-6 Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

           • Low Range % VMT Reduction = 4% * 1% = 0.04%

           • High Range % VMT Reduction = 4% * 30% = 1.20%

             
              

             Preferred Literature:

             Nelson\Nygaard [1] provides a 4% reduction in vehicle trips for each deed-restricted BMR unit. This is calculated from Holtzclaw [3], with the following assumptions: 12,000 average annual VMT per vehicle, $33,000 median per capita income (2002 figures per CA State Department of Finance), and average income in BMR units 25% below median. With a coefficient of -0.0565 (estimate for VMT/vehicle as a function of

             $/capita) from [3], the VMT reduction is 0.0565*33,000*0.25/12,000 = 4%.

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

           • 50% greater transit school trips than higher income households

             
              

             Fehr & Peers [6] developed Direct Ridership Models to predict the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) ridership activity. One of the objectives of this assessment was to understand the land use and system access factors that influence commute period versus off-peak travel on BART. The analysis focused on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey [7], using the data on household travel behavior to extrapolate relationships between household characteristics and BART mode choice. The study found that regardless of distance from BART, lower income households generate at least 50% higher BART use for school trips than higher income households. More research would be needed to provide more applicable information regarding other types of transit throughout the state.

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             [4] Bento, Antonio M., Maureen L. Cropper, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak, and Katja Vinha.

             2005. “The Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 87,3: 466-478. (cited in Measure Description section)

             
              

             [5] San Francisco BMR Program: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/moh_page.asp?id=48083

             (p.1) (cited in Discussion section). [6] Fehr & Peers. Access BART. 2006.

             [7] BATS. 2000. 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey.

             
              

             Transportation
             MP# LU-4.2	LUT-7	Land Use / Location

             
              

             

   7. Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-3]

      
       

      Measure Description:

      A project that is designed around an existing or planned transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor encourages alternative mode use. For this measure, the project is oriented towards a planned or existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor. Setback distance is minimized.

      
       

      The benefits of Orientation toward Non-Auto Corridor have not been sufficiently quantified in the existing literature. This measure is most effective when applied in combination of multiple design elements that encourage this use. There is not sufficient evidence that this measure results in non-negligible trip reduction unless combined with measures described elsewhere in this report, including neighborhood design, density and diversity of development, transit accessibility and pedestrian and bicycle network improvements. Therefore, the trip reduction percentages presented below should be used only as reasonableness checks. They may be used to assess whether, when applied to projects oriented toward non-auto corridors, analysis of all of those other development design factors presented in this report produce trip reductions at least as great as the percentages listed below.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban or suburban context; may be applicable in a master-planned rural community

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Alternative Literature:

        Alternate:

      • 0.25 – 0.5% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

        
         

        The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions attributes 0.5% reduction for a project oriented towards an existing corridor. A 0.25% reduction is attributed for a project oriented towards a planned corridor. The planned transit, bicycle, or pedestrian corridor must be in a General Plan, Community Plan, or similar plan.

        
         

        Alternate:

      • 0.5% reduction in VMT per 1% improvement in transit frequency

      • 0.5% reduction in VMT per 10% increase in transit ridership

        
         

        Transportation
        MP# LU-4.2	LUT-7	Land Use / Location

        
         

        

        The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Guidebook [2] attributes a 0.5 % reduction per 1% improvement in transit frequency. Based on a case study presented in the CCAP report, a 10% increase in transit ridership would result in a 0.5% reduction. (This information is based on a TIAX review for SMAQMD).

        
         

        The sources cited above reflect existing guidance rather than empirical studies.

        
         

        Alternative Literature References:

        [1] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). “Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions.” http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf

        
         

        [2] Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Transportation Emission Guidebook.

        http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html

        TIAX Results of 2005 Literature Search Conducted by TIAX on behalf of SMAQMD

        
         

        Other Literature Reviewed:

        None

        
         

        Transportation
        LUT-8	Land Use / Location

        
         

        

   8. Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-4]

      
       

      Measure Description:

      A Project that is designed around an existing or planned bicycle facility encourages alternative mode use. The project will be located within 1/2 mile of an existing Class I path or Class II bike lane. The project design should include a comparable network that connects the project uses to the existing offsite facilities.

      
       

      This measure is most effective when applied in combination of multiple design elements that encourage this use. Refer to Increase Destination Accessibility (LUT-4) strategy. The benefits of Proximity to Bike Path/Bike Lane are small as a standalone strategy. The strategy should be grouped with the Increase Destination Accessibility strategy to increase the opportunities for multi-modal travel.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban or suburban context; may be applicable in a rural master planned community

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Alternative Literature:

        Alternate:

      • 0.625% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

        
         

        As a rule of thumb, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Guidebook [1] attributes a 1% to 5% reduction associated with comprehensive bicycle programs. Based on the CCAP guidebook, the TIAX report allots 2.5% reduction for all bicycle-related measures and a 1/4 of that for this measure alone. (This information is based on a TIAX review for SMAQMD).

        
         

        Alternative Literature References:

        [1] Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html; TIAX Results of 2005 Literature Search Conducted by TIAX on behalf of SMAQMD.

        
         

        Other Literature Reviewed:

        None

        
         

        Transportation
        LUT-8	Land Use / Location

        
         

        

   9. Improve Design of Development

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 3.0 – 21.3% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 3.0-21.3% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four- way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile. Design is also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian-oriented environments from auto-oriented environments.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in a rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Number of intersections per square mile

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        Where

        
         

        % VMT Reduction = Intersections * B

        
         

        Transportation
        LUT-8	Land Use / Location

        
         

        

        Intersections = Percentage increase in intersections versus a typical ITE suburban development

         Intersectionsper square mi l eof proj ect - Intersectionsper square mi l eof typi calIT E suburban devel opment Intersectionsper square mileof typicalITE suburban development

        
         

        = Inters ections per s quarem ileof project 36

        36

        See Appendix C for detail [not to exceed 500% increase]

        
         

        B = Elasticity of VMT with respect to percentage of intersections (0.12 from [1])

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

        [1] Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., "Travel and the Built Environment - A Meta-Analysis."

        Journal of the American Planning Association, <to be published> (2010). Table 4.

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions43 CO2e 3.0 – 21.3% of running

        PM 3.0 – 21.3% of running

        CO 3.0 – 21.3% of running

        NOx 3.0 – 21.3% of running

        SO2 3.0 – 21.3% of running

        ROG 1.8 – 12.8% of total

        

        
         

        Discussion:

        The VMT reductions for this strategy are based on changes in intersection density versus the standard suburban intersection density in North America. This standard density is used as a baseline to mirror the density reflected in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the baseline method for determining VMT.

        
         

        The calculations in the Example section look at a low and high range of intersection densities. The low range is simply a slightly higher density than the typical ITE

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           LUT-8	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           development. The high range uses an average intersection density of mixed use/transit-oriented development sites (TOD Site surveys in the Bay Area for Candlestick-Hunters Point Phase II TIA, Fehr & Peers, 2009).

           
            

           There are two separate maxima noted in the fact sheet: a cap of 500% on the allowable percentage increase of intersections per square mile (variable A) and a cap of 30% on

           % VMT reduction. The rationale for the 500% cap is that there are diminishing returns to any change in environment. For example, it is reasonably doubtful that increasing intersection density by a factor of six instead of five would produce any additional change in travel behavior. The purpose for the 30% cap is to limit the influence of any single environmental factor (such as design). This emphasizes that community designs that implement multiple land use strategies (such as density, design, diversity, etc.) will show more of a reduction than relying on improvements from a single land use factor.

           
            

           Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

           • Low Range % VMT Reduction (45 intersections per square mile) = (45 – 36) / 36

             * 0.12 = 3.0%

           • High Range % VMT Reduction (100 intersections per square mile) = (100 – 36) / 36 * 0.12 = 21.3%

             
              

             Preferred Literature:

           • -0.12 = elasticity of VMT with respect to design (intersection/street density)

           • -0.12 = elasticity of VMT with respect to design (% of 4-way intersections)

             
              

             Ewing and Cervero’s [1] synthesis showed a strong relationship of VMT to design elements, second only to destination accessibility. The weighted average elasticity of VMT to intersection/street density was -0.12 (looking at six studies). The weighted average elasticity of VMT to percentage of 4-way intersections was -0.12 (looking at four studies, of which one controlled for self-selection44).

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

             Alternate:

           • 2-19% reduction in VMT

             
              

             

             
              

        2. Self selection occurs when residents or employers that favor travel by non-auto modes choose locations where this type of travel is possible. They are therefore more inclined to take advantage of the available options than a typical resident or employee might otherwise be.

           
            

           Transportation
           LUT-8	Land Use / Location

           
            

           

           Growing Cooler [2] looked at various reports which studied the effect of site design on VMT, showing a range of 2-19% reduction in VMT. In each case, alternative development plans for the same site were compared to a baseline or trend plan. Results suggest that VMT and CO2 per capita decline as site density increases as well as the mix of jobs, housing, and retail uses become more balanced. Growing Cooler notes that the limited number of studies, differences in assumptions and methodologies, and variability of results make it difficult to generalize.

           
            

           Alternate:

           • 3 – 17% shift in mode share from auto to non-auto

        
         

        The Marshall and Garrick paper [3] analyzes the differences in mode shares for grid and non-grid (“tree”) neighborhoods. For a city with a tributary tree street network, a neighborhood with a tree network had auto mode share of 92% while a neighborhood with a grid network had auto mode share of 89% (3% difference). For a city with a tributary radial street network, a tree neighborhood had auto mode share of 97% while a grid neighborhood had auto mode share of 84% (13% difference). For a city with a grid network, a tree neighborhood had auto mode share of 95% while a grid neighborhood had auto mode share of 78% (17% difference). The research is based on 24 California cities with populations between 30,000 and 100,000.

        
         

        Alternative Literature References:

        [2] Ewing, et al, 2008. Growing Cooler – The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute.

        
         

        [3] Marshall and Garrick, 2009. “The Effect of Street Network Design on Walking and Biking.” Submitted to the 89th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, January 2010. (Table 3)

        
         

        Other Literature Reviewed:

        None

        
         

        Transportation
        CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4	SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

        
         

        

2. Neighborhood/Site Enhancements

   
    

   1. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 0 - 2% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0 - 2% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving less and thus a reduction in VMT. The project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project will minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Physical barriers such as walls, landscaping, and slopes that impede pedestrian circulation will be eliminated.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban, suburban, and rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

      • Reduction benefit only occurs if the project has both pedestrian network improvements on site and connections to the larger off-site network.

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The project applicant must provide information regarding pedestrian access and connectivity within the project and to/from off-site destinations.

        
         

        Transportation
        CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4	SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

        
         

        

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        Estimated VMT Reduction	Extent of Pedestrian Accommodations	Context
        2%	Within Project Site and Connecting Off-Site	Urban/Suburban
        1%	Within Project Site	Urban/Suburban
        < 1%	Within Project Site and Connecting Off-Site	Rural

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

      • Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html (accessed March 2010)

      • 1000 Friends of Oregon (1997) “Making the Connections: A Summary of the LUTRAQ Project” (p. 16): http://www.onethousandfriendsoforegon.org/resources/lut_vol7.html

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions45 CO2e 0 - 2% of running

        PM 0 - 2% of running

        CO 0 - 2% of running

        NOx 0 - 2% of running

        SO2 0 - 2% of running

        ROG 0 – 1.2% of total

        

        
         

        Discussion:

        As detailed in the preferred literature section below, the lower range of 1 – 2% VMT reduction was pulled from the literature to provide a conservative estimate of reduction potential. The literature does not speak directly to a rural context, but an assumption was made that the benefits will likely be lower than a suburban/urban context.

        
         

        Example:

        N/A – calculations are not needed.

        
         

        Preferred Literature:

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4	SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

           
            

           

           • 1 - 2% reduction in VMT

             
              

             The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) attributes a 1% reduction in VMT from pedestrian-oriented design assuming this creates a 5% decrease in automobile mode share (e.g. auto split shifts from 95% to 90%). This mode split is based on the Portland Regional Land Use Transportation and Air Quality (LUTRAQ) project. The LUTRAQ analysis also provides the high end of 10% reduction in VMT. This 10% assumes the following features:

             
              

             • Compact, mixed-use

               communities

             • Interconnected street

               network

             • Narrower roadways and

               shorter block lengths

             • Sidewalks

             • Accessibility to transit and

               transit shelters

             • Traffic calming measures

               and street trees

             • Parks and public spaces

               
                

               Other strategies (development density, diversity, design, transit accessibility, traffic calming) are intended to account for the effects of many of the measures in the above list. Therefore, the assumed effectiveness of the Pedestrian Network measure should utilize the lower end of the 1 - 10% reduction range. If the pedestrian improvements are being combined with a significant number of the companion strategies, trip reductions for those strategies should be applied as well, based on the values given specifically for those strategies in other sections of this report. Based upon these findings, and drawing upon recommendations presented in the alternate literature below, the recommended VMT reduction attributable to pedestrian network improvements, above and beyond the benefits of other measures in the above bullet list, should be 1% for comprehensive pedestrian accommodations within the development plan or project itself, or 2% for comprehensive internal accommodations and external accommodations connecting to off-site destinations.

               
                

               Alternative Literature:

               Alternate:

           • Walking is three times more common with enhanced pedestrian infrastructure

           • 58% increase in non-auto mode share for work trips

             
              

             Transportation
             CEQA# MM-T-6 MP# LU-4	SDT-1 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

             
              

             

             The Nelson\Nygaard [1] report for the City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR summarized studies looking at pedestrian environments. These studies have found a direct connection between non-auto forms of travel and a high quality pedestrian environment. Walking is three times more common with communities that have pedestrian friendly streets compared to less pedestrian friendly communities. Non-auto mode share for work trips is 49% in a pedestrian friendly community, compared to 31% in an auto-oriented community. Non-auto mode share for non-work trips is 15%, compared to 4% in an auto-oriented community. However, these effects also depend upon other aspects of the pedestrian friendliness being present, which are accounted for separately in this report through land use strategy mitigation measures such as density and urban design.

             
              

             Alternate:

           • 0.5% - 2.0% reduction in VMT

             
              

             The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions [2] attributes 1% reduction for a project connecting to existing external streets and pedestrian facilities. A 0.5% reduction is attributed to connecting to planned external streets and pedestrian facilities (which must be included in a pedestrian master plan or equivalent). Minimizing pedestrian barriers attribute an additional 1% reduction in VMT. These recommendations are generally in line with the recommended discounts derived from the preferred literature above.

             
              

             Preferred and Alternative Literature Notes:

             [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2010. City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR Report, Appendix – Santa Monica Luce Trip Reduction Impacts Analysis (p.401). http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/

             
              

             Nelson\Nygaard looked at the following studies: Anne Vernez Moudon, Paul Hess, Mary Catherine Snyder and Kiril Stanilov (2003), Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed Use, Medium-Density Environments, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/432.1.pdf; Robert Cervero and Carolyn Radisch (1995), Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods, http://www.uctc.net/papers/281.pdf;

             
              

             [2] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. (p. 11) http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             CEQA# MM-T-8 MP# LU-1.6	SDT-2 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

             
              

             

   2. Provide Traffic Calming Measures

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 0.25 – 1.00% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.25 – 1.00% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a vehicle. This mode shift will result in a decrease in VMT. Project design will include pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming measures in excess of jurisdiction requirements. Roadways will be designed to reduce motor vehicle speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips with traffic calming features. Traffic calming features may include: marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini-circles, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban, suburban, and rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Percentage of streets within project with traffic calming improvements

      • Percentage of intersections within project with traffic calming improvements

        
         

        Transportation
        CEQA# MM-T-8 MP# LU-1.6	SDT-2 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

        
         

        

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        		% of streets with improvements
        		25%	50%	75%	100%
        		% VMT Reduction
        % of	25%	0.25%	0.25%	0.5%	0.5%
        intersections	50%	0.25%	0.5%	0.5%	0.75%
        with	75%	0.5%	0.5%	0.75%	0.75%
        improvements	100%	0.5%	0.75%	0.75%	1%

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

        [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.(p. B-25) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices

        _Complete_102209.pdf

        [2] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. (p.13) http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions46 CO2e 0.25 – 1.00% of running

        PM 0.25 – 1.00% of running

        CO 0.25 – 1.00% of running

        NOx 0.25 – 1.00% of running

        SO2 0.25 – 1.00% of running

        ROG 0.15 – 0.6% of total

        

        
         

        Discussion:

        The table above allows the Project Applicant to choose a range of street and intersection improvements to determine an appropriate VMT reduction estimate. The Applicant will look at the rows on the left and choose the percent of intersections within

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM-T-8 MP# LU-1.6	SDT-2 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

           
            

           

           the project which will have traffic calming improvements. Then, the Applicant will look at the columns along the top and choose the percent of streets within the project which will have traffic calming improvements. The intersection cell of the row and column selected in the matrix is the VMT reduction estimate.

           
            

           Though the literature provides some difference between a suburban and urban context, the difference is small and thus a conservative estimate was used to be applied to all contexts. Rural context is not specifically discussed in the literature but is assumed to have similar impacts.

           
            

           For a low range, a project is assumed to have 25% of its streets with traffic calming improvements and 25% of its intersections with traffic calming improvements. For a high range, 100% of streets and intersections are assumed to have traffic calming improvements

           
            

           Example:

           N/A - No calculations needed.

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

           • -0.03 = elasticity of VMT with respect to a pedestrian environment factor (PEF)

           • 1.5% - 2.0% reduction in suburban VMT

           • 0.5% - 0.6% reduction in urban VMT

             
              

             Moving Cooler [1] looked at Ewing’s synthesis elasticity from the Smart Growth INDEX model (-0.03) to estimate VMT reduction for a suburban and urban location. The estimated reduction in VMT came from looking at the difference between the VMT results for Moving Cooler’s strategy of pedestrian accessibility only compared to an aggressive strategy of pedestrian accessibility and traffic calming.

             
              

             The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions [2] attributes 0.25 – 1% of VMT reductions to traffic calming measures. The table above illustrates the range of VMT reductions based on the percent of streets and intersections with traffic calming measures implemented. This range of reductions is recommended because it is generally consistent with the effectiveness ranges presented in the other preferred literature for situations in which the effects of traffic calming are distinguished from the other measures often found to co-exist with calming, and because it provides graduated effectiveness estimates depending on the degree to which calming is implemented.

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             CEQA# MM-T-8 MP# LU-1.6	SDT-2 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

             
              

             

             Alternative Literature References:

             None

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             CEQA# MM-D-6 MP# TR-6	SDT-3 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

             
              

             

   3. Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 0.5-12.7% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction since Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) would result in a mode shift and therefore reduce the traditional vehicle VMT and GHG emissions47. Range depends on the available NEV network and support facilities, NEV ownership levels, and the degree of shift from traditional

      
       

      Measure Description:

      The project will create local "light" vehicle networks, such as NEV networks. NEVs are classified in the California Vehicle Code as a “low speed vehicle”. They are electric powered and must conform to applicable federal automobile safety standards. NEVs offer an alternative to traditional vehicle trips and can legally be used on roadways with speed limits of 35 MPH or less (unless specifically restricted). They are ideal for short trips up to 30 miles in length. To create an NEV network, the project will implement the necessary infrastructure, including NEV parking, charging facilities, striping, signage, and educational tools. NEV routes will be implemented throughout the project and will double as bicycle routes.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban, suburban, and rural context

      • Small citywide or large multi-use developments

      • Appropriate for mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        

        
         

        1. Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures.

           
            

           Transportation
           CEQA# MM-D-6 MP# TR-6	SDT-3 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

           
            

           

           Inputs:

           The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

           
            

           • low vs. high penetration

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        % VMT reduction = Pop * Number * NEV

        
         

        Where

        Penetration = Number of NEVs per household (0.04 to 1.0 from [1]) NEV = VMT reduction rate per household (12.7% from [2])

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following reference:

        [1] City of Lincoln, MHM Engineers & Surveyors, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Program Final Report, Issued 04/05/05

        [2] City of Lincoln, A Report to the California Legislature as required by Assembly Bill 2353, Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Plan Evaluation, January 1, 2008.

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions48 CO2e 0.5 – 12.7% of running

        PM 0.5 – 12.7% of running

        CO 0.5 – 12.7%of running

        NOx 0.5 – 12.7% of running

        SO2 0.5 – 12.7% of running

        ROG 0.3 – 7.6% of total

        

        
         

        Discussion:

        The estimated number of NEVs per household may vary based on what the project estimates as a penetration rate for implementing an NEV network. Adjust according to project characteristics. The estimated reduction in VMT is for non-NEV miles traveled. The calculations below assume that NEV miles traveled replace regular vehicle travel.

        
         

        

        
         

        • 48 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

          
           

          Transportation
          CEQA# MM-D-6 MP# TR-6	SDT-3 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

          
           

          

          This may not be the case and the project should consider applying an appropriate discount rate on what percentage of VMT is actually replaced by NEV travel..

          
           

          Example:

          Sample calculations are provided below:

          • Low Range % VMT Reduction (low penetration) = 0.04 * 12.7% = 0.5%

          • High Range % VMT Reduction (high penetration) = 1.0 * 12.7% = 12.7%

            
             

            Preferred Literature:

          • 12.7% reduction in VMT per household

          • Penetration rates: 0.04 to 1 NEV / household

            
             

            The NEV Transportation Program plans to implement the following strategies: charging facilities, striping, signage, parking, education on NEV safety, and NEV/bicycle lines throughout the community. . One estimate of current NEV ownership reported roughly 600 NEVs in the city of Lincoln in 200849. With current estimated households of

            ~13,50050, a low estimate of NEV penetration would be 0.04 NEV per household. A high NEV penetration can be estimated at 1 NEV per household. The 2007 survey of NEV users in Lincoln revealed an average use of about 3,500 miles per year [2]. With an estimated annual 27,500 VMT/household51, this results in a 12.7% reduction in VMT per household.

            
             

            Alternative Literature:

          • 0.5% VMT reduction for neighborhoods with internal NEV connections

          • 1% VMT reduction for internal and external connections to surrounding neighborhoods

          • 1.5% VMT reduction for internal NEV connections and connections to other existing NEV networks serving all other types of uses.

        
         

        The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions notes that current studies show NEVs do not replace gas-fueled vehicles as the primary vehicle. For the purpose

        
         

        

        
         

        1. Lincoln, California: A NEV-Friendly Community, Bennett Engineering, the City of Lincoln, and LincolnNEV, August 28, 2008 - http://electrickmotorsports.com/news.php

        2. SACOG Housing Estimates Statistics (http://www.sacog.org/about/advocacy/pdf/fact- sheets/HousingStats.pdf). Linearly interpolated 2008 household numbers between 2005 and 2035 projections.

        3. SACOG SACSim forecasts for VMT per household at 75.4 daily VMT per household * 365 days = 27521 annual VMT per household

        
         

        Transportation
        CEQA# MM-D-6 MP# TR-6	SDT-3 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

        
         

        

        of providing incentives for developers to promote NEV use, a project will receive the above listed VMT reductions for implementation.

        
         

        Alternative Literature Reference:

        [1] Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. (p. 21) http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/GuidanceLUEmissionReductions.pdf

        
         

        Other Literature Reviewed:

        None

        Transportation

        
         

        MP# LU-3.2.1 & 4.1.4 SDT-4 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

        
         

        

   4. Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See SDT-1]

      
       

      Measure Description:

      The project, if located in a central business district (CBD) or major activity center, will convert a percentage of its roadway miles to transit malls, linear parks, or other non- motorized zones. These features encourage non-motorized travel and thus a reduction in VMT.

      
       

      This measure is most effective when applied with multiple design elements that encourage this use. Refer to Pedestrian Network Improvements (SDT-1) strategy for ranges of effectiveness in this category. The benefits of Urban Non-Motorized Zones alone have not been shown to be significant.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Alternative Literature:

        Alternate:

      • 0.01 – 0.2% annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reduction

        
         

        Moving Cooler [1] assumes 2 – 6% of U.S. CBDs/activity centers will convert to non- motorized zones for the purpose of calculating the potential impact. At full implementation, this would result in a range of CBD/activity center annual VMT reduction of 0.07-0.2% and metro VMT reduction of 0.01-0.03%.

        
         

        Alternate:

        Pucher, Dill, and Handy (2010) [2] note several international case studies of urban non- motorized zones. In Bologna, Italy, vehicle traffic declined by 50%, and 8% of those arriving in the CBD came by bicycle after the conversion. In Lubeck, Germany, of those who used to drive, 12% switched to transit, walking, or bicycling with the conversion. In Aachen, Germany, car travel declined from 44% to 36%, but bicycling stayed constant at 3%

        
         

        Notes:

        No literature was identified that quantifies the benefits of this strategy at a smaller scale.

        Transportation

        
         

        MP# LU-3.2.1 & 4.1.4 SDT-4 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

        
         

        

        Alternative Literature References:

        [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf

        
         

        [2] Pucher J., Dill, J., and Handy, S. Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. February 2010. Preventive Medicine 50 (2010) S106–S125.

        http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf

        
         

        Other Literature Reviewed:

        None

        
         

        

        Transportation

        
         

        SDT-5

        MP# TR-4.1 Neighborhood / Site

        Enhancement

        
         

        

   5. Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-9]

      
       

      Measure Description:

      The project will incorporate bicycle lanes, routes, and shared-use paths into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. These on-street bike accommodations will be created to provide a continuous network of routes, facilitated with markings and signage. These improvements can help reduce peak-hour vehicle trips by making commuting by bike easier and more convenient for more people. In addition, improved bicycle facilities can increase access to and from transit hubs, thereby expanding the “catchment area” of the transit stop or station and increasing ridership. Bicycle access can also reduce parking pressure on heavily-used and/or heavily-subsidized feeder bus lines and auto-oriented park-and-ride facilities.

      
       

      Refer to Improve Design of Development (LUT-9) strategy for overall effectiveness levels. The benefits of Bike Lane Street Design are small and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and enhance multi-modal environments.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Alternative Literature:

        Alternate:

      • 1% increase in share of workers commuting by bicycle (for each additional mile of bike lanes per square mile)

Dill and Carr (2003) [1] showed that each additional mile of Type 2 bike lanes per square mile is associated with a 1% increase in the share of workers commuting by bicycle. Note that increasing by 1 mile is significant compared to the current average of

1. miles per square mile. Also, an increase in 1% in share of bicycle commuters would double the number of bicycle commuters in many areas with low existing bicycle mode share.

   
    

   Alternate:

   • 0.05 – 0.14% annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction

   • 258 – 830% increase in bicycle community

     
      

     Moving Cooler [2], based off of a national baseline, estimates 0.05% annual reduction in GHG emissions and 258% increase in bicycle commuting assuming 2 miles of bicycle

     
      

     

     Transportation

     
      

     SDT-5

     MP# TR-4.1 Neighborhood / Site

     Enhancement

     
      

     

     lanes per square mile in areas with density > 2,000 persons per square mile. For 4 miles of bicycle lanes, estimates 0.09% GHG reductions and 449% increase in bicycle commuting. For 8 miles of bicycle lanes, estimates 0.14% GHG reductions and 830% increase in bicycle commuting. Companion strategies assumed include bicycle parking at commercial destinations, busses fitted with bicycle carriers, bike accessible rapid transit lines, education, bicycle stations, end-trip facilities, and signage.

     
      

     Alternate:

   • 0.075% increase in bicycle commuting with each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents

A before-and-after study by Nelson and Allen (1997) [3] of bicycle facility implementation found that each mile of bikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle commuting 0.075%, all else being equal.

Alternative Literature References:

[1] Dill, Jennifer and Theresa Carr (2003). “Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major

U.S. Cities: If You Build Tem, Commuters Will Use Them – Another Look.” TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-ROM.

[2] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf

[3] Nelson, Arthur and David Allen (1997). “If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross-Sectional Analysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities.” Transportation Research Record 1578.

Other Literature Reviewed:

None

1. Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-9]

   
    

   Measure Description:

   A non-residential project will provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities to meet peak season maximum demand. Refer to Improve Design of Development (LUT-9) strategy for overall effectiveness ranges. Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects has minimal impacts as a standalone strategy and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities.

   
    

   Measure Applicability:

   • Urban, suburban, and rural contexts

   • Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

     
      

     Alternative Literature:

     Alternate:

   • 0.625% reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

     
      

     As a rule of thumb, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) guidebook [1] attributes a 1% to 5% reduction in VMT to the use of bicycles, which reflects the assumption that their use is typically for shorter trips. Based on the CCAP Guidebook, the TIAX report allots 2.5% reduction for all bicycle-related measures and a quarter of that for this bicycle parking alone. (This information is based on a TIAX review for Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).)

     
      

     Alternate:

   • 0.05 – 0.14% annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction

   • 258 – 830% increase in bicycle community

     
      

     Moving Cooler [2], based off of a national baseline, estimates 0.05% annual reduction in GHG emissions and 258% increase in bicycle commuting assuming 2 miles of bicycle lanes per square mile in areas with density > 2,000 persons per square mile. For 4 miles of bicycle lanes, Moving Cooler estimates 0.09% GHG reductions and 449% increase in bicycle commuting. For 8 miles of bicycle lanes, Moving Cooler estimates 0.14% GHG reductions and 830% increase in bicycle commuting. Companion strategies assumed include bicycle parking at commercial destinations, busses fitted with bicycle carriers, bike accessible rapid transit lines, education, bicycle stations, end- trip facilities, and signage.

     
      

     Transportation
     CEQA# MM T-1 MP# TR-4.1	SDT-6 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

     
      

     

     Alternative Literature References:

     [1]Center For Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html; Based on results of 2005 literature search conducted by TIAX on behalf of SMAQMD.

     
      

     [2] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf

     
      

     Other Literature Reviewed:

     None

     
      

     Transportation
     CEQA# MM T-3 MP# TR-4.1.2	SDT-7 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

     
      

     

2. Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-9]

   
    

   Measure Description:

   Long-term bicycle parking will be provided at apartment complexes or condominiums without garages. Refer to Improve Design of Development (LUT-9) strategy for effectiveness ranges in this category. The benefits of Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects have no quantified impacts and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to encourage bicycling by providing strengthened street network characteristics and bicycle facilities.

   
    

   Measure Applicability:

   • Urban, suburban, or rural contexts

   • Appropriate for residential projects

     
      

     Alternative Literature:

     No literature was identified that specifically looks at the quantitative impact of including bicycle parking at multi-unit residential sites.

     
      

     Alternative Literature References:

     None

     
      

     Other Literature Reviewed:

     None

     Transportation

     
      

     CEQA# MM T-17 & E-11

     MP# TR-5.4

     
      

     SDT-8 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

     
      

     

3. Provide Electric Vehicle Parking

   
    

   Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See SDT-3]

   
    

   Measure Description:

   This project will implement accessible electric vehicle parking. The project will provide conductive/inductive electric vehicle charging stations and signage prohibiting parking for non-electric vehicles. Refer to Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Network (SDT-3) strategy for effectiveness ranges in this category. The benefits of Electric Vehicle Parking may be quantified when grouped with the use of electric vehicles and or Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Network.

   
    

   Measure Applicability:

   • Urban or suburban contexts

   • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects

     
      

     Alternative Literature:

     No literature was identified that specifically looks at the quantitative impact of implementing electric vehicle parking.

     
      

     Alternative Literature References:

     None

     
      

     Other Literature Reviewed:

     None

     Transportation

     
      

     MP# TR-4.1 SDT-9 Neighborhood / Site Enhancement

     
      

     

4. Dedicate Land for Bike Trails

   
    

   Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. [See LUT-9]

   
    

   Measure Description:

   Larger projects may be required to provide for, contribute to, or dedicate land for the provision of off-site bicycle trails linking the project to designated bicycle commuting routes in accordance with an adopted citywide or countywide bikeway plan.

   
    

   Refer to Improve Design of Development (LUT-9) strategy for ranges of effectiveness in this category. The benefits of Land Dedication for Bike Trails have not been quantified and should be grouped with the Improve Design of Development strategy to strengthen street network characteristics and improve connectivity to off-site bicycle networks.

   
    

   Measure Applicability:

   • Urban, suburban, or rural contexts

   • Appropriate for large residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects

Alternative Literature:

No literature was identified that specifically looks at the quantitative impact of implementing land dedication for bike trails.

Alternative Literature References:

None

Other Literature Reviewed:

None

1. Parking Policy/Pricing

   
    

   1. Limit Parking Supply

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 5 – 12.5% vehicle miles travelled (VMT) reduction and therefore 5 – 12.5% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      The project will change parking requirements and types of supply within the project site to encourage “smart growth” development and alternative transportation choices by project residents and employees. This will be accomplished in a multi-faceted strategy:

      
       

      • Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements52

      • Creation of maximum parking requirements

      • Provision of shared parking

        
         

        Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible in a rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

      • Reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits and on-street market rate parking) [See PPT-5 and PPT-7]

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        VMT = vehicle miles traveled

        EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • ITE parking generation rate for project site

      • Actual parking provision rate for project site

        
         

        

        
         

        1. This may require changes to local ordinances and regulations.

           
            

           Transportation
           MP# LU-1.7 & LU-2.1.1.4	PDT-1	Parking Policy / Pricing

           
            

           

           Mitigation Method:

           
            

           % VMT Reduction =

           
            

           Actual parkingprovis ion ITE parking generationrate  0.5

           ITE parkinggenerationrate

           
            

           Assumptions:

           Data based upon the following references:

           
            

           [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p. 16) http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAn alysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf

           
            

           All trips affected are assumed average trip lengths to convert from percentage vehicle trip reduction to VMT reduction (% vehicle trips = %VMT).

           
            

           Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

           

           

           Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions53 CO2e 5 – 12.5% of running

           PM 5 – 12.5% of running

           CO 5 – 12.5% of running

           NOx 5 – 12.5% of running

           SO2 5 – 12.5% of running

           ROG 3 – 7.5% of total

           

           
            

           Discussion:

           The literature suggests that a 50% reduction in conventional parking provision rates (per ITE rates) should serve as a typical ceiling for the reduction calculation. The upper range of VMT reduction will vary based on the size of the development (total number of spaces provided). ITE rates are used as baseline conditions to measure the effectiveness of this strategy.

           
            

           Though not specifically documented in the literature, the degree of effectiveness of this measure will vary based on the level of urbanization of the project and surrounding areas, level of existing transit service, level of existing pedestrian and bicycle networks and other factors which would complement the shift away from single-occupant vehicle travel.

           
            

           

           
            

        2. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis.

           
            

           Transportation
           MP# LU-1.7 & LU-2.1.1.4	PDT-1	Parking Policy / Pricing

           
            

           

           Example:

           If the ITE parking generation rate for the project is 100 spaces, for a low range a 5% reduction in spaces is assumed. For a high range a 25% reduction in spaces is assumed.

           
            

            Low range % VMT Reduction = [(100 - 95)/100] * 0.5 = 2.5%

            High range % VMT Reduction = [(100 - 75)/100] * 0.5 = 12.5%

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

           To develop this model, Nelson\Nygaard [1] used the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation handbook as the baseline figure for parking supply. This is assumed to be unconstrained demand. Trip reduction should only be credited if measures are implemented to control for spillover parking in and around the project, such as residential parking permits, metered parking, or time-limited parking.

           
            

           Alternative Literature:

           • 100% increase in transit ridership

           • 100% increase in transit mode share

             
              

             According to TCRP Report 95, Chapter 18 [2], the central business district of Portland, Oregon implemented a maximum parking ratio of 1 space per 1,000 square feet of new buildings and implemented surface lot restrictions which limited conditions where buildings could be razed for parking. A “before and after” study was not conducted specifically for the maximum parking requirements and data comes from various surveys and published reports. Based on rough estimates the approximate parking ratio of 3.4 per 1,000 square feet in 1973 (for entire downtown) had been reduce to 1.5 by 1990. Transit mode share increased from 20% to 40%. The increases in transit ridership and mode share are not solely from maximum parking requirements. Other companion strategies, such as market parking pricing and high fuel costs, were in place.

             
              

             Alternative Literature Sources:

             [1] TCRP Report 95, Chapter 18: Parking Management and Supply: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. (p. 18-6) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c18.pdf

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             MP# LU-1.7	PDT-2	Parking Policy / Pricing

             
              

             

   2. Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 2.6 – 13% vehicles miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 2.6 – 13% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      This project will unbundle parking costs from property costs. Unbundling separates parking from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost from the property cost. This removes the burden from those who do not wish to utilize a parking space. Parking will be priced separately from home rents/purchase prices or office leases. An assumption is made that the parking costs are passed through to the vehicle owners/drivers utilizing the parking spaces.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in a rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

      • Complementary strategy includes Workplace Parking Pricing. Though not required, implementing workplace parking pricing ensures the market signal from unbundling parking is transferred to the employee.

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Monthly parking cost for project site

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        % Reduction in VMT = Change in vehicle cost * elasticity * A

        
         

        Transportation
        MP# LU-1.7	PDT-2	Parking Policy / Pricing

        
         

        

        Where:

      • -0.4 = elasticity of vehicle ownership with respect to total vehicle costs (lower end per VTPI)

      • Change in vehicle cost = monthly parking cost * (12 / $4,000), with $4,000 representing the annual vehicle cost per VTPI [1]

      • A: 85% = adjustment from vehicle ownership to VMT (see Appendix C for detail)

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

        [1] Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability; http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf; January 2009; accessed March 2010. (Annual/monthly parking fees estimated by VTPI in 2009) (p. 8, Table 3)

        o For the elasticity of vehicle

        ownership, VTPI cites Phil Goodwin, Joyce Dargay and Mark Hanly

        (2003), Elasticities Of Road Traffic And Fuel Consumption With Respect To Price And Income: A Review, ESRC Transport Studies Unit, University

        College London (www.transport.ucl.ac.uk), commissioned by the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (now UK Department for Transport); J.O. Jansson (1989), “Car Demand Modeling

        and Forecasting,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, May 1989,

        pp. 125-129; Stephen Glaister and Dan Graham (2000), The Effect of Fuel Prices on Motorists, AA Motoring Policy Unit (www.theaa.com) and the UK Petroleum Industry Association (http://195.167.162.28/policyviews/pdf/effect_fuel_prices.pdf); and Thomas F. Golob (1989), “The Casual Influences of Income and Car Ownership on Trip Generation by Mode”, Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy, May 1989, pp. 141-162

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions54 CO2e 2.6 – 13% of running

        PM 2.6 – 13% of running

        CO 2.6 – 13% of running

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           MP# LU-1.7	PDT-2	Parking Policy / Pricing

           
            

           

           NOx 2.6 – 13% of running

           SO2 2.6 – 13% of running

           ROG 1.6 – 7.8% of total

           

           Discussion:

           As discussed in the preferred literature section, monthly parking costs typically range from $25 to $125. The lower end of the elasticity range provided by VTPI is used here to be conservative.

           
            

           Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

            Low Range % VMT Reduction = $25* 12 / $4000 * 0.4 * 85% = 2.6%

            High Range % VMT Reduction = $125* 12 / $4000 * 0.4 * 85%= 12.8%

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

           • -0.4 to -1.0 = elasticity of vehicle ownership with respect to total vehicle costs

             
              

             The above elasticity comes from a synthesis of literature. As noted in the VTPI report [1], a 10% increase in total vehicle costs (operating costs, maintenance, fuel, parking, etc.) reduces vehicle ownership between 4% and 10%. The report, estimating $4,000 in annual costs per vehicle, calculated vehicle ownership reductions from residential parking pricing.

             
              

             Vehicle Ownership Reductions from Residential Parking Pricing

             
              

             Annual (Monthly) Parking Fee	-0.4 Elasticity	-0.7 Elasticity	-1.0 Elasticity
             $300 ($25)	4%	6%	8%
             $600 ($50)	8%	11%	15%
             $900 ($75)	11%	17%	23%
             $1,200 ($100)	15%	23%	30%
             $1,500 ($125)	19%	28%	38%

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

             None

             
              

             Alternative Literature Notes:

             None

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             	PDT-3	Parking Policy / Pricing

             
              

             

   3. Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 2.8 – 5.5% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 2.8 – 5.5% reduction in GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      
       

      This project and city in which it is located will implement a pricing strategy for parking by pricing all central business district/employment center/retail center on-street parking. It will be priced to encourage “park once” behavior. The benefit of this measure above that of paid parking at the project only is that it deters parking spillover from project- supplied parking to other public parking nearby, which undermine the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) benefits of project pricing. It may also generate sufficient area-wide mode shifts to justify increased transit service to the area.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in a rural context

      • Appropriate for retail, office, and mixed-use projects

      • Applicable in a specific or general plan context only

      • Reduction can be counted only if spillover parking is controlled (via residential permits)

      • Study conducted in a downtown area, and thus should be applied carefully if project is not in a central business/activity center

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location

        
         

        Transportation
        	PDT-3	Parking Policy / Pricing

        
         

        

      • Percent increase in on-street parking prices (minimum 25% needed)

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        % VMT Reduction = Park$ * B

        Park$ = Percent increase in on-

        street parking prices (minimum of 25%

        increase [1])

        B = Elasticity of VMT with

        respect to parking price (0.11, from [2])

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. B-10)

        Moving Cooler’s parking pricing analysis cited Victoria Transport Policy Institute, How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behavior (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm#_Toc161022578). The VTPI paper

        summarized the elasticities found in the Hensher and King paper. David A. Hensher and Jenny King (2001), “Parking Demand and Responsiveness to Supply, Price and Location in Sydney Central Business District,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 35, No. 3 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), March 2001, pp. 177-196.

        
         

        [2] J. Peter Clinch and J. Andrew Kelly (2003), Temporal Variance Of Revealed Preference On-Street Parking Price Elasticity, Department of Environmental Studies, University College Dublin (www.environmentaleconomics.net). (p. 2) http://www.ucd.ie/gpep/research/workingpapers/2004/04-02.pdf As referenced in VTPI: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm#_Toc161022578

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions55 CO2e 2.8 – 5.5% of running

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           	PDT-3	Parking Policy / Pricing

           
            

           

           PM 2.8 – 5.5% of running

           CO 2.8 – 5.5% of running

           NOx 2.8 – 5.5% of running

           SO2 2.8 – 5.5% of running

           ROG 1.7 – 3.3% of total

           

           
            

           Discussion:

           The range of parking price increases should be a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50%. The minimum is based on Moving Cooler [1] discussions which state that a less than 25% increase would not be a sufficient amount to reduce VMT. The case study [2] looked at a 50% price increase, and thus no conclusions can be made on the elasticities above a 50% increase. This strategy may certainly be implemented at a higher price increase, but VMT reductions should be capped at results from a 50% increase to be conservative.

           
            

           Example:

           Assuming a baseline on-street parking price of $1, sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

            Low Range % VMT Reduction (25% increase) = ($1.25 - $1)/$1 * 0.11 = 2.8%

           • High Range % VMT Reduction (50% increase) = ($1.50 - $1)/$1 * 0.11 = 5.5%

             
              

             Preferred Literature:

           • -0.11 parking demand elasticity with respect to parking prices

             
              

             The Clinch & Kelly study [2] of parking meters looked at the impacts of a 50% price increase in the cost of on-street parking. The case study location was a central on- street parking area with a 3-hour time limit and a mix of business and non-business uses. The study concluded the parking increases resulted in an estimated average price elasticity of demand of -0.11, while factoring in parking duration results in an elasticity of -0.2 (cost increases also affect the amount of time cars are parked). Though this study is international (Dublin, Ireland), it represents a solid study of parking meter price increases and provides a conservative estimate of elasticity compared to the alternate literature.

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

             Alternate:

           • -0.19 shopper parking elasticity with respect to parking price

           • -0.48 commuter parking elasticity with respect to parking price

             
              

             Transportation
             	PDT-3	Parking Policy / Pricing

             
              

             

             The TCRP 95 Chapter 13 [3] report looked at a case study of the city of San Francisco implementing a parking tax on all public and private off-street parking (in 1970). Based on the number of cars parked, the report estimated parking price elasticities of -0.19 to - 0.48, an average over a three year period.

             
              

             Alternate:

           • -0.15 VMT elasticity with respect to parking prices (for low density regions)

           • -0.47 VMT elasticity with respect to parking prices (for high density regions)

        
         

        The Moving Cooler analysis assumes a 25 percent increase in on-street parking fees is a starting point sufficient to reduce VMT. Using the elasticities stated above, Moving Cooler estimates an annual percent VMT reduction from 0.42% - 1.14% for a range of regions from a large low density region to a small high density region. The calculations assume that pricing occurs at the urban central business district/employment cent/retail center, one-fourth of all person trips are commute based trips, and approximately 15% of commute trips are to the CBD or regional activity centers.

        
         

        Alternative Literature References:

        [3] TCRP Report 95. Chapter 13: Parking Pricing and Fees - Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c13.pdf. (p.13-42)

        
         

        Other Literature Reviewed:

        None

        
         

        Transportation
        	PDT-4	Parking Policy / Pricing

        
         

        

   4. Require Residential Area Parking Permits

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy. (See PPT-1, PPT-2, and PPT-3)

      
       

      Measure Description:

      This project will require the purchase of residential parking permits (RPPs) for long-term use of on-street parking in residential areas. Permits reduce the impact of spillover parking in residential areas adjacent to commercial areas, transit stations, or other locations where parking may be limited and/or priced. Refer to Parking Supply Limitations (PPT-1), Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost (PPT-2), or Market Rate Parking Pricing (PPT-3) strategies for the ranges of effectiveness in these categories. The benefits of Residential Area Parking Permits strategy should be combined with any or all of the above mentioned strategies, as providing RPPs are a key complementary strategy to other parking strategies.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects

        
         

        Alternative Literature:

      • -0.45 = elasticity of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) with respect to price

      • 0.08% greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction

      • 0.09-0.36% VMT reduction

        
         

        Moving Cooler [1] suggested residential parking permits of $100-$200 annually. This mitigation would impact home-based trips, which are reported to represent approximately 60% of all urban trips. The range of VMT reductions can be attributed to the type of urban area. VMT reductions for $100 annual permits are 0.09% for large, high-density; 0.12% for large, low-density; 0.12% for medium, high-density; 0.18% for medium, low-density; 0.18% for small, high-density; and 0.12% for small, low-density. VMT reductions for $200 annual permits are 0.18% for large, high-density; 0.24% for large, low-density; 0.24% for medium, high-density; 0.36% for medium, low-density; 0.36% for small, high-density; and 0.24% for small, low-density.

        
         

        Alternative Literature References:

        [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix%20B_Eff ectiveness_102209.pdf

        
         

        Transportation
        	TRT-1	Commute Trip Reduction

        
         

        

2. Commute Trip Reduction Programs

   
    

   1. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary

      
       

      Commute Trip Reduction Program – Voluntary, is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures described in sections 3.4.3 through

      1. is presented as a means of preventing double-counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program.

         
          

         Range of Effectiveness: 1.0 – 6.2% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Reduction and therefore 1.0 – 6.2% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.

         
          

         Measure Description:

         The project will implement a voluntary Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program with employers to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The main difference between a voluntary and a required program is:

         
          

         • Monitoring and reporting is not required

         • No established performance standards (i.e. no trip reduction requirements)

           
            

           The CTR program will provide employees with assistance in using alternative modes of travel, and provide both “carrots” and “sticks” to encourage employees. The CTR program should include all of the following to apply the effectiveness reported by the literature:

           
            

         • Carpooling encouragement

         • Ride-matching assistance

         • Preferential carpool parking

         • Flexible work schedules for carpools

         • Half time transportation coordinator

         • Vanpool assistance

         • Bicycle end-trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers)

           
            

           Other strategies may also be included as part of a voluntary CTR program, though they are not included in the reductions estimation and thus are not incorporated in the estimated VMT reductions. These include: new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, event promotions and publications, flexible work schedule for all employees, transit subsidies, parking cash-out or priced parking, shuttles, emergency ride home, and improved on-site amenities.

           
            

           Transportation
           	TRT-1	Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

           Measure Applicability:

         • Urban and suburban context

         • Negligible in a rural context, unless large employers exist, and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings

         • Appropriate for retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

           
            

           Baseline Method:

           See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

           
            

           CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

           
            

           Where:

           
            

           
            

           traveled

           
            

           for running emissions

           VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

           
            

           Inputs:

           The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

           
            

         • Percentage of employees eligible

         • Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location

           
            

           Mitigation Method:

           
            

           % VMT Reduction = A * B

           
            

           Where

           
            

           A = % reduction in commute VMT (from [1]) B = % employees eligible

           
            

           Detail:

         • A: 5.2% (low density suburb), 5.4% (suburban center), 6.2% (urban) annual reduction in commute VMT (from [1])

           
            

           Assumptions:

           Data based upon the following references:

           
            

           Transportation
           	TRT-1	Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

         • Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table 5.13) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf

           
            

           Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

           

           

           Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions56 CO2e 1.0 – 6.2% of running

           PM 1.0 – 6.2% of running

           CO 1.0 – 6.2% of running

           NOx 1.0 – 6.2% of running

           SO2 1.0 – 6.2% of running

           ROG 0.6 –3.7% of total

           

           
            

           Discussion:

           This set of strategies typically serves as a complement to the more effective workplace CTR strategies such as pricing and parking cash out.

           
            

           Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

         • Low Range % VMT Reduction (low density suburb and 20% eligible) = 5.2% * 0.2

           = 1.0%

         • High Range % VMT Reduction (urban and 100% eligible) = 6.2% * 1 = 6.2%

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

           
            

         • 5.2 - 6.2% commute VMT reduction

      
       

      Moving Cooler assumes the employer support program will include: carpooling, ride- matching, preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, a half-time transportation coordinator, vanpool assistance, bicycle parking, showers, and locker facilities. The report assigns 5.2% reduction to large metropolitan areas, 5.4% to medium metropolitan areas, and 6.2% to small metropolitan areas.

      
       

      

      
       

      • 56 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

        
         

        Transportation
        	TRT-1	Commute Trip Reduction

        
         

        

        Alternative Literature:

        Alternate:

        • 15-19% reduction in commute vehicle trips

          
           

          TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2] looked at a sample of 82 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. Low support TDM programs had a 15% reduction, medium support programs 15.9%, and high support 19%. Low support programs had little employer effort. These programs may include rideshare matching, distribution of transit flyers, but have little employer involvement. With medium support programs, employers were involved with providing information regarding commute options and programs, a transportation coordinator (even if part-time), and assistance for ridesharing and transit pass purchases. With high support programs, the employer was providing most of the possible strategies. The sample of programs should not be construed as a random sample and probably represent above average results.

          
           

          Alternate:

        • 4.16 – 4.76% reduction in commute VMT

          
           

          The Herzog study [3] compared a group of employees, who were eligible for comprehensive commuter benefits (with financial incentives, services such as guaranteed ride home and carpool matching, and informational campaigns) and general marketing information, to a reference group of employees not eligible for commuter benefits. The study showed a 4.79% reduction in VMT, assuming 75% of the carpoolers were traveling to the same worksite. There was a 4.16% reduction in VMT, assuming only 50% of carpoolers were traveling to the same worksite.

          
           

          Alternate:

        • 8.5% reduction in vehicle commute trips

      
       

      Employer survey results [4] showed that employees at the surveyed companies made 8.5% fewer vehicle trips to work than had been found in the baseline surveys conducted by large employers under the area’s trip reduction regulation (i.e. comparing voluntary program with a mandatory regulation). This implied that the 8.5% reduction is a conservative estimate as it is compared to another trip reduction strategy, rather than comparing to a baseline with no reduction strategies implemented. Another survey also showed that 68% of commuters drove alone to work when their employer did not encourage trip reduction. It revealed that with employer encouragement, the drive-alone rate fell 5 percentage points to 63%.

      
       

      This strategy assumes a companion strategy of employer encouragement. The literature did not specify what commute options each employer provided as part of the program. Options provided may have ranged from simply providing public transit

      
       

      Transportation
      	TRT-1	Commute Trip Reduction

      
       

      

      information to implementing a full TDM program with parking cash out, flex hours, emergency ride home, etc. This San Francisco Bay Area survey worked to determine the extent and impact of the emissions saved through voluntary trip reduction efforts (www.cleanairpartnership.com). It identified 454 employment sites with voluntary trip reduction programs and conducted a selected random survey of the more than 400,000 employees at those sites. The study concluded that employer encouragement makes a significant difference in employees’ commute choices.

      
       

      Alternative Literature References:

      [2] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies.

      
       

      [3] Herzog, Erik, Stacey Bricka, Lucie Audette, and Jeffra Rockwell. 2006. “Do Employee Commuter Benefits Reduce Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Consumption? Results of Fall 2004 Survey of Best Workplaces for Commuters.” Transportation Research Record 1956, 34-41. (Table 8)

      
       

      [4] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. (p. 25-28)

      http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf

      
       

      Other Literature Reviewed:

      None

      Transportation

      
       

      CEQA# T-19

      MP# MO-3.1

      
       

      TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction

      
       

      

   2. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring

      
       

      Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required, is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures described in sections 3.4.3 through

      1. is presented as a means of preventing double-counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reduction that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a program that is contractually required of the development sponsors and managers and accompanied by a regular performance monitoring and reporting program.

         
          

         Range of Effectiveness: 4.2 – 21.0% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 4.2 – 21.0% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.

         
          

         Measure Description:

         The jurisdiction will implement a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) ordinance. The intent of the ordinance will be to reduce drive-alone travel mode share and encourage alternative modes of travel. The critical components of this strategy are:

         
          

         • Established performance standards (e.g. trip reduction requirements)

         • Required implementation

         • Regular monitoring and reporting

           
            

           Regular monitoring and reporting will be required to assess the project’s status in meeting the ordinance goals. The project should use existing ordinances, such as those in the cities of Tucson, Arizona and South San Francisco, California, as examples of successful CTR ordinance implementations. The City of Tucson requires employers with 100+ employees to participate in the program. An Alternative Mode Usage (AMU) goal and VMT reduction goal is established and each year the goal is increased. Employers persuade employees to commute via an alternative mode of transportation at least one day a week (including carpooling, vanpooling, transit, walking, bicycling, telecommuting, compressed work week, or alternatively fueled vehicle). The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance in South San Francisco requires all non-residential developments that produce 100 average daily vehicle trips or more to meet a 35% non-drive-alone peak hour requirement with fees assessed for

           non-compliance. Employers have established significant CTR programs as a result.

           
            

           Measure Applicability:

         • Urban and suburban context

         • Negligible in a rural context, unless large employers exist, and suite of strategies implemented are relevant in rural settings

         • Jurisdiction level only

         • Strategies in this case study calculations included:

           Transportation

           
            

           CEQA# T-19

           MP# MO-3.1

           
            

           TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

           • Parking cash out

           • Employer sponsored

             shuttles to transit station

           • Employer sponsored bus

             servicing the Bay Area

           • Transit subsidies

             
              

             Baseline Method:

             See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

             
              

             CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

             
              

             Where:

             
              

             
              

             traveled

             
              

             for running emissions

             VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

             
              

             Inputs:

             The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

             
              

         • Percentage of employees eligible

           
            

           Mitigation Method:

           
            

           % VMT Reduction = A * B

           
            

           Where

           
            

           A = % shift in vehicle mode share of commute trips (from [1]) B = % employees eligible

           C = Adjustment from vehicle mode share to commute VMT

           
            

           Detail:

         • A: 21% reduction in vehicle mode share (from [1])

         • C: 1.0 (see Appendix C for detail)

           Transportation

           
            

           CEQA# T-19

           MP# MO-3.1

           
            

           TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

           Assumptions:

           Data based upon the following references:

           
            

           [1] Nelson/Nygaard (2008). South San Francisco Mode Share and Parking Report for Genentech, Inc.(p. 8)

           
            

           Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

           

           

           Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions57 CO2e 4.2 – 21.0% of running

           PM 4.2 – 21.0% of running

           CO 4.2 – 21.0% of running

           NOx 4.2 – 21.0% of running

           SO2 4.2 – 21.0% of running

           ROG 2.5 – 12.6% of total

           

           Discussion: Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

         • Low Range % VMT Reduction (20% eligibility) = 21% * 20% = 4.2%

         • High Range % VMT Reduction (100% eligibility) = 21% * 100% = 21%

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

         • 21% reduction in vehicle mode share

      
       

      Genentech, in South San Francisco [1], achieved a 34% non-single-occupancy vehicle (non-SOV) mode share (66% SOV) in 2008. Since 2006 when SOV mode share was 74% (26% non-SOV), there has been a reduction of over 10% in drive alone share. Carpool share was 12% in 2008, compared to 11.57% in 2006. Genentech has a significant TDM program including parking cash out ($4/day), express GenenBus service around the Bay Area, free shuttles to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Caltrain, and transit subsidies. The Genentech campus surveyed for this study is a large, single-tenant campus. Taking an average transit mode share in a suburban development of 1.3% (NHTS,

      
       

      

      
       

      1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

         Transportation

         
          

         CEQA# T-19

         MP# MO-3.1

         
          

         TRT-2 Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

         http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/tab/documents/travelsurveys/Final2001_Stw Travel Survey WkdayRpt.pdf (SCAG, SANDAG, Fresno County)), this is an estimated decrease from 98.7% to 78% vehicle mode share (66% SOV + 12% carpool), a 21% reduction in vehicle mode share.

         
          

         Alternative Literature:

         Alternate:

         • 10.7% average annual increase in use of non-SOV commute modes

           
            

           For the City of Tucson [2], use of alternative commute modes increased 64.3% between 1989 and 1995. Employers integrated several key activities into their TDM plans: disseminating information, developing company policies to support TDM, investing in facility enhancements, conducting promotional campaigns, and offering subsidies or incentives to encourage AMU.

           
            

           Alternative Literature References:

           [2] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. (p. 17-19)

           http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf

           
            

           Other Literature Reviewed:

           None

           
            

           Transportation
           MP# MO-3.1	TRT-3	Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

   3. Provide Ride-Sharing Programs

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 1 – 15% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 1 - 15% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project will include a ride-sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. Funding may be provided by Community Facilities, District, or County Service Area, or other non-revocable funding mechanism. The project will promote ride-sharing programs through a multi-faceted approach such as:

      
       

      • Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles

      • Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles

      • Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides

        
         

        Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in many rural contexts, but can be effective when a large employer in a rural area draws from a workforce in an urban or suburban area, such as when a major employer moves from an urban location to a rural location.

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Percentage of employees eligible

        
         

        Transportation
        MP# MO-3.1	TRT-3	Commute Trip Reduction

        
         

        

      • Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        Where

        
         

        % VMT Reduction = Commute * Employee

        
         

        Commute = % reduction in commute VMT (from [1]) Employee = % employees eligible

        
         

        Detail:

      • Commute: 5% (low density suburb), 10% (suburban center), 15% (urban) annual reduction in commute VMT (from [1])

        
         

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

        [1] VTPI. TDM Encyclopedia. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm; Accessed 3/5/2010.

        
         

        Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

        

        

        Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions58 CO2e 1 – 15% of running

        PM 1 – 15% of running

        CO 1 – 15% of running

        NOx 1 – 15% of running

        SO2 1 – 15% of running

        ROG 0.6 – 9% of total

        

        
         

        Discussion:

        This strategy is often part of Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program, another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant should take care not to double count the impacts.

        
         

        Example:

        Sample calculations are provided below:

        
         

        

        
         

        1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           MP# MO-3.1	TRT-3	Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

           • Low Range % VMT Reduction (low density suburb and 20% eligible) = 5% * 20%

             = 1%

           • High Range % VMT Reduction (urban and 100% eligible) = 15% * 1 = 15%

             
              

             Preferred Literature:

           • 5 – 15% reduction of commute VMT

             
              

             The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Encyclopedia notes that because rideshare passengers tend to have relatively long commutes, mileage reductions can be relatively large with rideshare. If ridesharing reduces 5% of commute trips it may reduce 10% of vehicle miles because the trips that are reduced are twice as long as average. Rideshare programs can reduce up to 8.3% of commute VMT, up to 3.6% of total regional VMT, and up to 1.8% of regional vehicle trips (Apogee, 1994; TDM Resource Center, 1996). Another study notes that ridesharing programs typically attract 5-15% of commute trips if they offer only information and encouragement, and 10-30% if they also offer financial incentives such as parking cash out or vanpool subsidies (York and Fabricatore, 2001).

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

           • Up to 1% reduction in VMT (if combined with two other strategies)

             
              

             Per the Nelson\Nygaard report [2], ride-sharing would fall under the category of a minor TDM program strategy. The report allows a 1% reduction in VMT for projects with at least three minor strategies.

             
              

             Alternative Literature References:

             [2] Nelson\Nygaard, 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments (p.12). http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/transportation/documents/TripGenerationAn alysisUsingURBEMIS.pdf

             
              

             Criteron Planner/Engineers and Fehr & Peers Associates (2001). Index 4D Method. A Quick-Response Method of Estimating Travel Impacts from Land-Use Changes. Technical Memorandum prepared for US EPA, October 2001.

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             MP# MO-3.1	TRT-4	Commute Trip Reduction

             
              

             

   4. Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 0.3 – 20.0% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore a 0.3 – 20.0% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      This project will provide subsidized/discounted daily or monthly public transit passes. The project may also provide free transfers between all shuttles and transit to participants. These passes can be partially or wholly subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Many entities use revenue from parking to offset the cost of such a project.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible in a rural context

      • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

        
         

        Baseline Method:

        See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

        
         

        CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

        
         

        Where:

        
         

        
         

        traveled

        
         

        for running emissions

        VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

        
         

        Inputs:

        The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

        
         

      • Percentage of project employees eligible

      • Transit subsidy amount

      • Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location

Mitigation Method:

Where

% VMT Reduction = A * B * C

A = % reduction in commute vehicle trips (VT) (from [1])

B = % employees eligible

C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT

Detail:

• A:

  	Daily Transit Subsidy
  	$0.75	$1.49	$2.98	$5.96
  Worksite Setting	% Reduction in Commute VT
  Low density suburb	1.5%	3.3%	7.9%	20.0%*
  Suburban center	3.4%	7.3%	16.4%	20.0%*
  Urban location	6.2%	12.9%	20.0%*	20.0%*
  * Discounts greater than 20% will be capped, as they exceed levels recommended by TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 and other literature.

  • C: 1.0 (see Appendix C for detail)

    
     

    Assumptions:

    Data based upon the following references:

    
     

    [1] Nelson\Nygaard, 2010. City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element EIR Report, Appendix – Santa Monica Luce Trip Reduction Impacts Analysis (p.401).

    
     

    [2] Nelson\Nygaard used the following literature sources: VTPI, Todd Litman, Transportation Elasticities, http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf. Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/474.html.

    
     

    Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

    

    

    Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions59 CO2e 0.3 - 20% of running

    PM 0.3 - 20% of running

    CO 0.3 - 20% of running

    NOx 0.3 - 20% of running

    SO2 0.3 - 20% of running

    ROG 0. 18 - 12% of total

    

    
     

    

    
     

    1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

       
        

       Transportation
       MP# MO-3.1	TRT-4	Commute Trip Reduction

       
        

       

       Discussion:

       This strategy is often part of a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR), another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant should take care not to double count the impacts.

       
        

       The literature evaluates this strategy in relation to the employer, but keep in mind that this strategy can also be implemented by a school or the development as a whole.

       
        

       Example:

       Sample calculations are provided below:

       
        

       • Low Range % VMT Reduction ($0.75, low density suburb, 20% eligible) = 1.5% * 20% = 0.3%

       • High Range % VMT Reduction ($5.96, urban, 100% eligible) = 20% * 100% = 20%

    
     

    Preferred Literature:

    
     

    Commute Vehicle Trip Reduction	Daily Transit Subsidy
    Worksite Setting	$0.75	$1.49	$2.98	$5.96
    Low density suburb, rideshare oriented	0.1%	0.2%	0.6%	1.9%
    Low density suburb, mode neutral	1.5%	3.3%	7.9%	21.7%*
    Low density suburb, transit oriented	2.0%	4.2%	9.9%	23.2%*
    Activity center, rideshare oriented	1.1%	2.4%	5.8%	16.5%
    Activity center, mode neutral	3.4%	7.3%	16.4%	38.7%*
    Activity center, transit oriented	5.2%	10.9%	23.5%*	49.7%*
    Regional CBD/Corridor, rideshare oriented	2.2%	4.7%	10.9%	28.3%*
    Regional CBD/Corridor, mode neutral	6.2%	12.9%	26.9%*	54.3%*
    Regional CBD/Corridor, transit oriented	9.1%	18.1%	35.5%*	64.0%*

    • Discounts greater than 20% will be capped, as they exceed levels recommended by

      TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 and other literature.

      
       

      Nelson\Nygaard (2010) updated a commute trip reduction table from VTPI Transportation Elasticities to account for inflation since the data was compiled. Data regarding commute vehicle trip reductions was originally from a study conducted by Comsis Corporation and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).

      
       

      Alternative Literature:

      Alternate:

      • 2.4-30.4% commute vehicle trip reduction (VTR)

        
         

        Transportation
        MP# MO-3.1	TRT-4	Commute Trip Reduction

        
         

        

        TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2] indicates transit subsidies in areas with good transit and restricted parking have a commute VTR of 30.4%; good transit but free parking, a commute VTR of 7.6%; free parking and limited transit 2.4%. Programs with transit subsidies have an average commute VTR of 20.6% compared with an average commute VTR of 13.1% for sites with non-transit fare subsidies.

        
         

        Alternate:

      • 0.03-0.12% annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction

    
     

    Moving Cooler [3] assumed price elasticities of -0.15, -0.2, and -0.3 for lower fares 25%, 33%, and 50%, respectively. Moving Cooler assumes average vehicle occupancy of

    1.43 and a VMT/trip of 5.12.

    
     

    Alternative Literature References:

    [2] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies.

    
     

    [3] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf

    
     

    Other Literature Reviewed:

    None

    Transportation

    CEQA# MM T-2

    MP# MO-3.2

    
     

    TRT-5 Commute Trip Reduction

    
     

    

    1. Provide End of Trip Facilities

       
        

       Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TRT-1 through TRT-3)

       
        

       Measure Description:

       Non-residential projects will provide "end-of-trip" facilities for bicycle riders including showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces. End-of-trip facilities encourage the use of bicycling as a viable form of travel to destinations, especially to work. End-of- trip facilities provide the added convenience and security needed to encourage bicycle commuting.

       
        

       End-of-trip facilities have minimal impacts when implemented alone. This strategy’s effectiveness in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) depends heavily on the suite of other transit, pedestrian/bicycle, and demand management measures offered. End-of- trip facilities should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT-1 through TRT-2).

       
        

       Measure Applicability:

       • Urban, suburban, and rural context

       • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

         
          

         Alternative Literature:

         Alternate:

       • 22% increase in bicycle mode share

         
          

         The bicycle study documents a multivariate analysis of UK National Travel Survey (Wardman et al. 2007) which found significant impacts on bicycling to work. Compared to base bicycle mode share of 5.8% for work trips, outdoor parking would raise the share to 6.3%, indoor secure parking to 6.6%, and indoor parking plus showers to 7.1%. This results in an estimate 22% increase in bicycle mode share ((7.1%-5.8%)/5.8% = 22%). This suggests that such end of trip facilities have an important impact on the decision to bicycle to work. However, these effects represent reductions in VMT no greater than 0.02% (see Appendix C for calculation detail).

         
          

         Alternate:

       • 2 - 5% reduction in commute vehicle trips

         
          

         The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Encyclopedia, citing Ewing (1993), documents Sacramento’s TDM ordinance. The City allows developers to claim trip reduction credits for worksite showers and lockers of 5% in central business districts, 2% within 660 feet of a transit station, and 2% elsewhere.

         Transportation

         CEQA# MM T-2

         MP# MO-3.2

         
          

         TRT-5 Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

         Alternate:

       • 0.625% reduction in VMT

         
          

         The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Guidebook attributes a 1% to 5% reduction associated with the use of bicycles, which reflects the assumption that their use is typically for shorter trips. Based on the CCAP Guidebook, a 2.5% reduction is allocated for all bicycle-related measures and a 1/4 of that for this measure alone. (This information is based on a TIAX review for SMAQMD).

         
          

         Alternative Literature References:

         [1] Pucher J., Dill, J., and Handy, S. Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. February 2010. (Table 2, pg. S111) http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf

         
          

         [2] Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI). TDM Encyclopedia, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm9.htm; accessed 3/4/2010; last update 1/25/2010). VTPI citing: Reid Ewing (1993), “TDM, Growth Management, and the Other Four Out of Five Trips,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, Summer 1993, pp. 343-366.

         
          

         [3] Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), CCAP Transportation Emission Guidebook. http://www.ccap.org/safe/guidebook/guide_complete.html; TIAX Results of 2005 Literature Search Conducted by TIAX on behalf of SMAQMD

         
          

         Other Literature Reviewed:

         None

         
          

         Transportation
         MP# TR-3.5	TRT-6	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

    2. Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules

       
        

       Range of Effectiveness: 0.07 – 5.50% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.07 – 5.50% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.

       
        

       Measure Description:

       Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks.

       
        

       Measure Applicability:

       • Urban, suburban, and rural context

       • Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

         
          

         Baseline Method:

         See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

         
          

         CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

         
          

         Where:

         
          

         
          

         traveled

         
          

         for running emissions

         VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

         
          

         Inputs:

         The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

         
          

       • Percentage of employees participating (1 – 25%)

       • Strategy implemented: 9-day/80-hour work week, 4-day/40-hour work week, or

         1.5 days of telecommuting

         
          

         Mitigation Method:

         
          

         Where

         
          

         % Commute VMT Reduction = Commute

         Commute = % reduction in commute VMT (See table below)

         
          

         Transportation
         MP# TR-3.5	TRT-6	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         	Employee Participation
         	1%	3%	5%	10%	25%
         	% Reduction in Commute VMT
         9-day/80-hour work week	0.07%	0.21%	0.35%	0.70%	1.75%
         4-day/40-hour work week	0.15%	0.45%	0.75%	1.50%	3.75%
         telecommuting 1.5 days	0.22%	0.66%	1.10%	2.20%	5.5%
         Source: Moving Cooler Technical Appendices, Fehr & Peers Notes: The percentages from Moving Cooler incorporate a discount of 25% for rebound effects. The percentages beyond 1% employee participation are linearly extrapolated.

         
          

         

         Assumptions:

         Data based upon the following references:

         [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. B-54) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix%20B_Ef fectiveness_102209.pdf

         
          

         Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

         

         

         Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions60 CO2e 0.07 – 5.50% of running

         PM 0.07 – 5.50% of running

         CO 0.07 – 5.50% of running

         NOx 0.07 – 5.50% of running

         SO2 0.07 – 5.50% of running

         ROG 0.04 – 3.3% of total

         

         
          

         Discussion:

         This strategy is often part of a Commute Trip Reduction Program, another strategy documented separately (see TRT-1 and TRT-2). The Project Applicant should take care not to double count the impacts.

         
          

         The employee participation rate should be capped at a maximum of 25%. Moving Cooler [1] notes that roughly 50% of a typical workforce could participate in alternative

         
          

         

         
          

         • 60 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           MP# TR-3.5	TRT-6	Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

           work schedules (based on job requirements) and roughly 50% of those would choose to participate.

           
            

           The 25% discount for rebound effects is maintained to provide a conservative estimate and support the literature results. The project may consider removing this discount from their calculations if deemed appropriate.

           
            

           Example:

           N/A – no calculations are needed.

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

           • 0.07% - 0.22% reduction in commuting VMT

             
              

             Moving Cooler [1] estimates that if 1% of employees were to participate in a 9 day/80 hour compressed work week, commuting VMT would be reduced by 0.07%. If 1% of employees were to participate in a 4 day/40 hour compressed work week, commuting VMT would reduce by 0.15%; and 1% of employees participating in telecommuting 1.5 days per week would reduce commuting VMT by 0.22%. These percentages incorporate a discounting of 25% to account for rebound effects (i.e., travel for other purposes during the day while not at the work site). The percentages beyond 1% employee participation are linearly extrapolated (see table above).

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

             Alternate:

           • 9-10% reduction in VMT for participating employees

             
              

             As documented in TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2], a Denver federal employer’s implementation of compressed work week resulted in a 14-15% reduction in VMT for participating employees. This is equivalent to the 0.15% reduction for each 1% participation cited in the preferred literature above. In the Denver example, there was a 65% participation rate out of a total of 9,000 employees. TCRP 95 states that the compressed work week experiment has no adverse effect on ride-sharing or transit use. Flexible hours have been shown to work best in the presence of medium or low transit availability.

             
              

             Alternate:

           • 0.5 vehicle trips reduced per employee per week

           • 13 – 20 VMT reduced per employee per week

             
              

             Transportation
             MP# TR-3.5	TRT-6	Commute Trip Reduction

             
              

             

             As documented in TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [2], a study of compressed work week for 2,600 Southern California employees resulted in an average reduction of 0.5 trips per week (per participating employee). Participating employees also reduced their VMT by 13-20 miles per week. This translates to a reduction of between 5% and 10% in commute VMT, and so is lower than the 15% reduction cited for Denver government employees.

             
              

             Alternative Literature References:

             [2] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies.

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             	TRT-7	Commute Trip Reduction

             
              

             

    3. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing

       
        

       Range of Effectiveness: 0.8 – 4.0% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.8 – 4.0% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.

       
        

       Measure Description:

       The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include:

       
        

       • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options

       • Event promotions

       • Publications

         
          

         CTR marketing is often part of a CTR program, voluntary or mandatory. CTR marketing is discussed separately here to emphasis the importance of not only providing employees with the options and monetary incentives to use alternative forms of transportation, but to clearly and deliberately promote and educate employees of the various options. This will greatly improve the impact of the implemented trip reduction strategies.

         
          

         Measure Applicability:

       • Urban and suburban context

       • Negligible in a rural context

       • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial and mixed-use projects

         
          

         Baseline Method:

         See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

         
          

         CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

         
          

         Where:

         
          

         VMT = vehicle miles traveled

         EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions

         
          

         Transportation
         	TRT-7	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

         Inputs:

         The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

         
          

       • Percentage of project employees eligible (i.e. percentage of employers choosing to participate)

         
          

         Mitigation Method:

         
          

         Where

         
          

         % Commute VMT Reduction = A * B * C

         
          

         A = % reduction in commute vehicle trips (from [1]) B = % employees eligible

         C = Adjustment from commute VT to commute VMT

         
          

         Detail:

          A: 4% (per [1])

       • C: 1.0 (see Appendix C for detail)

         
          

         Assumptions:

         Data based upon the following references:

         
          

         [1] Pratt, Dick. Personal communication regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. Transit Cooperative Research Program.

         
          

         Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

         

         

         Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions61 CO2e 0.8 – 4.0% of running

         PM 0.8 – 4.0% of running

         CO 0.8 – 4.0% of running

         NOx 0.8 – 4.0% of running

         SO2 0.8 – 4.0% of running

         ROG 0.5 – 2.4% of total

         

         
          

         

         
          

         61 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

         
          

         Transportation
         	TRT-7	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

         Discussion:

         The effectiveness of commute trip reduction marketing in reducing VMT depends on which commute reduction strategies are being promoted. The effectiveness levels provided below should only be applied if other programs are offered concurrently, and represent the total effectiveness of the full suite of measures.

         
          

         This strategy is often part of a CTR Program, another strategy documented separately (see strategy T# E1). Take care not to double count the impacts.

         
          

         Example:

         Sample calculations are provided below:

         
          

         • Low Range % VMT Reduction (20% eligible) = 4% * 20% = 0.8%

         • High Range % VMT Reduction (100% eligible) = 4% * 100% = 4.0%

           
            

           Preferred Literature:

         • 4-5% commute vehicle trips reduced with full-scale employer support

           
            

           TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 notes the average empirically-based estimate of reductions in vehicle trips for full-scale, site-specific employer support programs alone is 4-5%. This effectiveness assumes there are alternative commute modes available which have on-going employer support. For a program to receive credit for such outreach and marketing efforts, it should contain guarantees that the program will be maintained permanently, with promotional events delivered regularly and with routine performance monitoring.

           
            

           Alternative Literature:

         • 5-15% reduction in commute vehicle trips

         • 3% increase in effectiveness of marketed transportation demand management (TDM) strategies

         
          

         VTPI [2] notes that providing information on alternative travel modes by employers was one of the most important factors contributing to mode shifting. One study (Shadoff,1993) estimates that marketing increases the effectiveness of other TDM strategies by up to 3%. Given adequate resources, marketing programs may reduce vehicle trips by 5-15%. The 5 – 15% range comes from a variety of case studies across the world. U.S. specific case studies include: 9% reduction in vehicle trips with TravelSmart in Portland (12% reduction in VMT), 4-8% reduction in vehicle trips from four cities with individualized marketing pilot projects from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Averaged across the four pilot projects, there was a 6.75% reduction in VMT.

         
          

         Transportation
         	TRT-7	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

         Alternative Literature References:

         [2] VTPI, TDM Encyclopedia – TDM Marketing; http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm23.htm; accessed 3/5/2010. Table 7 (citing FTA, 2006)

         
          

         Other Literature Reviewed:

         None

         
          

         Transportation
         MP# TR-3.1	TRT-8	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

    4. Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program

       
        

       Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TRT-1 through TRT-3)

       
        

       Measure Description:

       The project will provide preferential parking in convenient locations (such as near public transportation or building front doors) in terms of free or reduced parking fees, priority parking, or reserved parking for commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride-share or use alternatively fueled vehicles. The project will provide wide parking spaces to accommodate vanpool vehicles.

       
        

       The impact of preferential parking permit programs has not been quantified by the literature and is likely to have negligible impacts when implemented alone. This strategy should be grouped with Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs (TRT-1 and TRT-2) as a complementary strategy for encouraging non-single occupant vehicle travel.

       
        

       Measure Applicability:

       • Urban, suburban context

       • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, mixed use, and industrial projects

         
          

         Alternative Literature:

         No quantitative results are available. The case study in the literature implemented a preferential parking permit program as a companion strategy to a comprehensive TDM program. Employees who carpooled at least three times a week qualified to use the spaces.

         
          

         Alternative Literature References:

         [1] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997.

         http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf

         
          

         Other Literature Reviewed:

         None

         
          

         Transportation
         	TRT-9	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

    5. Implement Car-Sharing Program

       
        

       Range of Effectiveness: 0.4 – 0.7% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.4 – 0.7% reduction in GHG emissions.

       
        

       Measure Description:

       This project will implement a car-sharing project to allow people to have on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis. User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees. The car-sharing program could be created through a local partnership or through one of many existing car-share companies. Car-sharing programs may be grouped into three general categories: residential- or citywide-based, employer-based, and transit station-based. Transit station-based programs focus on providing the “last-mile” solution and link transit with commuters’ final destinations. Residential-based programs work to substitute entire household based trips. Employer-based programs provide a means for business/day trips for alternative mode commuters and provide a guaranteed ride home option.

       
        

       Measure Applicability:

       • Urban and suburban context

       • Negligible in a rural context

       • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

         
          

         Baseline Method:

         See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

         
          

         CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

         
          

         Where:

         
          

         
          

         traveled

         
          

         for running emissions

         VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

         
          

         Inputs:

         The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

         
          

       • Urban or suburban context

         
          

         Transportation
         	TRT-9	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

         Mitigation Method:

         
          

         Where

         
          

         % VMT Reduction = A * B / C

         A = % reduction in car-share member annual VMT (from the literature) B = number of car share members per shared car (from the literature) C = deployment level based on urban or suburban context

         
          

         Detail:

          A: 37% (per [1])

          B: 20 (per [2])

       • C:

         Project setting	1 shared car per X population
         Urban	1,000
         Suburban	2,000
         Source: Moving Cooler

         
          

         Assumptions:

         Data based upon the following references:

         
          

         [1] Millard-Ball, Adam. “Car-Sharing: Where and How it Succeeds,” (2005) Transit Cooperative Research Program (108). P. 4-22

         [2] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the

         Urban Land Institute. (p. B-52, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices_C omplete_102209.pdf

         
          

         Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

         

         

         Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions62 CO2e 0.4 – 0.7% of running

         PM 0.4 – 0.7% of running

         CO 0.4 – 0.7% of running

         NOx 0.4 – 0.7% of running

         SO2 0.4 – 0.7% of running

         ROG 0.24 – 0.42% of total

         

         
          

         

         
          

         • 62 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           	TRT-9	Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

           Discussion:

           Variable C in the mitigation method section represents suggested levels of deployment based on the literature. Levels of deployment may vary based on the characteristics of the project site and the needs of the project residents and employees. This variable should be adjusted accordingly.

           
            

           The methodology for calculation of VMT reduction utilizes Moving Cooler’s rule of thumb63 for the estimated number of car share members per vehicle. An estimate of 50% reduction in car-share member annual VMT (from Moving Cooler) was high compared to other literature sources, and TCRP 108’s 37% reduction was used in the calculations instead.

           
            

           Example:

           Sample calculations are provided below:

           
            

           • Low Range % VMT Reduction (suburban) = 37% * 20 / 2000 = 0.4%

           • High Range % VMT Reduction (urban) = 37% * 20 / 1000 = 0.7%

             
              

             Preferred Literature:

           • 37% reduction in car-share member VMT

             
              

             The TCRP 108 [1] report conducted a survey of car-share members in the United States and Canada in 2004. The results of the survey showed that respondents, on average, drove only 63% of the average mileage they previously drove when not car-share members.

             
              

             Alternative Literature:

             Alternate – Residential or Citywide Based:

             
              

           • 0.05-0.27% reduction in GHG

           • 0.33% reduction in VMT in urban areas

             
              

             Moving Cooler [2] assumed an aggressive deployment of one car per 2,000 inhabitants of medium-density census tracks and of one car per 1,000 inhabitants of high-density census tracks. This strategy assumes providing a subsidy to a public, private, or nonprofit car-sharing organization and providing free or subsidized lease for usage of public street parking. Moving Cooler assumed 20 members per shared car and 50% reduction in VMT per equivalent car. The percent reduction calculated assumes a percentage of urban areas are low, medium, and high density, thus resulting in a lower

             
              

             

             
              

         • 63 See discussion in Alternative Literature section for “rule of thumb” detail.

           
            

           Transportation
           	TRT-9	Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

           than expected reduction in VMT assuming an aggressive deployment in medium and high density areas.

           
            

           Alternate – Transit Station and Employer Based:

           • 23-44% reduction in drive-alone mode share

           • Average daily VMT reduction of 18 – 23 miles

             
              

             TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [3] looked at two demonstrations, CarLink I and CarLink II, in the San Francisco Bay Area. CarLink I ran from January to November 1999. It involved 54 individuals and 12 rental cars stationed at the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. CarLink II ran from July 2001 to June 2002 and involved 107 individuals and 19 rental cars. CarLink II was based in Palo Alto in conjunction with Caltrain commuter rail service and several employers in the Stanford Research Park. Both CarLink demonstrations were primarily targeted for commuters. CarLink I had a 23% increase in rail mode share, a reduction in drive-alone mode share of 44%, and a decrease in Average Daily VMT of 18 miles. CarLink II had a VMT for round-trip commuters decrease of 23 miles per day and a mode share for drive alone decrease of 22.9%.

             
              

             Alternate:

           • 50% reduction in driving for car-share members

             
              

             A UC Berkeley study of San Francisco’s City CarShare [4] found that members drive nearly 50% less after joining. The study also found that when people joined the car- sharing organization, nearly 30% reduced their household vehicle ownership and two- thirds avoided purchasing another car. The UC Berkeley study found that almost 75% of vehicle trips made by car-sharing members were for social trips such as running errands and visiting friends. Only 25% of trips were for commuting to work or for recreation. Most trips were also made outside of peak periods. Therefore, car-sharing may generate limited impact on peak period traffic.

             
              

             Alternative Literature References:

             [3] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (p. B-52, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices

             _Complete_102209.pdf

             
              

             [4] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. Transit Cooperative Research Program.

             
              

             Transportation
             	TRT-9	Commute Trip Reduction

             
              

             

             Cervero, Robert and Yu-Hsin Tsai. San Francisco City CarShare: Travel-Demand Trends and Second-Year Impacts, 2005. (Figure 7, p. 35, Table 7, Table 12) http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4f39b7b4

             
              

             Other Literature Reviewed:

             None

             
              

             Transportation
             	TRT-10	Commute Trip Reduction

             
              

             

    6. Implement a School Pool Program

       
        

       Range of Effectiveness: 7.2 – 15.8% school vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Reduction and therefore 7.2 – 15.8% reduction in school trip GHG emissions.

       
        

       Measure Description:

       This project will create a ridesharing program for school children. Most school districts provide bussing services to public schools only. SchoolPool helps match parents to transport students to private schools, or to schools where students cannot walk or bike but do not meet the requirements for bussing.

       
        

       Measure Applicability:

       • Urban, suburban, and rural context

       • Appropriate for residential and mixed-use projects

         
          

         Baseline Method:

         See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

         
          

         CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

         
          

         Where:

         
          

         
          

         traveled

         
          

         for running emissions

         VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

         
          

         Inputs:

         The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

         
          

       • Degree of implementation of SchoolPool Program(moderate to aggressive)

         
          

         Mitigation Method:

         
          

         % VMT Reduction = Families * B

         
          

         Where

         
          

         Families = % families that participate (from [1] and [2])

         B = adjustments to convert from participation to daily VMT to annual school VMT

         
          

         Transportation
         	TRT-10	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

         Detail:

       • Families: 16% (moderate implementation), 35% (aggressive implementation), (from [1] and [2])

       • B: 45% (see Appendix C for detail)

         
          

         Assumptions:

         Data based upon the following references:

         
          

         [1] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997. (p. 10, 36-38)

         http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf

         [2] Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Survey of Schoolpool Participants, April 2008. http://www.drcog.org/index.cfm?page=SchoolPool.

         Obtained from Schoolpool Coordinator, Mia Bemelen.

         
          

         Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

         

         

         Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions64 CO2e 7.2 – 15.8% of running

         PM 7.2 – 15.8% of running

         CO 7.2 – 15.8% of running

         NOx 7.2 – 15.8% of running

         SO2 7.2 – 15.8% of running

         ROG 4.3 – 9.5% of total

         

         
          

         Discussion:

         This strategy reflects the findings from only one case study.

         
          

         Example:

         Sample calculations are provided below:

         
          

       • Low Range % School VMT Reduction (moderate implementation) = 16% * 45% = 7.2%

       • High Range % School VMT Reduction (aggressive implementation) = 35% * 45%

         = 15.8%

         
          

         

         
          

         • 64 The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

           
            

           Transportation
           	TRT-10	Commute Trip Reduction

           
            

           

           Preferred Literature:

           • 7,711 – 18,659 daily VMT reduction

         
          

         As presented in the TDM Case Studies [1] compilation, the SchoolPool program in Denver saved 18,659 VMT per day in 1995, compared with 7,711 daily in 1994 – a 142% increase. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) [2] enrolled approximately 7,000 families and 32 private schools in the program. The DRCOG staff surveyed a school or interested families to collect home location and schedules of the students. The survey also identified prospective drivers. DRCOG then used carpool- matching software and GIS to match families. These match lists were sent to the parents for them to form their own school pools. 16% of families in the database formed carpools. The average carpool carried 3.1 students.

         
          

         The SchoolPool program is still in effect and surveys are conducted every few years to monitor the effectiveness of the program. The latest survey report received was in 2008. The report showed that the participant database had increased to over 10,000 families, an 18% increase from 2005. 29% of participants used the list to form a school carpool. This percentage was lower than 35% in 2005 but higher than prior to 2005, at 24%. The average number of families in each carpool ranged from 2.1 prior to 2005 to 2.8 in 2008. The average number of carpool days per week was roughly 4.7. The number of school weeks per year was 39. Per discussions with the Schoolpool Coordinator, a main factor of success was establishing a large database. This was achieved by having parents

         opt-out of the database versus opting-in.

         
          

         Alternative Literature:

         None

         
          

         Alternative Literature References:

         None

         
          

         Other Literature Reviewed:

         None

         
          

         Transportation
         MP# MO-3.1	TRT-11	Commute Trip Reduction

         
          

         

    7. Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle

       
        

       Range of Effectiveness: 0.3 – 13.4% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.3 – 13.4% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.

       
        

       Measure Description:

       This project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees’ commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost.

       
        

       Measure Applicability:

       • Urban, suburban, and rural context

       • Appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

         
          

         Baseline Method:

         See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

         
          

         CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

         
          

         Where:

         
          

         VMT = vehicle miles traveled

         EFrunning = emission factor for running emissions

         
          

         Inputs:

         The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

         
          

       • Percentage of employees eligible

    
     

    Mitigation Method:

    
     

    % VMT Reduction = A * B * C

    
     

    Where

    A = % shift in vanpool mode share of commute trips (from [1]) B = % employees eligible

    C = adjustments from vanpool mode share to commute VMT

    
     

    Transportation
    MP# MO-3.1	TRT-11	Commute Trip Reduction

    
     

    

    Detail:

    
     

• A: 2-20% annual reduction in vehicle mode share (from [1])

  • Low range: low degree of implementation, smaller employers

  • High range: high degree of implementation, larger employers

• C: 0.67 (See Appendix C for detail)

Assumptions:

Data based upon the following references:

[1] TCRP Report 95. Chapter 5: Vanpools and Buspools - Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c5.pdf. (p.5-8)

Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions65 CO2e 0.3 – 13.4% of running

PM 0.3 – 13.4% of running

CO 0.3 – 13.4% of running

NOx 0.3 – 13.4% of running

SO2 0.3 – 13.4% of running

ROG 0.18 – 8.0% of total

Discussion:

Vanpools are generally more successful with the largest of employers, as large employee counts create the best opportunities for employees to find a suitable number of travel companions to form a vanpool. In the San Francisco Bay Area several large companies (such as Google, Apple, and Genentech) provide regional bus transportation for their employees. No specific studies of these large buspools were identified in the literature. However, the GenenBus serves as a key element of the overall commute trip reduction (CTR) program for Genentech, as discussed in the CTR Program – Required strategy.

This strategy is often part of a CTR Program, another strategy documented separately (see strategy T# E1). Take care not to double count the impacts.

Example:

Sample calculations are provided below:

1. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

   
    

   Transportation
   MP# MO-3.1	TRT-11	Commute Trip Reduction

   
    

   

   • Low Range % VMT Reduction (low implementation/small employer, 20% eligible)

     = 2% * 20% * 0.67 = 0.3%

   • High Range % VMT Reduction (high implementation/large employer, 100% eligible) = 20% * 100% * 0.67 = 13.4%

     
      

     Preferred Literature:

   • 2-20% vanpool mode share

     
      

     TCRP Report 95 [1] notes that vanpools can capture 2 to 20% mode share. This range can be attributed to differences in programs, access to high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, and geographic range. The TCRP Report highlights a case study of the 3M Corporation, which with the implementation of a vanpooling program saw drive alone mode share decrease by 10 percentage points and vanpooling mode share increase to

     7.8 percent. The TCRP Report notes most vanpools programs do best where one-way

     trip lengths exceed 20 miles, where work schedules are fixed and regular, where employer size is sufficient to allow matching of 5 to 12 people from the same residential area, where public transit is inadequate, and were some congestion or parking problems exist.

     
      

     Alternative Literature:

     In TDM Case Studies [2], a case study of Kaiser Permanente Hospital has shown their employer-sponsored shuttle service eliminated 380,100 miles per month, or nearly 4 million miles of travel per year, and four tons of smog precursors annually.

     
      

     Alternative Literature References:

     [2] Transportation Demand Management Institute of the Association for Commuter Transportation. TDM Case Studies and Commuter Testimonials. Prepared for the US EPA. 1997.

     http://www.epa.gov/OMS/stateresources/rellinks/docs/tdmcases.pdf

     
      

     Other Literature Reviewed:

     None

     
      

     Transportation
     	TRT-12	Commute Trip Reduction

     
      

     

     1. Implement Bike-Sharing Programs

        
         

        Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see SDT-5 and LUT-9)

        
         

        Measure Description:

        This project will establish a bike sharing program. Stations should be at regular intervals throughout the project site. The number of bike-share kiosks throughout the project area should vary depending on the density of the project and surrounding area. Paris’ bike- share program places a station every few blocks throughout the city (approximately 28 bike stations/square mile). Bike-station density should increase around commercial and transit hubs.

        
         

        Bike sharing programs have minimal impacts when implemented alone. This strategy’s effectiveness is heavily dependent on the location and context. Bike-sharing programs have worked well in densely populated areas (examples in Barcelona, London, Lyon, and Paris) with existing infrastructure for bicycling. Bike sharing programs should be combined with Bike Lane Street Design (SDT-5) and Improve Design of Development (LUT-9).

        
         

        Taking evidence from the literature, a 135-300% increase in bicycling (of which roughly 7% are shifting from vehicle travel) results in a negligible impact (around 0.03% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction (see Appendix C for calculations)).

        
         

        Measure Applicability:

        • Urban and suburban-center context only

        • Negligible in a rural context

        • Appropriate for residential, retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

          
           

          Alternative Literature:

          Alternate:

          
           

          The International Review [1] found bike mode share increases:

          
           

           from 0.75% in 2005 to 1.76% in 2007 in Barcelona (Romero, 2008) (135% increase)

        • From 1% in 2001 to 2.5% in 2007 in Paris (Nadal, 2007; City of Paris, 2007)

          (150% increase)

           From 0.5% in 1995 to 2% in 2006 in Lyon (Bonnette, 2007; Velo'V, 2009) (300% increase)

          
           

          London [2] is the only study that reports the breakdown of the prior mode In London: 6% of users reported shifting from driving, 34% from transit, 23% said they would not have

          
           

          Transportation
          	TRT-12	Commute Trip Reduction

          
           

          

          travelled (Noland and Ishaque, 2006). Additionally, 68% of the bike trips were for leisure or recreation. Companion strategies included concurrent improvements in bicycle facilities.

          
           

          The London program was implemented west of Central London in a densely populated area, mainly residential, with several employment centers. A relatively well developed bike network existed, including over 1,000 bike racks. The program implemented 25 locker stations with 70 bikes total.

          
           

          Alternate:

        • 1/3 vehicle trip reduced per day per bicycle (1,000 vehicle trips reduced per day in Lyon)

          
           

          The Bike Share Opportunities [3] report looks at two case studies of bike-sharing implementation in France. In Lyon, the 3,000 bike-share system shifts 1,000 car trips to bicycle each day. Surveys indicate that 7% of the bike share trips would have otherwise been made by car. Lyon saw a 44% increase in bicycle riding within the first year of their program while Paris saw a 70% increase in bicycle riding and a 5% reduction in car use and congestion within the first year and a half of their program. The Bike Share Opportunities report found that population density is an important part of a successful program. Paris’ bike share subscription rates range between 6% and 9% of the total population. This equates to an average of 75,000 rentals per day. The effectiveness of bike share programs at sub-city scales are not addressed in the literature.

          
           

          Alternative Literature References:

          [1] Pucher J., Dill, J., and Handy, S. Infrastructure, Programs and Policies to Increase Bicycling: An International Review. February 2010. (Table 4)

          
           

          [2] Noland, R.B., Ishaque, M.M., 2006. “Smart Bicycles in an urban area: Evaluation of a pilot scheme in London.” Journal of Public Transportation. 9(5), 71-95. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.8173&rep=rep1&type

          =pdf#page=76

          
           

          [3] NYC Department of City Planning, Bike-Share Opportunities in New York City, 2009. (p. 11, 14, 24, 68)

          http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/transportation/td_bike_share.shtml

          
           

          Other Literature Reviewed:

          None

          
           

          Transportation
          MP# TR-3.4	TRT-13	Commute Trip Reduction

          
           

          

     2. Implement School Bus Program

        
         

        Measure Effectiveness Range: 38 – 63% School VMT Reduction and therefore 38 – 63% reduction in school trip GHG emissions66

        
         

        Measure Description:

        The project will work with the school district to restore or expand school bus services in the project area and local community.

        
         

        Measure Applicability:

        • Urban, suburban, and rural context

        • Appropriate for residential and mixed-use projects

          
           

          Baseline Method:

          See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

          
           

          CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

          
           

          Where:

          
           

          
           

          traveled

          
           

          for running emissions

          VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

          
           

          Inputs:

          The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

          
           

        • Percentage of families expected to use/using school bus program

          
           

          Mitigation Method:

          
           

          % VMT Reduction = A * B

          
           

          Where

          A = % families expected to use/using school bus program

          B = adjustments to convert from participation to school day VMT to annual school VMT

          
           

          

          
           

2. Transit vehicles may also result in increases in emissions that are associated with electricity production or fuel use. The Project Applicant should consider these potential additional emissions when estimating mitigation for these measures.

   
    

   Transportation
   MP# TR-3.4	TRT-13	Commute Trip Reduction

   
    

   

   Detail:

   • A: a typical range of 50 – 84% (see discussion section)

   • B: 75% (see Appendix C for detail)

     
      

     Assumptions:

     Data based upon the following references:

     [1] JD Franz Research, Inc.; Lamorinda School Bus Program, 2003 Parent Survey, Final Report; January 2004; obtained from Juliet Hansen, Program Manager. (p. 5)

     
      

     Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

     

     Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions67

     CO2e 38 – 63% of running

     

     PM 38 – 63% of running

     CO 38 – 63% of running

     NOx 38 – 63% of running

     SO2 38 – 63% of running

     ROG 23 – 38% of total

     

     
      

     Discussion:

     The literature presents a high range of effectiveness showing 84% participation by families. 50% is an estimated low range assuming the project has a minimum utilization goal. Note that the literature presents results from a single case study.

     
      

     Example:

     Sample calculations are provided below:

     
      

   • Low Range % VMT Reduction (50% participation) = 50% * 75% = 38%

   • High Range % VMT Reduction (85% participation) = 84% * 75% = 63%

     
      

     Preferred Literature:

   • 84% penetration rate

   • 2,451 – 2,677 daily vehicle trips reduced

   • 441,180 – 481,860 annual vehicle trips reduced

     
      

     

     
      

3. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

   
    

   Transportation
   MP# TR-3.4	TRT-13	Commute Trip Reduction

   
    

   

   The Lamorinda School Bus Program was implemented to reduce traffic congestion in the communities of Lafayette, Orinda, and Moraga, California. In 2003, a parent survey was conducted to determine the extent to which the program diverted or eliminated vehicle trips. This survey covered a representative sample of all parents (not just those signed up for the school bus program). The range of morning trips prevented is 1,266 to 1,382; the range of afternoon trips prevented is 1,185 to 1,295. Annualized, the estimated total trip prevention is between 441,180 to 481,860. 83% of parents surveyed reported that their child usually rides the bus to school in the morning. 84% usually rode the bus back home in the afternoons. The data came from surveys and the results are unique to the location and extent of the program. The report did not indicate the number of school buses in operation during the time of the survey.

   
    

   Alternative Literature:

   None

   
    

   Alternative Literature References:

   None

   
    

   Other Literature Reviewed:

   None

   
    

   Transportation
   	TRT-14	Commute Trip Reduction

   
    

   

   1. Price Workplace Parking

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 0.1 – 19.7% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.1 -19.7% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.

      
       

      Measure Description:

      The project will implement workplace parking pricing at its employment centers. This may include: explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives.

      
       

      Though similar to the Employee Parking “Cash-Out” strategy, this strategy focuses on implementing market rate and above market rate pricing to provide a price signal for employees to consider alternative modes for their work commute.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Negligible impact in a rural context

      • Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

      • Reductions applied only if complementary strategies are in place:

        • Residential parking

          permits and market rate public on-street parking - to prevent spill-over

          parking

        • Unbundled parking - is not

          required but provides a market signal to employers to transfer over the,

          now explicit, cost of parking to the employees. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing workplace parking prices.

          
           

          Baseline Method:

          See introduction to transportation section for a discussion of how to estimate trip rates and VMT. The CO2 emissions are calculated from VMT as follows:

          
           

          CO2 = VMT x EFrunning

          
           

          Where:

          
           

          
           

          traveled

          
           

          for running emissions

          VMT = vehicle miles EFrunning = emission factor

          
           

          Transportation
          	TRT-14	Commute Trip Reduction

          
           

          

          Inputs:

          The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

      • Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location

      • Daily parking charge ($1 - $6)

      • Percentage of employees subject to priced parking

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        % VMT Reduction = A * B

        
         

        Where

        A = Percentage reduction in commute VMT (from [1] and [2]) B = Percent of employees subject to priced parking

        
         

        Detail:

        
         

        • A:

          Project Location	Daily Parking Charge
          	$1	$2	$3	$6
          Low density suburb	0.5%	1.2%	1.9%	2.8%
          Suburban center	1.8%	3.7%	5.4%	6.8%
          Urban Location	6.9%	12.5%	16.8%	19.7%
          Moving Cooler, VTPI, Fehr & Peers. Note: 2009 dollars.

          
           

          Assumptions:

          Data based upon the following references:

          [1] Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table 5.13, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices_C omplete_102209.pdf

          [2] VTPI, Todd Litman, Transportation Elasticities,(Table 15)

          http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf.

          Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/474.html.

          
           

          Transportation
          	TRT-14	Commute Trip Reduction

          
           

          

          Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

          

          

          Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions68 CO2e 0.1 – 19.7% of running

          PM 0.1 – 19.7% of running

          CO 0.1 – 19.7% of running

          NOx 0.1 – 19.7% of running

          SO2 0.1 – 19.7% of running

          ROG 0.06 – 11.8% of total

          

          
           

          Discussion:

          Priced parking can result in parking spillover concerns. The highest VMT reductions should be given only with complementary strategies such as parking time limits or neighborhood parking permits are in place in surrounding areas.

          
           

          Example:

          Sample calculations are provided below:

          
           

          • Low Range % Commute VMT Reduction (low density suburb, $1/day, 20% priced) = 0.5% * 20% = 0.1%

          • High Range % Commute VMT Reduction (urban, $6/day, 100% priced) = 19.7%

            * 100% = 19.7%

            
             

            Preferred Literature:

            The table above (variable A) was calculated using the percent commute VMT reduction from Moving Cooler (0.5% - 6.9% reduction for $1/day parking charge). The percentage reductions for $2 - $6 / day parking charges were extrapolated by multiplying the Moving Cooler percentages with the ratios from the VTPI table below (percentage increases). For example, to obtain a percent VMT reduction for a $6/day parking charge for a low density suburb, 0.5% * ((36.1%-6.5%) /6.5%) = 2.3%. The methodology was utilized to capture the non-linear effect of parking charges on trip reduction (VTPI) while maintaining a conservative estimate of percent reductions (Moving Cooler).

            
             

            Preferred:

            • 0.5-6.9% reduction in commuting VMT

            • 0.44-2.07% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

        
         

        

        
         

4. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

   
    

   Transportation
   	TRT-14	Commute Trip Reduction

   
    

   

   Moving Cooler Technical Appendices indicate that increasing employee parking costs

   $1 per day ($0.50 per vehicle for carpool and free for vanpools) can reduce GHG between 0.44% and 2.07% and reduce commuting VMT between 0.5% and 6.9%. The reduction in GHG varies based on how extensive the implementation of the program is. The reduction in commuting VMT differs for type of urban area as shown in the table below. Please note that these numbers are independent of results for employee parking cash-out strategy (discussed in its own fact sheet).

   
    

   		Percent Change in Commuting VMT
   Strategy	Description	Large Metropolitan (higher transit use)	Large Metropolitan (lower transit use)	Medium Metro (higher)	Medium Metro (lower)	Small Metro (higher)	Small Metro (lower)
   Parking Charges	Parking charge of $1/day	6.9%	0.9%	1.8%	0.5%	1.3%	0.5%
   Source: Moving Cooler

   
    

   Preferred:

   
    

   Commute Vehicle trip reduction	Daily Parking Charges
   Worksite Setting	$0.75	$1.49	$2.98	$5.96
   Suburb	6.5%	15.1%	25.3%*	36.1%*
   Suburban Center	12.3%	25.1%*	37.0%*	46.8%*
   Central Business District	17.5%	31.8%*	42.6%*	50.0%*
   Source: VTPI [2]

   • Discounts greater than 20% should be capped, as they exceed levels recommended by TCRP 95 and other literature.

     
      

     The reduction in commute trips varies by parking fee and worksite setting [2]. For daily parking fees between $1.49 and $5.96, worksites set in low-density suburbs could decrease vehicle trips by 6.5-36.1%, worksites set in activity centers could decrease vehicle trips by 12.3-46.8%, and worksites set in regional central business districts could decrease vehicles by 17.5-50%. (Note that adjusted parking fees (from 1993 dollars to 2009 dollars) were used. Adjustments were taken from the Santa Monica General Plan EIR Report, Appendix, Nelson\Nygaard).

     
      

     Alternative Literature:

     Alternate:

     • 1 percentage point reduction in auto mode share

     • 12.3% reduction in commute vehicle trips

       
        

       TCRP 95 Draft Chapter 19 [4] found that an increase of $8 per month in employee parking charges was necessary to decrease employee SOV mode split rates by one

       
        

       Transportation
       	TRT-14	Commute Trip Reduction

       
        

       

       percentage point. TCRP 95 compared 82 sites with TDM programs and found that programs with parking fees have an average commute vehicle trip reduction of 24.6%, compared with 12.3% for sites with free parking.

       
        

       Alternate:

     • 1% reduction in VMT ($1 per day charge)

     • 2.6% reduction in VMT ($3 per day charge)

   
    

   The Deakin, et al. report [5] for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) analyzed transportation pricing measures for the Los Angeles, Bay Area, San Diego, and Sacramento metropolitan areas.

   
    

   Alternative Literature References:

   [4] Pratt, Dick. Personal Communication Regarding the Draft of TCRP 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes – Chapter 19 Employer and Institutional TDM Strategies. (Table 19-9)

   
    

   [5] Deakin, E., Harvey, G., Pozdena, R., and Yarema, G., 1996. Transportation Pricing Strategies for California: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy and Equity Impacts. Final Report. Prepared for California Air Resources Board (CARB), Sacramento, CA (Table 7.2)

   
    

   Other Literature Reviewed:

   None

   Transportation

   
    

   CEQA# MM T-9

   MP# TR-5.3

   
    

   TRT-15 Commute Trip Reduction

   
    

   

   1. Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out”

      
       

      Range of Effectiveness: 0.6 – 7.7% commute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 0.6 – 7.7% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions

      
       

      Measure Description:

      The project will require employers to offer employee parking “cash-out.” The term “cash- out” is used to describe the employer providing employees with a choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to the employer.

      
       

      Measure Applicability:

      • Urban and suburban context

      • Not applicable in a rural context

      • Appropriate for retail, office, industrial, and mixed-use projects

      • Reductions applied only if complementary strategies are in place:

        • Residential parking permits and market rate public on-street parking -to prevent spill-over parking

        • Unbundled parking - is not required but provides a market signal to employers to forgo paying for parking spaces and “cash-out” the employee instead. In addition, unbundling parking provides a price with which employers can utilize as a means of establishing “cash-out” prices.

          
           

          Baseline Method:

          See introduction section.

          
           

          Inputs:

          The following information needs to be provided by the Project Applicant:

          
           

      • Percentage of employees eligible

      • Location of project site: low density suburb, suburban center, or urban location

        
         

        Mitigation Method:

        
         

        % VMT Reduction = A * B

        
         

        Where

        
         

        A = % reduction in commute VMT (from the literature) B = % of employees eligible

        Transportation

        
         

        CEQA# MM T-9

        MP# TR-5.3

        
         

        TRT-15 Commute Trip Reduction

        
         

        

        Detail:

      • A: Change in Commute VMT: 3.0% (low density suburb), 4.5% (suburban center), 7.7% (urban) change in commute VMT (source: Moving Cooler)

        Assumptions:

        Data based upon the following references:

        
         

      • Cambridge Systematics. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Technical Appendices. Prepared for the Urban Land Institute. (Table 5.13, Table D.3) http://www.movingcooler.info/Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendix% 20B_Effectiveness_102209.pdf

   
    

   Emission Reduction Ranges and Variables:

   

   

   Pollutant Category Emissions Reductions69 CO2e 0.6 – 7.7% of running

   PM 0.6 – 7.7% of running

   CO 0.6 – 7.7% of running

   NOx 0.6 – 7.7% of running

   SO2 0.6 – 7.7% of running

   ROG 0.36 – 4.62% of running

   

   
    

   Discussion:

   Please note that these estimates are independent of results for workplace parking pricing strategy (see strategy number T# E5 for more information).

   
    

   If work site parking is not unbundled, employers cannot utilize this unbundled price as a means of establishing “cash-out” prices. The table below shows typical costs for parking facilities in large urban and suburban areas in the US. This can be utilized as a reference point for establishing reasonable “cash-out” prices. Note that the table does not include external costs to parking such as added congestion, lost opportunity cost of land devoted to parking, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

   
    

   	Structured (urban)	Surface (suburban)
   Land (Annualized)	$1,089	$215
   Construction (Annualized)	$2,171	$326

   
    

   

   
    

5. The percentage reduction reflects emission reductions from running emissions. The actual value will be less than this when starting and evaporative emissions are factored into the analysis. ROG emissions have been adjusted to reflect a ratio of 40% evaporative and 60% exhaust emissions based on a statewide EMFAC run of all vehicles.

   Transportation

   
    

   CEQA# MM T-9

   MP# TR-5.3

   
    

   TRT-15 Commute Trip Reduction

   
    

   O & M Costs	$575	$345
   Annual Total	$3,835	$885
   Monthly Costs	$320	$74
   Source: VTPI, Transportation Costs and Benefit Analysis II – Parking Costs, April 2010 (p.5.4-10)

   
    

   

   Example:

   Sample calculations are provided below:

   
    

   • Low Range % VMT Reduction (low density suburb and 20% eligible) = 3% * 0.2

     = 0.6%

   • High Range % VMT Reduction (urban and 100% eligible) = 7.7% * 1 = 7.7%

     
      

     Preferred Literature:

   • 0.44% - 2.07% reduction in GHG emissions

   • 3.0% - 7.7% reduction in commute VMT

     
      

     Moving Cooler Technical Appendices indicate that reimbursing “cash-out” participants

     $1/day can reduce GHG between 0.44% and 2.07% and reduce commuting VMT between 3.0% and 7.7%. The reduction in GHG varies based on how extensive the implementation of the program is. The reduction in commuting VMT differs for type of urban area is shown in the table below.

     
      

     		Percent Change in Commuting VMT
     Strategy	Description	Large Metropolitan (higher transit use)	Large Metropolitan (lower transit use)	Medium Metro (higher)	Medium Metro (lower)	Small Metro (higher)	Small Metro (lower)
     Parking Cash-Out	Subsidy of $1/day	7.7%	3.7%	4.5%	3.0%	4.0%	3.0%

     
      

     Alternative Literature:

     Alternate:

   • 2-6% reduction in vehicle trips

     
      

     VTPI used synthesis data to determine parking cash out could reduce commute vehicle trips by 10-30%. VTPI estimates that the portion of vehicle travel affected by parking cash-out would be about 20% and therefore there would be only about a 2-6% total reduction in vehicle trips attributed to parking cash-out.

     
      

     Alternate:

     Transportation

     
      

     CEQA# MM T-9

     MP# TR-5.3

     
      

     TRT-15 Commute Trip Reduction

     
      

     

   • 12% reduction in VMT per year per employee

   • 64% increase in carpooling

   • 50% increase in transit mode share

   • 39% increase in pedestrian/bike share