CALIFORNIA URBAN INFILL TRIP GENERATION STUDY. Luke Schwartz Kimley-Horn and Associates

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA URBAN INFILL TRIP GENERATION STUDY Luke Schwartz Kimley-Horn and Associates

2 Overview What is the CA Urban Infill Trip Generation Study Why was this study undertaken? Research methodology Trip generation findings Challenges and lessons learned Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

3 Partners Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation Special Thanks to Ms. Terry Parker Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland Economic Planning Systems, Berkeley ITE Public Agency TAC: BART San Diego Association of Governments Southern California Association of Governments Metropolitan Transportation Commission Cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego Air quality districts

4 What is the California Urban Infill Trip Generation Study? Develop methodology for developing trip generation rates for land uses in urban areas of California Establish a California urban land use trip generation database Supplement Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) published rates Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

5 Why Are We Doing This? Data to support transportation planning for: Urban infill development Higher densities and broader range of housing types Mixed use and transitoriented development Environments where walking, bicycling and transit are attractive and viable forms of transportation Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

6 Why Not Use Current Data? ITE trip generation data: Reflects isolated suburban land uses Little or no transit service Little or no pedestrian and bike access Free and ample parking Low mix of uses Sites selected for ease of data collection Not applicable to urban cores Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

7 Research Approach Phase 1 (Completed 2008): Develop methodology for: Identifying and describing urban infill areas Collecting trip generation rate data in urban infill area Pilot Study to establish preliminary trip generation rate database Phase 2 (Completed 2009): Collect and report additional trip generation data for expanded set of land uses

8 Defining Urban Infill Areas As defined by ITE s Parking Generation Area Types Central Business District, Central City, Not Downtown Suburban Center Area As defined in Proposed Recommended Practice for Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities Context Zones General Urban Urban Center

9 The Transect Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company

10 Where was data collected? All metropolitan areas of California Los Angeles Area San Francisco Bay Area Sacramento Area San Diego Area Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

11 Criteria for Selecting Sites in UIA s Transit Criteria: Proximity (<1/3 mile of rail transit/<1,200ft of BRT corridor) Headways (< 15 minutes for at least 5 hrs/day) Density Criteria: Residential (10.0 units/acre) Non-Residential (FAR>1.0 & employment >35.0/acre) Additional Criteria: Site maturity Destination retail excluded Practicality of collecting data Ability to gain permission Located within walkable district Below market rate housing excluded

12 Census Blocks Meeting Density Criteria Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

13 GIS Mapping Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

14 Site Identification Aerial Photography Identification by TAC Members Property Developers Professional Organizations and Associations Top-down approach Site visits

15 Land Uses Studied 1. Common urban land uses consistent with ITE categories 2. Land uses with frequent applications for development review demand for empirical data 3. Propensity for shifting drivers to other modes 4. Beneficial to the revitalization of urban areas, lack of accurate data may create barriers

16 Land Uses Studied Mid and High Rise Apartments Mid and High Rise Townhome/Condominium General Office Retail (not destination retail) Fast Food w/o Drive-Through and Quality Restaurants Pharmacy/Drugstore Hotel Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

17 Data Collection Methodology ITE methodology not appropriate in urban areas Traffic counts do not capture trips by. People who park in off-site facilities People who park on street People who park nearby and link trips with other uses Intercept surveys and statistical analysis Mode of travel Other travel characteristics Demographic information

18 Intercept Surveys Short customized surveys Professional survey firm Kimley-Horn staff on-site counting all people entering/exiting building

19 Data Collection Random sampling approach: Pedestrians entering/exiting site = population Survey determines mode of travel Mode share applied to population Intercept Survey Summary PM PEAK Time Period In Out Total 4:00-5: :15-5: :30-5: :45-5: :00-6: Do you work here? Total Proportion Applied Yes 70 81% 88 No 16 19% 20 TOTAL % 108 Is this your primary destination? Total Proportion Applied Yes 75 87% 94 No 11 13% 14 TOTAL % 108 How did you get/leave here? Total Proportion Applied Drove alone 57 65% 70 Drove others 7 8% 9 Rode as passenger, parked nearby 0 0% 0 Rode as passenger, was dropped off 4 5% 5 Taxi 0 0% 0 Other 0 0% 0 Subtotal - Automobile Trips 68 77% 83 Bus 6 7% 7 Train/Trolley 14 16% 17 Subtotal - Transit Trips 20 23% 25 Bicycle 0 0% 0 Walk 0 0% 0 Subtotal - Non Auto/Transit Trips 0 0% 0 TOTAL % 108 Trip Rate Derived from Survey Independent Variable Trip Gen Enter Exit Square Footage % 81% Comparison with ITE Trip Gen Enter Exit ITE Average Trip Rate % 83% Trip Rate Derived from ITE Equation

20 Overview of Surveyed Sites 27 Total Sites Surveyed Residential 11 Non-residential 16 San Francisco 5 sites Berkeley 12 sites San Diego 4 sites Oakland 2 sites Los Angeles 3 sites Santa Monica 1 site Pasadena 1 site Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Data collection efforts postponed in Fall 2008 due economic downtown

21 Preliminary Findings Residential Sites Trip Generation Rates

22 Preliminary Findings Residential Sites Mid-Rise Apartments PM Peak Hour Trips ITE vs. Observed

23 Preliminary Findings Residential Sites Mode Split

24 Preliminary Findings Non-Residential Sites Trip Generation Rates

25 Preliminary Findings Non-Residential Sites General Office Use: PM Peak Hour Trips ITE vs. Observed

26 Preliminary Findings Non-Residential Sites Mode Split

27 Preliminary Findings Urban University Town Trip Generation Trip Generation Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

28 Preliminary Findings Urban University Town Trip Generation Mode Split Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

29 Key Conclusions Observed trip generation rates for urban infill developments are generally lower (in some cases significantly) when compared to ITE trip generation rates This study establishes a California urban infill trip generation database, but additional data points and are required to further substantiate this conclusion through statistical analysis Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

30 Challenges and Lessons Learned Permission to survey sites Lack of success approaching individual sites Used top down approach: Organizations (e.g., downtown associations) Public agencies Developers Training surveyors Labor intensive approach Difficult to obtain sufficient intercept surveys for some uses Methodology challenging for average daily trip generation

31 Further Information / Ongoing Research Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports available via Caltrans website: Collaboration with NCHRP Infill Development Trip Generation for Traffic Impact Analysis Research Methodology adjusts ITE Rates