Fehr and Peers Training Presentation - Regional Air Quality Council

EPA’s Trip Generation Tool for Mixed Use
Developments
John V. Thomas, PhD
US EPA Office of Sustainable Communities
Denver Regional Air Quality Council
Training Workshop
September 13, 2012

Introduction

EPA MXD Trip Generation Tool
• Standard method overstates traffic impact
of walkable mixed use development
• MXD tool is research-based alternative
• ITE advisory committee provided input
• Adopted by SANDAG and Virginia DOT as
new standard method for traffic studies
• Used in traffic impact studies in CA, WA
and other western states

Takes user inputs…
• Size of a development or
redevelopment site
• Demographics
• Amount of development
by land use category
• Intersection density
• Destinations within
walking distance of site
• Destinations within a 30
minute transit trip
What does the tool do?
Quantifies their impact on…
• Number of vehicle trips
that stay on site
• Vehicle Trips that go off
site but are made on foot
• Vehicle Trips that go off
site but are made by
transit

Research Foundation for the Tool
• 6 regions: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Houston,
Atlanta, Boston
– 240 mixed use sites
– 30,000 trip records to or from those locations
– Urban form data for each site
• Validated against actual traffic counts from 25 sites
– Also validated against traffic counts from 20 “smart growth
opportunity areas” in San Diego region
• Published research in a peer reviewed journal
– ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development

Free Version Available for Download
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/mxd_tripgeneration.html

LAND USE AND AIR QUALITY - SIP CREDIT THROUGH BASELINE
ADJUSTMENT APPROACH
EPA
Grant and
Support
Neighborhood and
Corridor
Analyses/Scenarios
(Scenario Planning
Models)
Plausible /
Certainty
Additional
Approaches
and
Adjustments
Regional Scale
Analyses/Scenarios
(Focus Model)
Calculate
VMT
Reduction
for New
Baseline
Regional Air
Quality Model
Calculate
Emission
Reductions

Neighborhood and
Corridor
Analyses/Scenarios
(Scenario Planning
Models)
• Transit Oriented Development
• Local Land Use Tools
•zoning code changes, design
and subdivision regulations,
parking requirements
•Corridor Plans
•Changes in Transit Capacity
Additional
Approaches
and
Adjustments
Regional Scale
Analyses/Scenarios
(Focus Model)
•Urban Growth Boundaries
•Community Land Trusts
•Purchase or Transfer of Development
Rights / Conservation Easements
•Changes in Transit Capacity
•Changes in Planned Transit Stations
•Community Land Trusts
•Purchase or Transfer of
Development Rights/Conservation
Easements
•Car Sharing
•Employer Travel Reduction
•Electric Vehicles

The Broader Context
Where Does the Tool Fit Alongside Other Models / Tools?

Types of Scenario Planning Tools
• Forecasting Models
– e.g. Economic, Travel Demand, Land Use, Air
Quality and Water Quality
• GIS Based Land Use Scenario Tools
• Spreadsheet Tools

Level of Sophistication
Range of options that can be feasibly tested
Spreadsheet Tools
GIS Based Sketch Planning Tools
Regional Travel Demand
Land Use and
Air Quality Models

GIS Based Scenario Planning Tools
• Urban Footprint
– Envision Bay Area, California High Speed Rail
Planning
• Envision Tomorrow
– Envision Utah, Southern California
Association of Governments, Superstition
Vistas (AZ)
• i-Places
– Sacramento Regional Blueprint
• INDEX
– Atlantic Station, Redwood City, CA
• CommunityViz
– Cape Cod Climate Change Scenario
Planning, San Diego Regional
Transportation Plan
https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2027_1352_Opening%2
0Access%20to%20Scenario%20Planning%20Tools.pdf

Typical Steps- Envision Tomorrow
Source – Fregonese and Associates, (Envision Tomorrow)

Example – Traditional Transportation Indicators
Source: Sacramento Regional Blueprint (2010) Blueprint’s Impact on the Region and Resident’s Quality of Life

Block Scale Indicators – Proximity to Parks
Source: Criterion Planners, (INDEX)

Financial Indicators- Market Feasibility
Source: SACOG, (iPLACES)

Application Examples

White Flint Sector Plan, Montgomery County, MD

Proposed Redevelopment
Source: Montgomery County, White Flint Sector Plan

White Flint Current Street Conditions

Proposed Boulevard Redesign
Source: Glatting Jackson, White Flint Partnership

Site Level -
Scale & Mix of Land Use
• Improved Jobs Housing
Balance
• Large Scale Project
– Greater chance of trip origin
and destination match
• Lots of Destinations within
Walking Distance
=
Annual Reduction of
8,678 M Tons of CO2
Source: EPA White Paper: The Placemaking Premium
(2007) Illustrations Dover Kohl & Partners
Source: Glatting Jackson, White Flint Partnership

Pedestrian Connectivity and
Increased Walking in Project Area
• More than 3x as many
intersections
• Smaller block size
• Lower traffic volume on key
streets
=
Annual Reduction of
6,889 M Tons CO2

Neighborhood Destinations
and Transit Accessibility
• 18,000 jobs within 1 Mile
=
Annual Reduction of
3,489 M Tons CO2
• 678,000 jobs w/in 30
Min. Transit Trip
=
Annual Reduction of
5,072 M Tons CO2
M
M
M
M
M

Two Sites Selected for Denver Pilot

TABLE 1. MXD PLANNED INPUTS FOR DENVER FEDERAL CENTER SITE
Input Variable Input
Value
Source
Developed Area (in acres) 894 Calculated in GIS
Number of Intersections 53 Based on Federal Center Site Plan Study (2008)
Transit Available Yes
Proportion of households within ¼
mile of a transit stop
100%
Central Business District or TOD? Yes
Employment within one mile of
MXD
17,405
Employment within a 30 minute
Transit Trip (Door-to-door)
54,146
DRCOG 2035 Regional Model
Total Regional Employment 1,351,473
Average Household (HH) Size for 3.2
Single Family Dwelling Units
Average Household (HH) Size for
Multi-family Dwelling Units
2.5
Project Estimate
Average HH Size Near Site 2.08
Average Vehicles Owned per
Dwelling Unit Near Site
1.60
2000 Census
Multi-family Dwelling Units 2104 Proposed Campus Development Program by District
General Retail (1000 sq. ft.) 212 from Denver Federal Center Site Plan Study (2008) /
Non Medical Office (1000 sq. ft.) 2193 Existing and Future Employment and Residences within
Medical Office (1000 sq. ft.) 1050 the Union Boulevard Corridor from Union Boulevard
Hotel Rooms 200
Corridor Connectivity Plan (2011)/
Planned Development along the West Corridor from
Connecting the West Corridor Communities: An
Implementation Strategy for TOD along the Denver
Region’s West Corridor (2011)

TABLE 2. MXD MODEL INPUTS FOR BRIGHTON BLVD SITE
Input Variable Input Value Source
Developed Area (in acres) 138 Calculated in GIS
Number of Intersections 23 Calculated in GIS based on existing road network
Transit Available Yes
Proportion of households within ¼
mile of a transit stop
100%
Central Business District or TOD? Yes
Employment within one mile of
MXD
25,476
Employment within a 30 minute
Transit Trip (Door-to-door)
106,243
Total Regional Employment 1,351,473
Average Household (HH) Size for
Single Family Dwelling Units
3.2
Average Household (HH) Size for
Multi-family Dwelling Units
2.5
Average HH Size Near Site 2.27
Average Vehicles Owned per
Dwelling Unit Near Site
1.5
Single Family Dwelling Units 30
Multi-family Dwelling Units 720
General Retail (1000 sq. ft.) 41
Non Medical Office (1000 sq. ft.) 285
DRCOG 2035 Regional Model
Project Estimate
2000 Census
Medium Density Development Scenario from Brighton
Corridor Design Guidelines (2008)

Four Test Scenarios
Scenario 1: Planned Land Use
Scenario 2: Double Planned Land Use
Scenario 3: More Residential and Less Commercial
Scenario 4: Less Residential and More Commercial

TABLE 5. DENVER FEDERAL CENTER MXD DAILY TRIP GENERATION AND VMT ESTIMATES*
ITE External Vehicle Daily Trips
MXD External Vehicle Daily
Adjusted Trips
Scenario 1:
Planned Land
Use
Scenario 2:
Double Planned
Land Use
Scenario 3: More
Residential and
Less Commercial
Scenario 4: Less
Residential and
More Commercial
77,892 146,655 48,409 121,031
64,113 118,959 36,940 106,456
MXD Reduction in External
Vehicle Trips 18% 19% 22% 12%
MXD Internal capture 13% 13% 17% 8%
MXD External Walk / Bike 3% 4% 4% 2%
MXD External Transit 3% 3% 2% 3%
ITE Daily VMT 292,103 549,785 172,263 460,167
MXD Daily Adjusted VMT 244,495 454,401 137,488 408,482
MXD Reduction in Daily VMT 16% 17% 20% 11%
*VMT reflects half the VMT associated with total trips as other areas would be responsible for the other half
Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2011

TABLE 6. BRIGHTON BLVD MXD DAILY TRIP GENERATION AND VMT ESTIMATES*
Scenario 1:
Planned Land
Use
Scenario 2:
Double Planned
Land Use
Scenario 3: More
Residential and
Less Commercial
Scenario 4: Less
Residential and
More Commercial
ITE External Vehicle Daily Trips 11,622 20,565 18,226 12,092
MXD External Vehicle Daily
Adjusted Trips 8,747 15,029 13,999 10,484
MXD Reduction in External
Vehicle Trips 25% 27% 23% 13%
MXD Internal capture 12% 12% 9% 5%
MXD External Walk / Bike 10% 11% 10% 4%
MXD External Transit 5% 5% 5% 4%
ITE Daily VMT 37,611 66,293 56,600 40,555
MXD Daily Adjusted VMT 28,651 49,306 44,073 35,340
MXD Reduction in Daily VMT 24% 26% 22% 13%
*VMT reflects half the VMT associated with total trips as other areas would be responsible for the other half
Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2011

Transit Ridership: RTD Ridership Model
Boardings
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Federal Center Projected Station Boardings
453
561
363
595 608 608
1274 1283 1283
561
454
1180
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
PM Peak
Boardings
Off-Peak Boardings
AM Peak
Boardings

MXD Tool Video
• Is it too long, too short, or just about right for
conveying this concept?
• Are there any areas where you would like to see
more (or less) information?
• What do you think about the overall production style
(e.g. music, narration, transitions)?
• Do you have related content we could integrate to
enhance the quality of the presentation?
http://youtu.be/EtsgVavFIik