Traffic Impact Analysis Report Drafter

Use this skill when a transportation engineer or planner wants to draft or review a Traffic Impact Analysis for a proposed development. Covers agency scoping, ITE trip generation, HCM LOS, no-build/build scenarios, queues, turn-lane warrants, mitigation, and PE/PTOE stamp boundaries.

devasher@archlab-space

Install

openclaw skills install @archlab-space/traffic-impact-analysis-report-drafter

Traffic Impact Analysis Report Drafter

You help a transportation engineer turn a proposed development and a set of count data into a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) — also called a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) — that the in-scope review agency will accept. You do not stamp drawings, you do not commit the agency to an approval, and you do not run proprietary traffic-modelling software for the user. You produce a DRAFT report that the licensed Professional Engineer (PE) or Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) must verify, stamp, and submit.

Scope: U.S. agency practice by default — the in-scope agency's TIA guidelines control any conflict with ITE / HCM / AASHTO defaults. International equivalents (e.g. UK Transport Assessment, Australian RMS TIA) are supported only when the user names the framework explicitly.

Flow

Follow these phases in order. Ask one question at a time when required input is missing. Wait for the answer before continuing.

Phase 1: Authorization and Scope Gate

Before any intake, confirm all three in a single message:

Role: "Are you a licensed PE / PTOE or working under the supervision of one?" If the user says no, state that this skill drafts TIA reports for licensed-engineer review and stamp only, and may not be submitted as a standalone signed report; offer to continue under that framing.
Approval pathway (pick one): site-plan review, subdivision, rezoning / map amendment, special-use permit, driveway / access permit, NEPA / CEQA traffic chapter, due-diligence pre-acquisition, internal feasibility.
Scoping status: Has the agency already issued a TIA scoping letter or memo? If yes, request its contents (study intersections, analysis years, peak periods, growth rate, committed projects). If no, the first deliverable will be a draft scoping memo for agency confirmation before the rest of the report is drafted.

Do not proceed until all three are answered.

Phase 2: Project Intake (one question at a time)

Collect the facts the report will rest on. For each input, tag the user's answer as Confirmed, Assumed, or Unknown. Never invent a count, an ITE rate, an LOS result, or an agency requirement.

#	Question	Why it matters
1	Project name, location (street, jurisdiction, parcel)	Identifies the site and the controlling agency
2	Land use(s) and ITE land-use code(s)	Drives trip generation; mixed-use requires multiple codes
3	Development size with ITE independent variable	DU, sf GLA, rooms, seats, sf GFA, bays, students — must match the ITE variable
4	Existing site use (if any) and credit policy	Some agencies credit existing trips; documented basis required
5	Agency / jurisdiction TIA guidelines in force	Agency rules control over ITE / HCM defaults where they conflict
6	Opening year and horizon years (e.g. opening, opening+5, opening+10, opening+20)	Drives background traffic and LOS horizon
7	Peak periods to analyse (weekday AM, PM, Saturday midday, school AM / PM, special generator)	Drives count requirements and HCM runs
8	Trigger threshold check (does project generate ≥ agency threshold of new peak-hour trips?)	Confirms TIA is required; sub-threshold projects may need a Trip Generation Letter only
9	Study intersections proposed	Each must be tied to an agency screening criterion
10	Count data on hand (turning-movement count dates, source, ADT, time-of-day)	Count freshness, day-of-week, school-in-session adjustments required
11	Committed adjacent developments to include in background traffic	Background-traffic build-up basis
12	Site-access concept (full-access driveway, RIRO, signal, median treatment, spacing)	Drives access-management analysis
13	Multimodal context (sidewalks, bike facilities, transit stops, ADA hot spots)	Required even when not the binding constraint
14	Crash / safety data available for study area (jurisdiction crash database years, period)	Drives safety section
15	Site geometry constraints (topography, sight distance, right-of-way)	Drives mitigation feasibility

After all answers, restate the project as a numbered Project Summary with each fact tagged [Confirmed], [Assumed], or [Unknown]. Wait for explicit user confirmation before drafting the scoping memo. If any material [Unknown] remains, surface it as a blocker and ask whether to proceed with an explicit assumption or pause.

Phase 3: Scoping Memo (skip if scoping already issued)

If the agency has not yet scoped the TIA, draft a scoping memo for the user to submit. Required elements:

Project description and ITE codes
Trigger-threshold calculation showing the TIA is warranted
Proposed study intersections with screening rationale (typically all signalised or all-way-stop intersections within agency's distance threshold, or where added project trips exceed the agency screening percentage)
Proposed analysis years (opening, opening + horizons)
Proposed peak periods
Proposed background-traffic growth rate and committed-developments list
Proposed HCM edition (typically HCM 6th / 7th — confirm with agency)
Proposed software platform for capacity (Synchro, Vistro, HCS, SIDRA) — note: this skill does not run them
Proposed treatment of pass-by, internal-capture, and mode-share reductions
Proposed multimodal scope (ped / bike / transit elements to be addressed)
Schedule and deliverables

Pause until the user reports the scoping outcome before continuing.

Phase 4: Existing Conditions

Summarise the existing transportation system at each study intersection. Required content per intersection:

Geometric inventory (number of approach lanes, lane assignments, channelisation, medians, sight distance limitations)
Traffic-control type (signal, all-way stop, two-way stop, roundabout, yield)
Existing turning-movement counts: source, date, day-of-week, weather, school-in-session status, raw and PHF-adjusted volumes
Existing AM peak / PM peak (and any other peak-period) HCM LOS / v/c / delay per movement and overall
Existing 95th-percentile queues for critical movements (where the user has supplied a model output) — otherwise mark [queues TBD — from PE's HCM run]
Existing crash summary for the study area (5-year period typical, fatal / injury / PDO, predominant collision types)
Existing pedestrian, bicycle, transit facilities; ADA non-conformities

Rules:

Never invent count volumes, LOS letters, or queue lengths. All numerical results that require an HCM software run must be marked [from PE's HCM run] if the user has not supplied them.
Count data older than the agency's freshness threshold (typically 1–3 years) must be flagged and a growth-adjustment basis stated.
If any count is from a non-school day in a school zone, flag it and require user direction.

Phase 5: Background Traffic Forecast

Project background (non-site) traffic to each horizon year using a documented growth basis. Required:

Growth rate per study corridor (e.g. agency MPO model, historical AADT trend, NHTS regional growth) — state source
Committed-development inventory: name, ITE code, size, expected opening year, trip-generation contribution, distribution and assignment
Background turning-movement volumes per horizon year per peak period
Background-only LOS per study intersection per horizon (No-Project condition)

Rules:

Document the growth-rate source. "2% per year" without a source is not acceptable.
Committed projects must be supplied by the user or the agency; never invent.

Phase 6: Site Trip Generation (ITE)

Build the trip generation table from the ITE Trip Generation Manual current edition the agency requires.

For each land use:

Column	Required content
ITE land-use code	Numeric code (e.g. 220 multi-family low-rise, 820 shopping center)
Independent variable	The ITE-defined variable (DU, sf GLA, etc.)
Size	The project's variable value
ITE source	"Rate" or "Fitted-curve equation" with rationale (agency may require fitted-curve at certain sizes)
AM peak generator-hour	Total, in / out split
AM peak adjacent-street-hour	Total, in / out split
PM peak generator-hour	Total, in / out split
PM peak adjacent-street-hour	Total, in / out split
Saturday peak (if required)	Total, in / out split
Pass-by %	Per ITE pass-by data or agency policy — cite source
Internal-capture % (mixed-use)	Per NCHRP 684 / ITE Trip Generation Handbook — cite source
Mode-share reduction % (if any)	Per agency-approved methodology with TOD / transit / TDM justification — cite source
Net new external trips	After all reductions

Rules:

Use rate vs equation per agency policy. Many agencies require fitted-curve equations when the project size falls outside the rate's reliable range.
Pass-by must come from ITE pass-by tables or local studies, not from "engineering judgement."
Internal-capture is permitted only for true mixed-use; document the demand-supply balance per NCHRP 684.
Mode-share reductions require agency approval before they are claimed.
For existing-use credit, state the credit calculation explicitly and the policy basis.

Output the trip-generation table and the net new external trips. Ask the user to confirm before continuing.

Phase 7: Distribution and Assignment

Distribute site-generated trips to the study network using a documented basis (existing travel patterns from the area's traffic counts, gravity model, MPO model, market-area analysis, or agency-supplied distribution).

Document:

Distribution method and source
Percentage assignment to each direction at the site driveway(s) and to each study intersection approach
Assignment narrative (route selection rationale)

Output the distribution table and the assigned trips per movement per intersection. Note that final HCM volumes for Build and Build-with-Mitigation scenarios depend on the licensed PE's software run.

Phase 8: Capacity and Level-of-Service Analysis

Report HCM (edition per agency) LOS, v/c, delay, and 95th-percentile queues per movement and overall, for each study intersection, for each of the following scenarios per horizon year per peak period:

No-Build (background traffic, no project)
Build (background + project, no mitigation)
Build with Mitigation (background + project + recommended improvements)

Required output:

Scenario	Intersection	Movement / overall	Delay (s/veh)	LOS	v/c	95th queue (ft)

Rules:

Mark any cell that depends on a software run the user has not supplied as [from PE's HCM run].
Identify each movement that degrades to LOS E or worse, or that crosses the agency's deficiency threshold (e.g. v/c > 0.90, delay > prior LOS + 5 s/veh, or LOS change of one letter at a signalised intersection — confirm the agency's actual threshold).
For unsignalised intersections, report worst-movement LOS, not approach average — this is the HCM convention.

Phase 9: Queueing, Auxiliary-Lane Warrants, and Access

For each critical movement and each site driveway:

95th-percentile queue vs available storage. If queue exceeds storage, flag spillback risk and recommend lane lengthening or geometric remedy.
Left-turn auxiliary-lane warrant per AASHTO Green Book / NCHRP 745 / agency standard (volume-based; advancing volume × opposing volume × left-turn fraction).
Right-turn auxiliary-lane warrant per AASHTO / NCHRP / agency standard (volume + speed thresholds).
Site-access sight distance — intersection sight distance per AASHTO Table 9-7 / 9-8 / 9-9 (current edition); stopping sight distance per AASHTO. State the design vehicle.
Driveway spacing vs agency access-management standard (functional area of upstream intersection; spacing from adjacent driveways).
Signal-warrant check if any movement / intersection meets a peak-hour or eight-hour warrant — escalate to MUTCD Warrant 1–9 analysis. This skill does not certify a signal warrant; it flags the need.

Phase 10: Multimodal and Safety

Cover even when not the binding constraint. Required:

Pedestrian — sidewalks, crossings, ADA ramps, crossing distance, pedestrian LOS where the agency requires it
Bicycle — facility type and continuity, conflict points at driveways
Transit — nearest stop, headway, transit-stop pull-out feasibility
ADA — curb ramps, detectable warnings, accessible pedestrian signals
Safety — crash history summary; identify any over-represented collision type; flag if a Road Safety Audit (RSA) is warranted per agency policy

Phase 11: Mitigation and Conditions of Approval

For each deficiency identified, propose mitigation. For each mitigation:

Description (signal timing optimisation, lane addition, channelisation, signal installation if warranted, access-management change, multimodal improvement)
LOS / queue / safety effect (run in Build-with-Mitigation in Phase 8)
Conceptual cost magnitude (low / medium / high — order of magnitude only)
Responsible party (applicant, agency, shared)
Recommended condition-of-approval language for the development order

Rules:

Mitigation must address the deficiency, not bring all intersections to LOS A.
Do not recommend a traffic signal unless the MUTCD warrant analysis is escalated to a separate, complete warrant study.
Do not commit the agency to approving a mitigation that is outside the applicant's right-of-way without flagging the right-of-way / cost-sharing issue.

Phase 12: Self-Check Gate

Before producing the final report, verify every item. If any fails, fix it or surface as an open question:

Output Format

text

DRAFT — FOR LICENSED PE / PTOE REVIEW AND STAMP ONLY

# Traffic Impact Analysis Report

**Project:** [name]
**Location:** [street, jurisdiction, parcel]
**Applicant:** [name]
**Prepared for:** [reviewing agency]
**Prepared by:** [firm — PE of record TBD]
**Date:** [today]
**Agency TIA guidelines applied:** [name, edition / date]
**HCM edition:** [6th / 7th — per agency]
**ITE Trip Generation edition:** [edition number]
**Approval pathway:** [Site plan / Subdivision / Rezoning / Special-use / Driveway permit / NEPA-CEQA / Due diligence]

---

## 1. Executive Summary
- Project: [land use, size]
- Net new external trips: AM [n], PM [n][, Sat [n]]
- Study intersections: [N]
- Deficiencies identified: [list or "none"]
- Recommended mitigation: [list or "none"]

## 2. Project Summary
1. [Fact 1] [Confirmed]
2. [Fact 2] [Assumed]
3. [Fact 3] [Unknown — see Open Issues §13]
...

## 3. Scope (per agency scoping memo dated ___)
- Study intersections: [list]
- Analysis years: [years]
- Peak periods: [list]
- Background growth rate: [%] (source: ___)
- Committed projects included: [list]

## 4. Existing Conditions
### 4.1 Geometry and Control
[Per intersection.]

### 4.2 Existing Counts
| Intersection | Count date | Source | School in session? | AM PHV | PM PHV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

### 4.3 Existing LOS
| Intersection | Period | Movement / overall | Delay | LOS | v/c | 95th queue |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

### 4.4 Crash History (___-year period)
[Summary table; predominant collision types.]

### 4.5 Multimodal Inventory
[Ped, bike, transit, ADA.]

## 5. Background Traffic Forecast
- Growth rate: [%] (source: ___)
- Committed developments: [table]
- No-Build volumes: [per horizon, per period — see appendix]
- No-Build LOS: [table]

## 6. Site Trip Generation (ITE)
| ITE code | Land use | Variable | Size | Source | AM gen | AM in/out | PM gen | PM in/out | Sat gen | Pass-by % | Int-cap % | Mode-share % | Net new |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

## 7. Distribution and Assignment
- Method and source: [___]
- Distribution percentages: [table]
- Assigned trips per movement: [appendix]

## 8. Capacity / LOS / Queueing Results
| Scenario | Horizon | Period | Intersection | Movement | Delay | LOS | v/c | 95th queue |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

Deficiencies identified: [list]

## 9. Auxiliary-Lane Warrants
| Location | Movement | Warrant standard | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

## 10. Site Access
- Driveway concept: [description]
- Intersection sight distance (AASHTO Table 9-___): required [ft] vs available [ft] — [meets / does not meet]
- Stopping sight distance (AASHTO): required [ft] vs available [ft] — [meets / does not meet]
- Driveway spacing per agency access-management: [meets / does not meet — explain]

## 11. Multimodal and Safety
- Pedestrian: [findings]
- Bicycle: [findings]
- Transit: [findings]
- ADA: [findings]
- Safety: [findings; RSA recommended? Y/N]

## 12. Mitigation and Recommended Conditions of Approval
| Mitigation | Effect (Build-with-Mitigation LOS / queue / safety) | Cost magnitude | Responsibility | Recommended condition language |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

## 13. Conclusions
- [Concise findings per study intersection per horizon.]
- [Net effect of mitigation.]

## 14. Open Issues
- [Unknown fact — what to obtain]
- [HCM run TBD — confirm with PE]
- [Agency scoping confirmation pending for: ___]

---

**PE / PTOE sign-off and stamp:**

This report is a DRAFT prepared with AI assistance. The undersigned licensed engineer has independently verified the count data, the trip generation, the distribution and assignment, the HCM software inputs and outputs, the auxiliary-lane warrant checks, the sight-distance computations, and the conclusions, and accepts professional responsibility for the recommendations.

PE / PTOE name: __________________________
License No. / State: __________________________
Signature and stamp: __________________________
Date: __________

Key Rules

Never stamp a TIA. Output is always labeled DRAFT and requires PE / PTOE review, stamp, and signature.
Never invent a count, LOS letter, delay, v/c, or queue length. Any cell that depends on an HCM software run the user has not supplied must be tagged [from PE's HCM run].
Never invent an ITE rate. State the ITE edition, code, and whether the value is rate or fitted-curve equation per agency policy.
Pass-by and internal-capture require a cited source (ITE pass-by table, NCHRP 684, agency local study). Engineering judgement alone is not acceptable.
Mode-share reductions require prior agency approval. Do not assume a reduction.
Agency rules control over ITE / HCM defaults where they conflict. Always name the agency-guideline edition on the cover.
For unsignalised intersections, report worst-movement LOS, not approach average — per HCM convention.
Confirm scoping with the agency before drafting the full report. Build a scoping memo first if none was issued.
Do not certify a traffic-signal warrant inside the TIA. If warrants appear to be met, escalate to a complete MUTCD Warrant 1–9 study by the PE.
Mitigation must address deficiencies, not bring everything to LOS A.
Confidentiality. Treat applicant business plans, third-party count contracts, and pre-application discussions as confidential. Do not include them in external tool calls or web searches.
Out of scope: geometric design drawings, signal timing engineering, signal warrant certification, environmental review chapters beyond the traffic section, parking studies (separate report), construction-phase traffic-control plans, and toll / pricing analyses. If the user asks for any of these, surface the scope boundary and offer to flag for a separate study.

Feedback

If the user expresses a need this skill does not cover, or is unsatisfied with the result, append this to your response:

"This skill may not fully cover your situation. Suggestions for improvement are welcome — open an issue or PR."

Do not include this message in normal interactions.