Curious about how to navigate your Land Use or Transportation Project, or General Plan through SB 743? We’ve developed flow charts to help – click the buttons below for more.
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes will include elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in many parts of California (if not statewide). Further, parking impacts will not be considered significant impacts on the environment for select development projects within infill areas with nearby frequent transit service. According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Knowledge Sharing Opportunities
Click links below to view presentations.
What’s the Recipe for SB 743 Implementation? (October 23, 2016)
SB 743 Legislative Intent vs CEQA Practice (October 4, 2015)
News & Resources
Caltrans ‘Local Development – Intergovernmental Review Program’ Interim Guidance Posted
“Approved in September 2016, this high-level guidance document for District staff refocuses Caltrans LD-IGR program attention on local development project’s VMT, appropriate transportation demand measures (TDM), and determining how to address multimodal operational issues.” Click here for details.
Planning with SB743
Highlighting recent projects in San Francisco and Los Angeles where planning involved adhering to SB 743. Click here for full story.
OPR Releases Update to CEQA Guidelines for SB 743
OPR’s latest update to the guidelines for implementing SB 743 includes a few substantial changes. Probably the biggest change is moving much of the technical content out of the CEQA Guidelines and into a new technical advisory.The technical advisory is not regulatory, so it does not carry the force of law. Practitioners can consider this guidance material as advisory suggestions. Our assessment is that it provides a starting point for how to think about potential VMT analysis methods, thresholds, safety analysis, and mitigation approaches. Click here for more.
Estimates of 2015-2016 Timeline
OPR will likely then make one more set of revisions and submit the final Guidelines to the Natural Resources Agency. Subsequent “rulemaking” process takes about 6 months.
Late 2016/Early 2017
Upon the completion of the “rulemaking” process, SB 743 goes into effect unless OPR elects to allow an opt-in period of one to two years.
Where the New Guidelines Apply (TPAs in California)
Text of Proposed New Section 15064.3 (b)(1) Vehicle Miles Traveled and Land Use Projects. A development project that results in vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, development projects that locate within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor may be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Similarly, development projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions may be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.
Click image to enlarge
Common Questions about SB 743
What does SB 743 not do?
What are the suggested Methods for estimating project VMT under SB 743?
MXD 2.0 accounts for the difference in trip generation between conventional suburban development and location efficient, mixed use projects. It is the product of research sponsored by US EPA and the Transportation Research Board, including analysis of regional travel surveys and verification through case studies and field data. It provides substantial evidence in support of adjustments to ITE trip rates for development projects whose design, content and location verifiably reduce traffic generation. The EPA MXD research examined travel survey data from 239 mixed-use developments across the US and identified the quantifiable trip reducing effects of a series of “D” factors: development density, diversity of uses, design of multimodal access and circulation, distance from transit, destination accessibility, development scale, and demographic characteristics of residents and workers. Its accuracy was verified through traffic counts at over twenty development sites in California and elsewhere. The EPA MXD method was peer reviewed by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the San Diego Association of Governments and the region’s traffic engineers, and other organizations. In separate research, TRB Report NCHRP 684 collected mode-specific access data at three substantial mixed use development sites and identified factors affecting traffic generation including mix of land uses and their proximity to one another. The two sets of research results were then combined into a single MXD 2.0 method described in an APA Planning Advisory Service. Supported by evidence from 266 sites across the U.S., MXD 2.0 explains 97% percent of the variation in trip generation among mixed use developments. It all but eliminates the ITE traffic overestimation, more accurately assessing the impacts of mixed use projects and related forms of infill, compact, and transit-oriented development. MXD 2.0 trip generation estimates can be translated into project VMT using any of the following sources of trip length data:
- Residential and non-residential trip length information from the regional MPO for the traffic analysis zone in which the project is located.
- US EPA Smart Location Database estimates of worker trip length for the Census Block Group in which the project is located.
- The Urban Footprint scenario planning tool, used in the Statewide Vision California study supported by the California Strategic Growth Council and presently undergoing focused implementation in the Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego regions.
CAPCOA Quantification The California Air Pollution Control Officers (CAPCOA) report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures provides procedures for calculating the VMT and GHG effects of 50 project-level transportation strategies. Compared with the MXD 2.0 method, the CAPCOA calculations do not as effectively account for development form and location (density, diversity, design, distance from transit, destination accessibility, development scale and demographics). However, the CAPCOA effectiveness estimates for the remaining forty-plus strategies can be applied in conjunction with the MXD trip reduction estimates to account for a broad variety of project characteristics and mitigation strategies, including:
- Affordable and below market rate housing
- Bike and pedestrian network improvements
- Electric vehicle parking
- Parking pricing and supply limits
- Voluntary and required commute trip reduction programs
- Ride-sharing and car-sharing programs
- Subsidized or discounted transit
- Telecommuting and alternative work schedules
- Transit access and system improvements
- Road pricing/management
The CAPCOA report provides step-by-step instructions on each measure, allowing the calculations to be readily applied in spreadsheet form. It also provides important guidance on combining the effects of different strategies without double-counting and on insuring the total VMT effect is within bounds shown to be achievable in different California urbanization and transit availability settings. http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
Are there recent publications on how to forecast VMT?
Fehr & Peers contributed to the Handbook for Estimating Transportation Greenhouse Gases for Integration into the Planning Process published by FHWA last year. FHWA describes the publication as “..a handbook designed to provide information on how to analyze on-road greenhouse gas emissions at the state and regional level, and how to incorporate those analyses into transportation planning efforts.” The handbook is actually quite a bit more than that because it also includes substantial detail on how to forecast VMT given its importance in mobile GHG emissions. Key information includes step by step calculations and summary strengths and weaknesses for each VMT forecasting method.
Click here to go to the handbook
Key CEQA Changes in the Draft SB 743 Guidelines
VMT as Predominant Measure
Using VMT, for CEQA analysis, will change the focus of transportation impact studies especially with regards to mitigation. LOS impact analysis concentrated mitigation on expanding the external transportation network to accommodate new projects. SB 743 compliant studies that identify potential VMT impacts will likely focus on how to modify the project to minimize VMT.
- LOS prohibited as the sole basis for impact significance immediately when guidelines take effect (~ early 2017).
- Appendix F modified to incorporate potential measures to reduce development project related VMT.
- Appendix G modified to recognize new focus on transportation impacts related to VMT, induced travel, and traffic safety.
The addition of general purpose highway or arterial lanes in urban areas may generally indicate a significant impact due to induced travel effects. Managed lanes, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation projects generally not expected to result in significant transportation impacts.
Development projects that result in automobile VMT per capita greater than 15% below existing (i.e. baseline) city-wide or regional values for similar land use types may indicate a significant impact. Development projects that locate within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor generally may be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. Development projects that result in net decreases in VMT, compared to existing conditions, may be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. Land use plans consistent with an SCS or that achieve similar reductions in VMT as projected to result from the SCS generally may be considered to have a less than significant impact. Key consideration: Will the ‘threshold guidance’ in the Technical Advisory be construed by the courts as state required thresholds?
In addition to project effects on VMT, lead agencies may also consider localized effects on transportation safety. Including safety has implications for tort liability risk and significant findings after mitigation. If an agency pursues the addition of safety to their CEQA transportation impact analysis, these factors should be considered.
Multimodal Safety – The New Kid on the Block? Traffic safety has not been a traditional topic of focus under CEQA. Well, that may change due to SB 743. The new law is elevating safety in CEQA transportation impact analysis and could accelerate the evolution of safety analysis along the way. So, what exactly happened? Click here for more.
Downloads & Links
Additional Research on LOS
Transportation impact analyses in California have largely focused on auto LOS, which measures transportation network performance only from a driver’s perspective. This document, authored by Fehr & Peers Principal Ron Milam, explains the limitations of this traditional analysis approach and provides additional methods for a more complete analysis.