Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Level of Service in Transit Oriented Districts Service for Who?

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Why is LOS an Issue? Impacts to Transit Oriented Development –Emphasizes auto travel performance Ignores other modes of travel Auto-oriented mitigation impacts other modes of travel Encourages auto-oriented development and SOV travel –Penalizes development in high-traffic areas like downtown and TOD, and encourages development in undeveloped areas where its easier to meet LOS standards

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD What are the Alternatives? Multimodal LOS –Determines impacts on all modes –Provides balance between modes –Allows emphasis on alternatives to SOV –Mechanism to allocate improvement funds proportionately to all modes

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD What are the Alternatives? Objective vs. Subjective Measures –Objective: measurable quantities Width, connections, time, capacity –Subjective: quality of environment Urban design, comfort, safety, attractiveness

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Multimodal LOS Approaches Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS calculations - Quantitative methods (Highway Capacity Manual) - Accepted methods by transportation professionals - Not applicable in low volume conditions

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Multimodal LOS Approaches Checklists and point/credit methods - Identifies desirable multimodal features - Allows impact credits for multimodal design - Used in Austin, Fort Collins, San Mateo C/CAG, LA CMP - Difficulty integrating into EIRs, questionable effectiveness

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Multimodal LOS Approaches Person capacity - Capacity of people rather than vehicles through intersections and roads - Ignores subjective criteria

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Multimodal LOS Approaches Multimodal assessments - Combines quantitative and subjective measures - Promotes good transportation planning and site design - Integrated into EIRs with appropriate standards of significance Multimodal performance standards - Adoption of standards and measures for all modes of travel - Overcomes the EIR barrier

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD CEQA requirements Congestion Management mandates Agency time and staffing requirements Subjectivity vs. objectivity Development leverage Public reaction Effectiveness of solutions Barriers to Multimodal LOS

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Strategies and Policies Change or eliminate auto LOS for TOD Adopt multimodal performance measures and LOS methods Adopt alternative standards for TOD districts in General Plan Overriding considerations Comprehensive multimodal assessment and standardized methods Area, specific, and corridor plans Specialized design standards in TOD districts CMP deficiency plans

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Example TIA Process 1.Determine Quality of Transit Service 2.Assess Development’s Pedestrian & Transit Friendliness 3.Calculate Trip Reduction Credits 4.Conduct Impact Analysis 5.Determine Impacts and Mitigation Evaluate Intersections (only to find delays) Evaluate Urban Arterials (speed) Use MND Process Urban Arterial LOS Multi-modal mitigation Chula Vista General Plan Update

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Quality of Transit Service Table A Quality of Transit Service Type of Service Provided and Distance from Station Headway (vehicles/hour/direction/route) ExceptionalHighMediumLow 5 or more3 to 42 to 31 or less LRT/BRT or Multiple Bus Routes Within 500 feet of stationEXCEPTIONAL HIGHMEDIUM 500 to 1,000 feet from stationEXCEPTIONALHIGHMEDIUMLOW 1,000 to 1,860 feet from stationHIGH LOW Bus or Shuttle Route Within 500 feet of stationEXCEPTIONALHIGHMEDIUMLOW 500 to 1,000 feet from stationHIGHMEDIUMLOW 1,000 to 1,860 feet from stationMEDIUMLOW Chula Vista General Plan Update

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Development Friendliness Table C Pedestrian and Transit Supportive Criteria for Development Projects Point Scale: Possible Points Exceptional : points High: points Medium: points Low: 0-29 points Residential and Employment Uses · Consistent with transit station area plan2 · Meets minimum population threshold to support transit4 · Greater than 200 new housing units5 · Variety of housing types (apartments, rowhouses, rental and ownership)2 · Meets minimum floor area ratio (FAR) threshold to support transit3 Affordable Housing · 20% of unit for 80% (4 person) AMFI households4 · 20% of units for 60% (4 person) AMFI households3 Neighborhood Stabilization Chula Vista General Plan Update

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Trip Reductions for Transit Table C-1 Allowable Reduction in Daily and Peak Hour Trip Generation for Transit Developments with Exception Pedestrian & Transit Frienliness 1 Quality of Transit Service 2 Land Use DesignationExceptionalHighMediumLow Residential20%15%10%5% Retail - Transit Serving80%40%20%0% Retail - Traditional20%10%6%3% Restaurant30%20%10%5% Educational20%15%10%5% Industrial16%12%6%3% Office16%12%6%3% Government Office30%20%10%5% Medical Office16%12%8%4% Notes: 1 Assumes Exceptional level of pedestrian and transit friendliness, from Table B. Chula Vista General Plan Update

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Urban Arterial LOS Urban Street Class IIIIIIIV Typical Free Flow Speed 50 mph40 mph35 mph30 mph LOSAverage Travel Speed (mph) ABCDEFABCDEF > 42 >34 – 42 >27 – 34 >21 – 27 >16 – 21 <16 >35 >28 – 35 >22 – 28 >17 – 22 >13 – 17 <13 >30 >24 – 30 >18 – 24 > >10 – 14 <10 >25 >19 – 25 >13 – 19 >9 – 13 >7 – 9 <7 Chula Vista General Plan Update

Analyzing the Mobility Impacts of TOD Recommended TIA Process Impacts and Mitigation Use Urban Arterial LOS as the primary means of identifying impacts Impact is direct if 5% of entering traffic is from the project Mitigation can be multimodal in nature Turn lanes, street widening, signalization Transit service enhancements Transit operation enhancements Improved development’s pedestrian/transit friendliness Transportation Impact Fees (multi-modal) Chula Vista General Plan Update