Traffic Study Guidelines

Guidelines for
Traffic Impact Studies
Department of Transportation and Public Works & Permit and Resource

Management Department │County of Sonoma │May 2016
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

i
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
II. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES OVERVIEW ......................................................................... 1
III. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. 4
IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROTOCOL ............................................................................ 6
V. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODS......................................................................... 7
1. Study Area: ......................................................................................................... 7
2. Methodology: ...................................................................................................... 7
Data Collection ................................................................................................... 7
Trip Distribution................................................................................................... 7
Trip Generation................................................................................................... 7
Level of Service & Operation Analysis ................................................................ 8
3. Future Roadway Improvements:......................................................................... 9
4. Future Land Use: ................................................................................................ 9
VI. THRESHOLDS ................................................................................................................. 10
1. On-site Roads and Frontage Improvements: .................................................... 10
2. Parking:............................................................................................................. 10
3. Emergency Access: .......................................................................................... 10
4. Alternative Transportation:................................................................................ 10
5. Road Safety: ..................................................................................................... 10
6. Vehicle Queues: ............................................................................................... 10
7. Signal Warrants: ............................................................................................... 10
8. Turn Lanes:....................................................................................................... 10
9. Sight Lines: ....................................................................................................... 11
10. County Intersection Operations: ....................................................................... 11
11. County Roadway Operations: ........................................................................... 11
State Highways: ................................................................................................................... 12
Mitigation Measures: ............................................................................................................ 12
VII. PEER REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 13
VIII.ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................................... 13
A. STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES ............................................ 15
B. GENERAL ORGANIZATION OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ....................... 18

ii
1. Introduction and Summary.......................................................................... 18
2. Background Information: Proposed Development (Site and Nearby) ........ 18
3. Analysis of Existing Conditions without Project .......................................... 19
4. Analysis of Future Conditions without Project............................................. 19
5. Trip Generation........................................................................................... 20
6. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment ..................................................... 20
7. Analysis of Existing Conditions plus Project ............................................... 20
8. Analysis of Future Conditions plus Project ................................................. 21
9. Recommended Improvements.................................................................... 21
10. Conclusions .............................................................................................. 21
11. Appendices............................................................................................... 22
Cover Photo: Adobe Road, Sonoma County, CA

iii

iv

1
I. INTRODUCTION
The Permit and Resource Management Department (PRMD) and the Department of
Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) are both responsible for the review and conditioning
of private development projects. Traffic related conditions of approval must be based on an
analysis of the potential traffic impacts that establishes a reasonable nexus between the
impacts of the project and the required improvements or conditions. Conditions requiring traffic
improvements must be roughly proportional to the impact of the project and/or reflect a fair
share contribution toward improvements related to cumulative impacts. Recent case law has
determined that conformance with adopted standards and/or payment of impact fees may not, in
and of itself, provide sufficient mitigation.
II. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES OVERVIEW
Roads are a critical public resource and constitute a major investment of the public’s money.
Traffic impacts caused by new development – a reduction in the traffic carrying capacity of the
highways, more crashes and traffic congestion – can be very costly for state and local
governments, as well as the broader community.
The impact of any proposed development on transportation system performance, whether it is

small or large, depends on the number of trips generated by the proposed development, the
location of the connection(s) to the transportation system, and the routes taken to and from the
site. This impact is quantified by preparing a traffic impact study (TIS).
A TIS assesses the impact of a proposed development on the transportation system and
recommends improvements to lessen or negate those impacts. It shall (i) identify any traffic
issues associated with access from the site to the existing transportation network, (ii) outline
solutions to potential problems, (iii) address the sufficiency of the existing and future
transportation network, and (iv) present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed
development. This assists public officials and developers to balance the interrelationships
between efficient traffic movements with necessary land access. These studies are a critical
component of the development review process, including but not limited to studies required
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The complexities of a traffic impact analysis vary and depend upon the complexity of the
proposed development, trip generation of the proposal, and the existing and future
transportation network.

2
A TIS prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer, licensed to practice in the State of California,
may be required when it appears that the criteria or any of the thresholds of significance
identified in these guidelines may be exceeded. A TIS may be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer that has demonstrated appropriate expertise to the satisfaction of DTPW and is
licensed to practice in the State of California. The TIS and any required peer review shall be
provided at the sole expense of the applicant. Applications for development permits are
considered incomplete until all required information is submitted and accepted as accurate and
complete by PRMD. Peer review of traffic reports is required on all projects affecting State
highways and may be required of any traffic study submitted by the applicant at the discretion of
PRMD or DTPW. Alternatively, the County may contract directly for a TIS on behalf of an
applicant and charge the cost to the applicant without requiring a peer review.
For projects that have languished and/or are being resubmitted, all previous traffic studies
relating to the development that are more than two (2) years old will have to be updated. A
previous traffic study that is less than two (2) years old for the development under review will
only be acceptable if the context in the general area has not changed significantly (i.e. new
development, changes in roadways, and/or land use or area plans have not occurred since
preparation of the report).
The format and content of a TIS should follow the outline provided in Attachment A, unless a
different scope of work is approved by both PRMD and DTPW. If the project affects a State
highway, Caltrans minimum requirements must also be included as defined in Caltrans’ Guide
for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (A copy of the Caltrans guide can be obtained from:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/).
Prior to the commencement of a TIS it is strongly encouraged to consult with PRMD and DTPW
staff to determine the type of TIS needed, the study area, conditions to be evaluated, and
methodology to be used. For winery related developments, the applicant should submit the
winery trip generation form provided by PRMD for preliminary determination of the project’s
potential trip generation. The form should match what is proposed in the project application and
description.
Trip generation rates from the most recent version of the Trip Generation Manual published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) should be used in preparing the preliminary trip
generation estimate. Local trip generation rates from comparable uses may be used in place of
the ITE trip generation rates for land uses not included in the Trip Generation Manual. Wineries,
wine tasting facilities, and distilleries are examples of land uses not included in the Trip

3
Generation Manual. Consult with DTPW staff regarding trip generation rates for wineries with
tasting room(s).
Prior to use of local trip generation rates in a TIS, all data and assumptions for local trip
generations rates shall be submitted to PRMD and DTPW staff for review and approval.
However, the critical peak hour may vary from location to location and the trip generation rates
should be chosen to match the conditions.
The following table provides a preliminary method for determining whether a TIS is required and
what type of study should be completed based on a preliminary trip generation estimate of
project traffic for the critical peak hour. DTPW and PRMD staff may require a traffic study to
address specific issues related to a project’s access, on-site circulation, parking or other issues
that arise during the review process, regardless of the preliminary method used in the attached
tables.

4
III. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
Criteria1 Yes No Type of Traffic Analysis Required
A. Is the proposed project located on or

If Yes, answer A1; If No, answer Section B.
accessed from a State Highway?
1. Is the state highway or area

If Yes, then a Full Traffic Study is required.
intersections currently or projected
to operate at LOS D or worse? If No, then answer A2.
2. Will the project generate over 10 If Yes, then a Focused Traffic Study may be
Critical Peak Hour trips? required.
B. Is the project located in a study area

where one or more streets are currently or If Yes, then a Full Traffic Study is required.
projected to operate at LOS D or worse?
Is the project located in a study area where

one or more intersections are currently or If No, then answer Section C.
projected to operate at LOS E or worse?
C. Is the proposed project located in a study

area where streets are currently or
projected to operate at LOS C or better? Is If Yes, then a Trip Generation Analysis is
the proposed project located in a study required and respond to questions C1
area where intersections are currently or through C6 below.
projected to operate at LOS D or better?
1. Is the proposed project anticipated

to generate less than 10 vehicle-
If Yes, no further traffic analysis is required.
trips in the critical peak hour?

to generate more than 10 but less If Yes, only a Focused Traffic Study is
than 25 vehicle-trips in the critical required.
peak hour?
1
Criteria applies to all controlled intersections except for driveways and minor side streets that have less than 30 vehicle trips
per hour per approach or exclusive left turn movement.

5

to generate more than 25 vehicle- If Yes, conduct a Full Traffic Study.
trips in the critical peak hour?
4. Is the project located in an area

If Yes, a Focused Traffic Study is required.
with potential hazard conditions?

to have a significant effect on the If Yes, a Full Traffic Study is required for
environment and may require an incorporation into an EIR.
Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)?
6. Is the proposed project not easily

If Yes, contact the Permit and Resource
categorized into one of the above
Management Department (PRMD) and the
categories?
Department of Transportation and Public
Works (DTPW) for assistance.

6
IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROTOCOL
A meeting with staff from PRMD and DTPW is strongly recommended prior to beginning the
study to define the required study area and scope of work. Consultation with Caltrans is
required if the project is located on or near a State highway. Topics for discussion at an initial
meeting could include definition of the study area, location and timing of traffic counts, trip
generation and trip generation rates, directional distribution of traffic, trip assignment,
intersection analysis and methods of projection of build-out volumes.
The TIS shall include analysis of local roadways and intersections located in the project vicinity,
including all intersections which are operating near or below County General Plan level of
service thresholds. Traffic studies should also identify and evaluate the nearest access to State
highways or nearest major County roadway, and roadways from the proposed project to the
nearest State highway or major County roadway.
Revisions to the TIS shall be made when required by PRMD or DTPW. The need for revisions is
based on completeness, accuracy, consistency with standards, impact evaluation methodology
and assumptions, and compatibility of the access or development plan, and/or other
considerations.
Five (5) copies of the TIS shall be submitted to PRMD and one (1) copy shall be submitted to
DTPW-Land Development. The report will be referred to Caltrans and other agencies (i.e.
SCTA, affected cities) for comment as warranted. Once accepted by PRMD and DTPW, the TIS
will be incorporated into the environmental document for the project. The environmental
document will then be made available for public review and circulated to responsible agencies
prior to the hearing date.
The Department shall be free to use an approved TIS for any purpose whatsoever.

7
V. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODS
1. Study Area: Traffic studies shall identify the study area including the nearest access to
State highways or major County roadways in the vicinity and roadways to/from the proposed
project to the nearest state highway of major County roadway. If the area is significantly
affected by existing regional traffic patterns, then a larger study area may be needed to
adequately address the traffic issues.
Maps and graphs shall be to scale and should include dimensioned road geometrics (e.g.,
width, radii, etc.). Intersection geometrics shall include bus stops, parking areas, pedestrian
crossings, driveway restrictions, etc.
2. Methodology:
Data Collection
Where required, traffic counts shall be collected during the estimated peak period or time of
year for the proposed project, during clear environmental conditions, during regular school
session, with no adjacent construction activities or special events. Any deviation must be
approved by DTPW staff. Depending on the proposed location and use, weekday daily, AM
and PM peak hour, and/or weekend daily and peak hour counts may be required.
Trip Distribution
Standard procedure for forecasting future trip distribution upon County traffic networks will
require the preparer to utilize the most recent version of the County wide transportation
forecasting model, which is maintained and updated by the Sonoma County Transportation
Authority (SCTA), as a basis for future trip assignments. This process will normally require
coordination with SCTA to obtain future roadway forecasts.
More detailed information such trip origin/destination studies, marketing studies, employee
address lists, or other information concerning origin of trip attractions to the proposed
development may be used to check trip distribution projections. A map showing the
percentage of project traffic on each street must be provided as part of the graphic material.
Trip Generation
Traffic studies shall utilize the most current ITE trip generation rates or other measured
counts as approved by DTPW. If the development is staged, the trip generation related to
full development shall be used for the analysis.

8
The preparer should consider the selection of the weighted average rate or the fitted curve
for the chosen ITE land use code when determining the project’s trip generation. Selection
of either the weighted average rate or the fitted curve should be justified and submitted to
DTPW for review.
Local trip generation rates may be used in place of trip generation rates in the Trip
Generation Manual. This would apply to land uses not included in the Trip Generation
Manual. Wineries, wine tasting facilities, and distilleries are examples of land uses not
included in the Trip Generation Manual. Prior to use of local trip generation rates in a TIS, all
data and assumptions for local trip generation rates shall be submitted to PRMD and DTPW
staff for review and approval. Consult with DTPW staff regarding trip generation rates for
wineries with tasting room(s).
Pass-by trip reductions consider site trips drawn from the existing traffic stream on an
adjacent street, recognizing that trips drawn to a site would otherwise already traverse the
adjacent street regardless of existence of the site. Pass-by trip reductions allow a
percentage reduction in the forecast of trips otherwise added to the adjacent street from the
proposed development. The reduction applies only to volumes on adjacent streets, not to
ingress or egress volumes at entrances serving the proposed site. Unless otherwise
approved by DTPW, the pass-by rates utilized shall be those reported in the most recent
version of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Pass by rates shall only be used upon DTPW
approval.
Internal capture rates consider site trips “captured” within a mixed use development,
recognizing that trips from one land use can access another land use within a site
development without having to access the adjacent street system. Internal trip reductions
and modal split assumptions require analytical support and approval from DTPW.
Daily trips may be reduced by allowing for public transit when a transit stop is located within
one thousand (1,000) feet of the development. The maximum reduction allowed is five (5)
percent. Transit reductions do not apply to hotels, restaurants, retail, or financial uses.
Level of Service & Operation Analysis

Methodologies from the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual shall be used
to determine operating conditions on roadway segments, and signalized and unsignalized
intersections. Alternatives to the Highway Capacity Manual methodologies shall be
approved by DTPW prior to use in a TIS. At intersections controlled by a traffic signal,

9
existing traffic signal timing data shall be used for all analysis conditions and is available
from DTPW or Caltrans. For unsignalized intersections the study shall provide the overall
intersection operating condition as well as the operating condition for the worst movement.
Analysis of traffic conditions using a microsimulation model may be required by DPTW. A

minimum of ten (10) average model runs, excluding any outlying/anomalous results, shall be
required when microsimulation is used.
Calculations, assumptions, and supporting data for the conclusions presented shall be
submitted as part of the TIS. The calculations shall be comprehensive and easily
understood.
3. Future Roadway Improvements: All assumed circulation network improvements used in

the analysis shall be clearly stated in the report. Planned roadway improvements shall only
be assumed completed for use in the TIS if the improvement project is fully funded and
programmed for construction. The TIS must identify the specific improvements, funding
source, and time-frame for completion of any included roadway improvements.
4. Future Land Use: Projection of future land uses and development should be made in
consultation with planning staff at PRMD. A minimum 10-year growth projection is required
for an interim evaluation (if necessary) and a long-term growth projection is required for
cumulative impact analysis consistent with the General Plan. Long-term projected traffic
volumes shall be developed using either the most recent version of the County wide
transportation forecasting model from SCTA, or a list of projects approved but not yet
constructed, projects that are pending approvals, as well as general projections of growth
within or affecting the study area.
Data on projects in the study area that have been approved but not yet constructed, projects
that are pending approvals, as well as general projections of growth within or affecting the
study area is available from PRMD. A tabulation of land uses by type and parcel number
with the respective trip generation rates must be identified.

10
VI. THRESHOLDS
A project would have a significant traffic impact if it results in any of the following conditions:
1. On-site Roads and Frontage Improvements: Proposed on-site circulation and street
frontage would not meet the County’s minimum standards for roadway or driveway design,
or potentially result in safety hazards, as determined by the County in consultation with a
registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer.
2. Parking: Proposed on-site parking supply does not meet County standards and does not
adequately accommodate parking demand.
3. Emergency Access: The project site would have inadequate emergency access.
4. Alternative Transportation: The project provides inadequate facilities for alternative

transportation modes (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, pedestrian pathways) and/or the
project creates potential conflicts with the County’s Complete Streets Policy, other adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
5. Road Safety: Road design features that do not meet standards (e.g., sharp curves or
skewed intersections) or any perceived incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment, major
bicycle route, rail or pedestrian crossings).
6. Vehicle Queues: Project causes or exacerbates 95th percentile turning movement queues
exceeding available turn pocket capacity.2
7. Signal Warrants: The addition of the project's vehicle or pedestrian traffic causes an
intersection to meet or exceed Caltrans or CA-MUTCD signal warrant criteria.
8. Turn Lanes: The addition of project traffic causes an intersection to meet or exceed criteria
for provision of a right or left turn lane on an intersection approach.3
2
Based upon HCS analysis methodology for signalized intersections and formula contained in November 2001 ITE Article
(Estimation of Queue Length at Unsignalized Intersections) for side street stop sign controlled intersections, or its equivalent.
3
Based upon Caltrans criteria for state highways and Intersection Channelization Design Guide (NCHRP Report 279,
Transportation Research Board, 1985) for County roadways.

11
9. Sight Lines: The project constructs an unsignalized intersection (including driveways)

and/or adds traffic to an existing unsignalized intersection approach that does not have
adequate sight lines based upon Caltrans criteria for State highway intersections and
AASHTO criteria for County roadway intersections.
10. County Intersection Operations: The County level of service standard for County
intersection operations is to maintain a Level of Service D or better pursuant to General Plan
Policy CT-4.2. The project would have a significant traffic impact if the project's traffic would
cause an intersection currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better)
to operate at an unacceptable level (LOS E or worse).
If the intersection currently operates or is projected to operate below the County standard,
the project's impact is considered significant and cumulatively considerable if it causes the
average delay to increase by five seconds or more.4 The delay will be determined by
comparing intersection operations with and without the project's traffic for both the existing
baseline and projected future conditions.
The above criteria applies to all controlled intersections except for driveways and minor side
streets that have less than 30 vehicle trips per hour per approach or exclusive left turn
movement.
11. County Roadway Operations: The County level of service standard for County roadway
operations is to maintain a Level of Service C pursuant to General Plan Policy CT-4.1; or, for
specific roadway segments, the level of service standard adopted in the General Plan Figure
CT-3. The project would have a significant traffic impact if the project's traffic would cause a
road currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better) to operate at an
unacceptable level (LOS D or worse).
If a road segment currently operates or is projected to operate below the County standard,
the project's impact is considered significant and cumulatively considerable if it causes the
average speed to decrease by the amounts shown in Table 1. The change will be
determined by comparing roadway conditions with and without the project's traffic for both
the existing baseline and projected future conditions.
4
Average delay shall be used as defined in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual for the signalized and all-
way stop intersections and delay for any approach or turning movement shall be used for side street stop sign controlled
intersections.

12
TABLE 1: TRAFFIC IMPACT THRESHOLDS FOR
2-LANE COUNTY HIGHWAYS AND RURAL CLASS 1 ROADWAYS
WITH LEVEL OF SERVICE BELOW LOS C
If the Existing or Then the existing The project impact is considered

Projected LOS average travel speed is significant if the decrease in average
5
without project is: (miles per hour [mph]) : travel speed associated with the
project is:
D 40-45 mph 2 mph
E 40 mph or less 1 mph
F 0.5 mph
These criteria apply to Rural Class 1 roadways. Other roadways will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
State Highways: 6 Caltrans' general level of service policy on State highways is to maintain
the level of service at the transition between LOS C and LOS D. However, level of service
goals for specific Caltrans facilities should be taken from transportation planning documents
for that facility. A project would have a significant impact if the project traffic would cause the
operation of a State highway to operate below LOS C. If a State highway currently operates
or is projected to operate below the standard, the project's impact is considered significant
and cumulatively considerable if it does not maintain the existing "measure of effectiveness".
Measures of effectiveness are: (a) control delay per vehicle for signalized intersections; (b)
average control delay per vehicle for unsignalized intersections; (c) average speed for two
lane highways, and (d) density for multi-lane highways.7
Mitigation Measures: In order to reduce project impacts to levels of insignificance, the

proposed mitigation measures must result in post-development affected intersections and
roadways that have an LOS that is no worse than the County General Plan LOS standard
5
The year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual does not provide an average travel speed breakpoint between LOS E and LOS F
operation.
6
State Highway thresholds are based on Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, State of California
Department of Transportation, December 2002. The most recent version of this handbook may be found on the internet.
(http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/)
7
Measures of effectiveness are defined in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council.

13
for roadways and intersections, reduce safety impacts to insignificance by bringing the site
up to Caltrans or AASHTO design standards, and provide adequate parking and alternative
transportation facilities consistent with County plans and policies. The scope of the
mitigation measures must reduce the project impacts below the identifiable thresholds
mentioned.
The payment of County wide traffic impact fees in and of itself may not be adequate to
mitigate a project’s local impacts if the existing facilities are already below standard, and the
required improvements are not fully funded or programmed to be operational at the time of
project completion. The timing of the mitigation measure implementation may require
construction of off-site improvements by the developer using a Reimbursement Agreement
to pay for any oversized facilities associated with the public share of the improvement
pursuant to Section 26-670 of the Sonoma County Code. Traffic impact fees do not address
specific impacts related to a particular project. Payment of the traffic impact fee only
mitigates or addresses cumulative countywide impacts related to projects that are
programmed or listed to be funded by the fees on file with DTPW.
The project’s contribution to cumulative impacts must also be addressed in proportion to the
project’s impact. A proportional fair share contribution to a traffic improvement related to a
cumulative impact may be required based on the “Methodology for Calculating Equitable
Mitigation Measures” included in Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies as referenced above.
Mitigation measures for both project impacts and cumulative impacts must be implemented
prior to occurrence of the impact. An analysis of the timing, funding and responsibilities for
implementation of mitigation measures should be included in the traffic study.
VII. PEER REVIEW
The County may require a peer review of any TIS submitted by an applicant. The full cost of any
traffic studies, required revisions, supplemental reports or peer reviews shall be borne by the
applicant. Peer review of traffic studies are required on all projects affecting a State highway.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Standards for Traffic Impact Studies

B. General Organization of a Traffic Impact Study
C. Complete Streets Policy of Sonoma County

14

15
A. STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES
The project applicant shall retain a registered Traffic Engineer who is licensed to practice in the
State of California. A TIS may be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer that has demonstrated
appropriate expertise to the satisfaction of DTPW and is licensed to practice in the State of
California. Said Engineer shall conduct objective qualitative and/or quantitative analysis, and
submit a written traffic impact study that includes each of the following areas that apply to the
proposed project. Please note that when a concern is identified, the Engineer shall propose a
solution and identify funding for the solution.
Frontage Improvements: Identify and discuss all aspects of the road(s) fronting or providing
access to the proposed project which do not meet the County’s minimum standards for
roadways or driveways.
Parking: Discuss whether the parking associated with the proposed project meets County
standards and adequately accommodates parking demand.
Emergency Access: Discuss proposed site designs that (may) result in inadequate emergency
access.
Road Safety: Discuss any road design features that do not meet standards (e.g., sharp curves
or skewed intersections) or any perceived incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment, major
bicycle route, rail or pedestrian crossings).
Vehicle Queues: Identify situations where either the addition of project traffic causes or
exacerbates 95th percentile turning movement queues exceeding available turn pocket
capacity.
Signal Warrants: Identify situations where the addition of project vehicles or pedestrian traffic
will cause an intersection to meet or exceed Caltrans or CA-MUTCD signal warrant criteria.
Turn Lanes: Identify situations where the addition of project traffic at an intersection, including
project driveways, causes an intersection to meet or exceed criteria for provision of a right or
left-turn lane on an intersection approach.

16
Sight Distance: Identify situations where the proposed project constructs an unsignalized
intersection (including driveways) and/or adds traffic to an existing un-signalized intersection(s),
including project related driveways that have inadequate sight distance based on Caltrans or
AASHTO criteria. Sight distance for both inbound and outbound project traffic shall be
determined. A vertical profile and horizontal sight distance analysis may be required at the
discretion of DTPW.
Pre-Project Traffic Concerns: Identify and discuss any current traffic problems in the local
area such as high accident locations (if this applies, include a collision diagram(s) and accident
rate analysis) or confusing intersections.
Neighborhood Traffic Sensitivities: Identify and discuss the proximity of adjacent

neighborhoods or other areas that may be perceived as adversely impacted by the proposed
project including parking, loading, and access ways.
Site Driveways: Identify and discuss proposed or existing site driveway(s) that are in close
proximity to other driveways or intersections that are adversely impacted by the proposed
project.
Transit Operations: Identify existing and planned transit facilities and discuss the potential for
the proposed project to enhance or adversely impact transit operations.
Pedestrian & Bicycle Operations: Use the most recent County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
to identify existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian routes in the study area and discuss the
potential for the proposed project to enhance or adversely impact pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Alternative Transportation Policies: Identify and discuss how the proposed project will be
consistent with the County’s Complete Streets Policy. Identify any conflicts with adopted
policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks, etc.).
Truck Operations: When it is anticipated that the number of truck deliveries and service calls
will exceed an average of 10 per day, discuss the ability of the proposed project site design to
adequately handle truck loading demand and traffic circulation. Discuss the potential for
increased wear and tear associated with project truck operations on County roadways, including
a traffic index (TI) analysis.

17
Response to Expressed Concerns: Respond to traffic circulation comments on the proposed

project that have been received by others, including public agencies (e.g., Caltrans, Cities,
SCTA).
Level of Service: Identify existing, projected, and future conditions, including documentation of
all assumptions of land use and planned improvements.
Promotional Events: For projects that plan on promotional events (such as wineries, tasting
rooms, distilleries) the traffic study shall evaluate the impacts of the events on the local
transportation system.

18
B. GENERAL ORGANIZATION OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Traffic studies shall be organized to present all required information using the format, content,
and standards mentioned throughout these guidelines. A consistent format and standard will
provide for easier comparison and evaluation of the report by County staff and decision-making
bodies, thus allowing for quicker review. The TIS must clearly state all assumptions and
references used.
The following is a general expectation of the organization of a TIS, but the required contents
may vary depending on the proposed project.
1. Introduction and Summary
a) Purpose of report and study objectives

b) Executive Summary
i. Site location and study area
ii. Description of the proposed development
iii. Principal findings
iv. Conclusions
v. Recommendations
2. Background Information: Proposed Development (Site and Nearby)
a) List of all future/planned transportation improvements assumed in the analysis 
b) Description of on-site development

i. Description of the parcel
ii. General terrain features
iii. Location within the jurisdiction and region
iv. Current or proposed zoning of the subject property
v. Map of site location showing the proposed development, including all parking and access
driveways, easements and pedestrian access.
vi. Days and hours of operation
vii. Project purpose or goal and planned completion date or phasing
c) Description of geographic scope and limits of study area
d) Plan at an engineering scale of the existing and proposed site uses
e) Description and map or diagram of nearby uses, including parcel zoning

19
f) Description and map or diagram of existing roadways
g) Description and map or diagram of fully funded and programmed improvements to roadways,
intersections, and other transportation facilities within the study area
3. Analysis of Existing Conditions without Project
a) Collected weekday daily, AM and PM peak hour, and/or weekend daily and peak hour traffic
volumes in the study area, tabulated and presented on diagrams with counts provided in an
appendix
b) Analyses for intersections and roadways identified by DTPW

i. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each
lane group with calculations provided in an appendix
ii. 95th percentile queue length(s) tabulated and compared to existing storage lane lengths
c) Provide analyses of existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s),
tabulated and presented on diagrams 
d) Key road geometric features for roadways serving the proposed development, including
roads, intersections, storage lengths, sharp curves, pavement width, shoulder type and
width, pavement condition, and the existing access to the project site.
e) Posted speed limits within the study area
f) Speed Study (if requested by DTPW) 
g) Collision history and analysis at all study intersections and/or roadway segments
i. A tabulation of collisions and collision rates for at least the previous three years within the
study area
ii. A comparison of the collision rate with the most recent published statewide averages for
similar roads with particular attention to above average crash density and rates
h) Sight distance analysis at all entrances and intersections providing access to project site 
4. Analysis of Future Conditions without Project
a) A listing of approved projects but not yet constructed, projects that are pending approvals,
as well as general projections of growth within or affecting the study area as available from
PRMD
b) Description of and the justification for the method and assumptions used to forecast future weekday
daily, AM and PM peak hour, and/or weekend daily and peak hour traffic volumes in the study area

20
for the horizon year, tabulated and presented on diagrams
c) Analyses for intersections and roadways as identified by DTPW

i. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each
lane group with calculations provided in an appendix
ii. 95th percentile queue length(s) tabulated and compared to existing storage lane lengths
d) Provide analyses of planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s)
tabulated and presented on diagrams 
5. Trip Generation
a) Site trip generation, with tabulated data, including justification for deviations from latest ITE rates,
if appropriate
b) Description and justification of internal capture reductions for mixed use developments and pass-by
trip reductions, if appropriate, including table of calculations used
c) Parking generation analysis
6. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment
a) Description of methodology used to distribute trips, with supporting data
b) Description of the direction of approach for site generated traffic and diagrams showing the traffic
assignment to the road network serving the site for the appropriate time periods
7. Analysis of Existing Conditions plus Project
a) Weekday daily, AM and PM peak hour, and/or weekend daily and peak hour volumes plus project
generated traffic volumes on the highway network in the study area, tabulated and presented on
diagrams

i. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane
group with calculations provided in an appendix
ii. 95th percentile queue length(s) tabulated for project traffic and existing plus project traffic and
compared to existing storage lane lengths
c) When the proposed development would indicate a significant potential for, or impact to, walking,
bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, provide analyses of existing pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s) tabulated and presented on diagrams

21
8. Analysis of Future Conditions plus Project
a) Forecasted weekday daily AM and PM peak hour, and/or weekend daily and peak hour volumes
plus project generated traffic volumes on the highway network in the study area for the horizon
year, tabulated and presented on diagrams

i. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS is presented on diagrams for each lane
group with calculations provided in an appendix
ii. 95th percentile queue length(s) tabulated for project traffic and future plus project traffic and compared
to existing storage lane lengths
c) When the proposed development would indicate significant potential for, or impact to, walking,
bike or transit trips either on- or off-site, provide analyses of existing and planned pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, and bus route(s) and segment(s) tabulated and presented on diagrams 
9. Recommended Improvements
a) Description and diagram of the location, nature, and extent of the proposed improvements and
mitigation measures
b) Descriptions of each recommended improvement and mitigation and the timing, phasing
plan, or required thresholds for implementation
c) If travel demand management (TDM) measures are proposed, description of methodology used to
calculate the effects of TDM measures with supporting data
d) Analyses for all proposed and modified intersections in the study area under existing plus project and
future plus project conditions with proposed improvements and mitigation measures
i. Delay and Level of Service (LOS) are tabulated and LOS presented on diagrams for each lane group
with calculations provided in an appendix
ii. For intersections expected to be signalized, CA-MUTCD Signal Warrant analysis presented
in tabular form with calculations provided in an appendix.
10. Conclusions
a) Clear, concise description of the study findings

22
11. Appendices
a) Data collected for the study including traffic counts (e.g., average daily, peak hour turning
movements) and work sheets
b) Projected land use assumptions (table)
c) Reference sources
d) Study participants and persons contacted
e) Completed winery trip generation form (if applicable)
f) Completed special events trip generation form (if applicable)
g) Trip generation rate data and calculations (if applicable)
Footnotes
 Future/Planned transportation improvements shall only be assumed completed for use in the TIS if the
improvement project is fully funded and programmed for construction.
 Analysis of pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit facilities should be provided in instances where such
facilities and services are present in the area or are planned for the area, or if the development is of a
type that can be expected to generate significant trips of the appropriate type. Generally speaking,
isolated developments in rural areas will not have a need for pedestrian, bicycle, or transit analysis.
 Speed studies may be necessary when there is reason to believe that operational or geometric
conditions on a roadway result in speeds that vary considerably from the posted speed limits.
 Sight distance information and measurements or calculations is necessary at the land use permit
stage of development. Substandard sight distance at locations has resulted in the need for developers to
rebuild roadways, conduct extensive grading operations, or relocate planned entrances.

THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT IS A
CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
County of Sonoma ON FIL E I N TH I S OFF ICE
State of California ATIEST: NOV 17 2015
Item Number: 23
~~~~~~~~~
Date: November 17, 2015 Resolution Number: 15-0463
Jennifer Barrett
r 4/5 Vote Required
Resolution Of The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Sonoma, State Of California,

Reaffirming Its Commitment To Complete Streets Act Of 2008 {AB 1358} And The Legislative
Consistency Of The Sonoma County General Plan Circulation And Transit Element And The
2010 Sonoma County Bicycle And Pedestrian Plan.
Whereas, the term "Complete Streets" describes a comprehensive, integrated

transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel
along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities,
motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation seniors,
children, youth and families; and
Whereas, the County of Sonoma acknowledges the benefits and value for the public
health and welfare of reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing transportation by walking,
bicycling, and public transportation; and
Whereas, the County of Sonoma recognizes that the planning and coordinated
development of Complete Streets infrastructure provides benefits for local governments in the
areas of infrastructure provides benefits for local governments in the areas of infrastructure cost
savings; public health; and environmental sustainability; and
Whereas, the State of California has emphasized the importance of Complete Streets by
enacting the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (also known as AB 1358), which requires
that when cities and counties revise general plans, they identify how they will provide for the
mobility needs of all users of the roadways, as well as through Deputy Directive 64, in which the
California Department of Transportation explained that it "views all transportation
improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in
California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the
transportation system;" and
Whereas, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (known as AB 32) sets a
mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and the Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375) requires emissions
reductions through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and
Resolution #15-0463
Date: November 17, 2015
Page 2
land-use policy, and achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel
by public transit bicycling and walking; and
Whereas, numerous California counties, cities, and agencies have adopted Complete
Streets policies and legislation in order to further the health, safety, welfare, economic vitality,
and environmental well-being of their communities; and
Whereas, on August 26, 2010 the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 10-0636
adopting the 2010 Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and amendments to the
Circulation and Transit and Open Space and Resource Conservation Elements of the Sonoma
County General Plan to incorporate policies in recognition of the 2008 California Complete
Streets Act and the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act; and
Whereas, those amendments to the Circulation and Transit and Open Space and Resource
Conservation Elements of the Sonoma County General Plan brought the County of Sonoma into
compliance with the 2008 Complete Streets Act and allowed Sonoma County to remain eligible
for state and federal funding, as recognized by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC); and
Whereas, the County of Sonoma therefore, in light of the foregoing benefits and
considerations, wishes to improve its commitment to Complete Streets and desires that its
streets form a comprehensive and integrated transportation network promoting safe, equitable,
and convenient travel for all users while preserving flexibility, recognizing community context,
and using the latest and best design guidelines and standards; and
Whereas, the MTC has released new direction requiring a significant rev1s1on to
Circulation Element of a General Plan after January 1, 2011, not before, to comply with the
Complete Streets Act; and
Whereas, this Complete Streets Resolution incorporating MTC's nine required complete
streets elements as incorporated herein by reference as Attachment A, will ensure the County of
Sonoma will remain eligible for state and federal funding, as recognized by the MTC.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors reaffirms
its consistency with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 and makes the following findings:
1. That the previous adoption of Resolution #10-0636 on August 26, 2010

amending the Sonoma County General Plan and adopting the 2010 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan brought the County of Sonoma into compliance with the
Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358).
2. This Resolution and attached Complete Streets Policy reaffirms the County of
Sonoma's commitment to the Complete Streets Act and eligibility for state and
federal funding through the MTC.
3. That the County of Sonoma adopts the Complete Streets Policy attached
Resolution #15-0463
Date: November 17, 2015
Page 3
hereto as Attachment A, and made part of this Resolution, and that said
attachment is hereby approved and adopted.
4. That the next substantial revision of the Sonoma County General Plan
Circulation and Transit Element shall carry forward the existing Complete
Streets policies and principles consistent with the California Complete Streets
Act of 2008 (AB 1358} and with the Complete Streets Policy adopted by this
resolution.
Be it Further Resolved that he Board of Supervisors designates the Clerk of the Board as
the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the office of the
Clerk of the Board, 575 Administration Drive, Room 100-A, Santa Rosa, California 95403.
Supervisors:
Rabbitt: Aye Zane: Aye Gore: Aye Carrillo: Aye Gorin: Aye
Ayes:5 Noes: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0
So Ordered.
Attachment A
This Complete Streets Policy was adopted by Resolution No. 15-0463 by the County of Sonoma Board of
Supervisors on November 17, 2015.
Complete Streets Policy of Sonoma County
A. Complete Streets Principles
1. Complete Streets Serving All Users. The County of Sonoma expresses its commitment to
creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient
travel along and across streets (including streets, road, highways, bridges, and other portions of
the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that
serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities,
motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operator of public transportation, seniors,
children, youth and families.
2. Context Sensitivity. In planning and implementing streets projects, the departments of
agencies of the County of Sonoma shall maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both
residential and business districts, as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas, and shall work
with residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues.
Improvements that will be considered include sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle
routes, paved solders, street trees and landscaping, planting strips, accessible curb ramps,
crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facilities,
public transportation stops and facilities, transit priority signalization, and other features
assisting in the provision of safe travel for all users, such as traffic calming circles, transit bulb
outs, and road diets, and those features identified in the 2010 Sonoma County Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan.
3. Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by All Departments. All relevant departments and
agencies of the County of Sonoma shall work towards making Complete Streets practices a
routine part of everyday operations, approach every relevant project, program, and practice as
an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network for all categories of users,
and work in coordination with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to maximize
opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation. The following projects
provide opportunities: pavement resurfacing, restriping, accessing above and underground
utilities, signalization operations or modifications, and maintenance of landscaping/related
features.
4. All Projects and Phases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable reasonably safe
travel along and across the right of way for each category of users shall be incorporated into all
planning, funding, design, approval, and implementation processes for any construction,
reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations, alteration, or repair of streets (including
streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions ofthe transportation system), except that
specific infrastructure for a given category of users may be excluded if an exemption is approved
via the process set for in C.1 of this policy.
B. Implementation
1. Plan Consultation and Consistency. Maintenance, planning, and design of projects affecting the
transportation system shall be consistent with the local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal,
and other relevant plans, except that where such consistency cannot be achieved without
negative consequences, consistency shall not be required in the head of the relevant
department provides written approval explaining the basis of such deviation. Such deviations
shall be presented to the Sonoma County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC}
early in the planning and design stage, to ensure the BPAC has an opportunity to provide
comments and recommendations.
2. Street Network/Connectivity. As feasible, the County of Sonoma shall incorporate Complete
Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of users and to
create employment, with the particular goal of creating a connected network of activities
accommodating each category of users, and increasing connectivity across jurisdictional
boundaries and for existing and anticipated future areas of travel origination or destination.
3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Consultant. Transportation projects shall be
reviewed by the BPAC early in the planning and design stage, to provide the BPAC an
opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding Complete Streets features
to be incorporated into the project.
4. Evaluation. All relevant agencies or departments shall perform evaluations of how well the
streets and transportation network of the County of Sonoma are serving each category of users
by collecting baseline data and collecting follow up data on a regular basis.
C. Exceptions
Complete streets principles and practices will be included in street construction, reconstruction,
repaving, and rehabilitation projects, as well as other plans, specifications and manuals, except
in one or more of the following circumstances:
1. A project involves only ordinary or emergency maintenance activities such as cleaning,

sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, or pothole filling, or when interim measures are
implemented to preserve assets in serviceable condition.
2. A project would be infeasible due to the excessive and disproportionate costs of establishing a
bikeway, walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project.
The Director of Public Works and the Director of the Permit and Resource Management
Departments shall jointly determine if the construction is not feasible or cost effective because
of significant or adverse environmental constraints to waterways, flood plains, native
vegetation, wetlands or other habitat areas for sensitive species or due to potential impacts on
neighboring land uses, including impacts and costs of right of way acquisitions.
Exceptions shall be in written form documenting the reasons and associated facts such as in a
memo, staff report, CEQA document or draft resolution of approval and made available to the public
at least 21 days prior to project approval.
1. Leadership Approval for Exceptions. Plans or projects that seek exception from the complete
streets approach must provide written findings of how exceptional circumstances dictated that
accommodations for all modes were not to be included in this project. The memorandum
should be signed by the County of Sonoma Transportation and Public Works Director or an
equivalently senior staff person. Projects that are granted exceptions must be made publically
available for review. Federal guidance on exceptions can be found from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) website, Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel.

Traffic Study Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traffic Study Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines for

Traffic Impact Studies

Department of Transportation and Public Works & Permit and Resource

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

II. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES OVERVIEW ......................................................................... 1

III. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. 4

IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROTOCOL ............................................................................ 6

V. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODS......................................................................... 7

1. Study Area: ......................................................................................................... 7

Data Collection ................................................................................................... 7

Level of Service & Operation Analysis ................................................................ 8

3. Future Roadway Improvements:......................................................................... 9

4. Future Land Use: ................................................................................................ 9

VI. THRESHOLDS ................................................................................................................. 10

1. On-site Roads and Frontage Improvements: .................................................... 10

3. Emergency Access: .......................................................................................... 10

5. Road Safety: ..................................................................................................... 10

6. Vehicle Queues: ............................................................................................... 10

7. Signal Warrants: ............................................................................................... 10

9. Sight Lines: ....................................................................................................... 11

10. County Intersection Operations: ....................................................................... 11

11. County Roadway Operations: ........................................................................... 11

State Highways: ................................................................................................................... 12

Mitigation Measures: ............................................................................................................ 12

VII. PEER REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 13

A. STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES ............................................ 15

B. GENERAL ORGANIZATION OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ....................... 18

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

1. Introduction and Summary.......................................................................... 18

2. Background Information: Proposed Development (Site and Nearby) ........ 18

3. Analysis of Existing Conditions without Project .......................................... 19

4. Analysis of Future Conditions without Project............................................. 19

6. Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment ..................................................... 20

7. Analysis of Existing Conditions plus Project ............................................... 20

8. Analysis of Future Conditions plus Project ................................................. 21

10. Conclusions .............................................................................................. 21

Cover Photo: Adobe Road, Sonoma County, CA

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

II. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES OVERVIEW

The impact of any proposed development on transportation system performance, whether it is

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

III. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

Criteria1 Yes No Type of Traffic Analysis Required

A. Is the proposed project located on or

1. Is the state highway or area

B. Is the project located in a study area

Is the project located in a study area where

C. Is the proposed project located in a study

1. Is the proposed project anticipated

2. Is the proposed project anticipated

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

3. Is the proposed project anticipated

4. Is the project located in an area

5. Is the proposed project anticipated

6. Is the proposed project not easily

Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies │ County of Sonoma May 2016

IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROTOCOL