HomeMy WebLinkAboutBozemanTransportationIFUpdCity of Bozeman
Transportation Impact Fee
Update Study
DRAFT REPORT
May 30, 2018
Prepared for:
City of Bozeman
121 North Rouse Avenue
Bozeman, Montana 59771
ph (406) 582-2260
Prepared by:
Tindale Oliver
1000 N. Ashley Dr., #400
Tampa, Florida, 33602
ph (813) 224-8862
fax (813) 226-2106
E-mail: nkamp@tindaleoliver.com
497003-00.17
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 i Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
City of Bozeman
Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1
II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 3
Legal Compliance Overview .......................................................................................... 5
III. DEMAND COMPONENT ................................................................................................ 8
Travel Demand .............................................................................................................. 8
Conversion of Vehicle-Trips to Person-Trips ................................................................ 8
Interstate Adjustment Factor ....................................................................................... 8
Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor ............................................................................ 9
Trip Exchange District Discount Factor ......................................................................... 10
IV. COST COMPONENT ...................................................................................................... 14
City Roadway Cost ........................................................................................................ 14
State Roadway Cost ...................................................................................................... 15
Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) .................................................................. 15
Person-Miles of Capacity Added per Lane Mile (Roadways) ........................................ 16
Cost per Person-Mile of Capacity Added (Roadways) .................................................. 17
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Costs ............................................................................ 17
Transit Capital Cost per Person-Mile of Travel ............................................................. 18
V. CREDIT COMPONENT ................................................................................................... 19
Capital Improvement Credit ......................................................................................... 19
Present Worth Variables ............................................................................................... 20
Fuel Efficiency ............................................................................................................... 20
Effective Days per Year ................................................................................................. 21
VI. CALCULATED MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ...................................... 22
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Calculation ................................................... 24
VII. IMPACT FEE REVENUE PROJECTIONS ........................................................................... 25
VIII. IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICTS ................................................................................... 27
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 ii Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Appendices:
APPENDIX A: Demand Component
APPENDIX B: Cost Component
APPENDIX C: Credit Component
APPENDIX D: Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Schedule
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
I. Executive Summary
The most recent technical study for the City of Bozeman’s transportation impact fees was
completed in 2012. The City retained Tindale Oliver to prepare an update study to reflect
changes to cost, credit, and demand components since the last technical study. Additionally, this
update study transitions the roadway impact fee into a multi-modal impact fee, providing
additional flexibility to fund capital infrastructure for stand-alone transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities, in addition to roads. It should be noted that figures included in this study represent the
technically defensible level of impact fees that the City could charge; however, the City may
choose to discount fees as a policy decision.
An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development to fund infrastructure
capacity consumed by new growth. Impact fee revenue can only be used for capacity expansion
projects and not for expenses related to replacement, maintenance, or operations.
The methodology used to update City’s impact fee program is a consumption-based impact fee
methodology, which has also been used to calculate the City’s adopted impact fees. A
consumption-based impact fee charges new development based upon the burden placed on
services from each land use (demand). A consumption-based impact fee is intended to charge
new growth the proportionate share of the cost of providing additional infrastructure available
for use by new growth. In addition, consistent with the requirements of the Montana enabling
legislation, a credit is subtracted from the total cost to account for the value of future non-impact
fee revenue contributions (taxes, user fees, etc.) of the new development toward the
construction of capacity expansion projects when non-impact fee funding is used to build capital
facilities.
Consistent with the City’s adopted impact fee methodology, the primary steps involved in the
update of the transportation impact fee included the following:
Review of the travel demand characteristics of land uses
Review of recent cost data related to transportation capacity expansion
Review of funding sources used for transportation capacity expansion projects
Calculation of the updated multi-modal transportation impact fee
Table ES-1 provides a summary of the calculated fees.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table ES-1
Summary of Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Rates
Source: Appendix D, Table D-1
ITE LUC Land Use Unit
Net
Impact
Fee
Net IF
w/5%
Admin
RESIDENTIAL:
Residential: 1,400 sf or less du $3,895 $4,090
Residential: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du $4,021 $4,222
Residential: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du $4,148 $4,355
Residential: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du $4,240 $4,452
Residential: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du $4,339 $4,556
Residential: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du $4,416 $4,637
Residential: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du $4,504 $4,729
Residential: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du $4,581 $4,810
Residential: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du $4,634 $4,866
Residential: 3,001 sf or more du $4,656 $4,889
n/a Group Quarters person $1,583 $1,662
254 Assisted Living bed $472 $496
LODGING:
320 Lodging room $916 $962
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School (Private) 1,000 sf (gfa) $4,418 $4,639
530 Secondary School (Private) 1,000 sf (gfa) $3,580 $3,759
550 University/College student $691 $726
565 Day Care Center student $397 $417
610 Hospital 1,000 sf (gfa) $4,209 $4,419
OFFICE:
710 Office 1,000 sf (gfa) $2,359 $2,477
760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf (gfa) $3,551 $3,729
RETAIL:
820 Retail/Restaurant 1,000 sf (gla) $6,878 $7,222
INDUSTRIAL:
110 Light Industrial 1,000 sf (gfa) $1,195 $1,255
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf (gfa) $942 $989
150 Warehouse 1,000 sf (gfa) $421 $442
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf (gfa) $217 $228
n/a
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
II. Introduction
The City of Bozeman’s transportation impact fee was most recently updated in 2012 and has
been indexed annually to keep up with inflation. The City’s Street Impact Fee Ordinance
(Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC), Chapter 3.24.050 – Street Impact Fees) was adopted in 1996.
The impact fee ordinance was imposed to assist the City in providing adequate transportation
facilities needed to accommodate the roadway capacity consumed by new development. The
primary purpose of the roadway system is to provide mobility with the additional role of ensuring
public safety by providing access for fire and ambulance response vehicles. In addition, the
roadway system provides the transportation capacity needed to serve new development. The
City of Bozeman has retained Tindale Oliver to prepare an update study to reflect changes to the
cost, credit and demand components since 2012.
In addition, the City is interested in converting the current roadway-based transportation impact
fee to a multi-modal fee. A multi-modal fee shares the same basic principles as a roadway impact
fee except that it provides additional flexibility to fund capital infrastructure for transit facilities
as well as stand-alone bicycle and pedestrian facilities, in addition to roads. The City’s current
fee structure allows for bike/ped improvements, but only when they accompany a roadway
capacity expansion improvement. A multi-modal fee expands funding flexibility to add sidewalks
and bicycle lanes to existing roads as well as construct transit amenities, and reflects new
development’s impact on the entire transportation system (excluding rail and interstate
facilities).
Methodology
The methodology used for the multi-modal transportation impact fee study follows a
consumption-based impact fee approach in which new development is charged based upon the
proportion of person-miles of travel (PMT) that each unit of new development is expected to
consume of a lane-mile of the transportation network. The multi-modal impact fee incorporates
the entire network of transportation within the city, including city, county and state roads, as
well and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, but excludes limited access facilities and rail,
which require large scale investments and are not typically funded with impact fees. The fee is
assessed on all new development within the City limits and revenues are restricted to be used
for capacity expansion improvements inside the City.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Examples of capacity expansion projects that are eligible to be funded with impact fee revenues
include new roadway construction, road lane addition, intersection improvements, addition of
sidewalks and bicycle lanes to existing roadways, construction of transit amenities, among
others. As long as these facilities are located on classified collector and arterial roadways (not
on local, neighborhood roads), impact fee revenues can be used to fund these types of capacity
expansion projects. In the case of roadways and intersections, the level of service standards
included in the City’s Transportation Master Plan are based on Highway Capacity Manual. As
outlined in the Manual, capacities incorporated into levels of service (LOS) standards are based
on properly functioning intersections. The Manual defines LOS standards of A through F for both
roadways and intersections. In other words, intersection movements are an integral part of
roadway capacity and it is not possible to achieve a given LOS without the intersections operating
at least at the same level or better. Finally, intersections that function efficiently result in higher
capacity per lane mile, which in turn reduces the impact fee. If the intersections do not operate
as they should, the achieved capacity decreases, which in turn increases the fee. As such,
intersection improvements are an integral part of achieving additional capacity and are eligible
to be funded completely with impact fee revenues.
Included in this document is the necessary support material used in the calculation of the
transportation impact fee. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land
use is:
[Demand x Cost] – Credit = Fee
The “demand” for travel placed on a transportation system is expressed in units of Vehicle-Miles
of Travel (VMT) (daily vehicle-trip generation rate x the trip length x the percent new trips [of
total trips]) for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. Trip generation represents
the average daily rates since new development consumes trips on a daily basis. The VMT is
converted to PMT using the person-trip factor.
The “cost” of building new capacity typically is expressed in units of dollars per person-mile of
transportation capacity. Under the consumption-based approach, impact fee calculations are
based on the marginal cost of adding capacity and do not include cost associated with improving
existing deficiencies.
The “credit” is an estimate of future non-impact fee revenues generated by new development
that are allocated to provide roadway capacity expansion. The impact fee is considered to be an
“up front” payment for a portion of the cost of building a person-mile of capacity that is
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
reasonably related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the
impact fee schedule, that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by the new
development activity. These credits are required under the supporting case law for the
calculation of impact fees where a new development activity must be reasonably assured that
they are not paying, or being charged, twice for the same level of service. The input variables
used in the fee equation are as follows:
Demand Variables:
Trip generation rate
Trip length
Percent new trips
Vehicle-trips to person-trips factor
Cost Variables:
Transportation cost per person-mile
Transportation capacity per person-mile
Credit Variables:
Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies)
Present worth
Fuel efficiency
Effective days per year
Legal Compliance Overview
Section 7-6-1602 MCA established the requirements in state law for documentation for the
development of an impact fee. That statute leaves to the judgement of each community where
each piece of information is organized. Table 1 lists each element and shows where in the City
of Bozeman documentation of facility planning and fee calculation the required item is provided.
The listed section(s) is a primary, but not exclusive, location where the subject is discussed.
Collectively, the facility plan, design standards and specifications policy, fee study, capital
improvement program, unified development ordinance, and impact fee ordinance satisfy the
required documentation. All reference documents are available through the City offices.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 6 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table 1
Compliance with Montana State Statute, Section 7-6-1602 MCA
Section
Reference Documentation Item Document(s) Page or Section
(1)
For each public facility for which an impact fee is
imposed, the governmental entity must prepare
and approve a service area report
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018 N/A
(2)
(2)(a) describe existing conditions of the facility;
Bozeman Transportation
Master Plan, 2017 Chapter 2, Section 2.3 & Appendix G
(2)(b) establish level-of-service standards;
Bozeman Code of
Ordinances Chapter 38, Sec. 38.24.060
(2)(c)forecast future additional needs for service for a
defined period of time;
Bozeman Transportation
Master Plan, 2017 Chapter 3, Section 3.2
(2)(d)identify capital improvements necessary to meet
future needs for service;
Bozeman Transportation
Master Plan, 2017 Chapter 4 & Appendix H
(2)(e)
identify those capital improvements needed for
continued operation and maintenance of the
facility;
Bozeman Transportation
Master Plan, 2017 Chapter 4 & Appendices H & I
(2)(f)
make a determination as to whether one service
area or more than one service area is necessary
to establish a correlation between impact fees
and benefits;
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Section VII (Impact Fee Benefit
Districts)
(2)(g)
make a determination as to whether one service
area or more than one service area for
transportation facilities is needed to establish a
correlation between impact fees and benefits;
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Section VII (Impact Fee Benefit
Districts)
Bozeman Transportation
Master Plan, 2017 Chapters 4 & 6
FY 2018 Capital
Improvements Program Road Impact Fee CIP
(2)(i)
establish the methodology that the governmental
entity will use to exclude operations and
maintenance costs and correction of existing
deficiencies from the impact fee;
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Section III (Cost Component),
Appendix B
(2)(j)
establish the amount of the impact fee that will be
imposed for each unit of increased service
demand; and
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Section V (Fee Calculation),
Appendix D
(2)(k)
have a component of the budget of the
governmental entity that:
(i) schedules construction of public facility
capital improvements to serve projected growth;
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for
construction of the capital improvements; and
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is
reviewed and updated at least every 5 years
FY 2018 Capital
Improvements Program
Arterial & Collector District Fund, Pg.
17
General Fund, Pg. 85
Street and Curb Reconstructions, Pg.
227
Street Impact Fee, Pg. 249
Street Maintenance District, Pg. 299
(3)
The service area report is a written analysis that
must contain documentation of sources and
methodology used for purposes of subsection (2)
and must document how each impact fee meets
the requirements of subsection (7)
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Each subsection of the report
includes sources for reference and
addresses various components of
subsection (7) (see below)
The service area report is a written analysis that must:
(2)(h)
establish the methodology and time period over
which the governmental entity will assign the
proportionate share of capital costs for
expansion of the facility to provide service to new
development within each service area;
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 7 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table 1 (continued)
Compliance with Montana State Statute, Section 7-6-1602 MCA
Section
Reference Documentation Item Document(s) Page or Section
(4)
The service area report that supports adoption
and calculation of an impact fee must be
available to the public upon request
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
The impact fee technical report will
be adopted through a public hearing
process and all documents will be
made available by the City of
Bozeman
(5)
The amount of each impact fee imposed must be
based upon the actual cost of public facility
expansion or improvements or reasonable
estimates of the cost to be incurred by the
governmental entity as a result of new
development. The calculation of each impact fee
must be in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Section III (Cost Component),
Appendix B
(6)
The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact
fee must include a time schedule for periodically
updating the documentation required under
subsection (2)
Bozeman Code of
Ordinances Chapter 2, Sec. 2.06.1700, K, 1
An impact fee must meet the following
requirements:
(a) The amount of the impact fee must be
reasonably related to and reasonably attributable
to the development's share of the cost if
infrastructure improvements made necessary by
the new development
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Section II (Demand Component),
Section III (Cost Component),
Section IV (Credit Component),
Section V (Fee Calculation),
Appendices A-D
Bozeman Transportation
Master Plan, 2017 Chapters 4 & 6
FY 2018 Capital
Improvements Program Road Impact Fee CIP
(ii) consideration of payments for system
improvements reasonably anticipated to be made
by or as a result of development in the form of
user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other
available sources of funding the system
improvements
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Section IV (Credit Component),
Appendix C
(c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in
a public facility may not be included in the impact
fee
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018 Section I (Introduction)
(d) New development may not be held to a higher
level of service than existing users unless there is
a mechanism in place for the existing users to
make improvements to the existing system to
match the higher level of service
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018 Section I (Introduction)
(e) Impact fees may not include expenses for
operations and maintenance of the facility
Transportation Impact Fee
Study, 2018
Section III (Cost Component),
Appendix B
(7)
(b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a
proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be
incurred by the governmental entity in
accommodating the development. The following
factors must be considered in determining a
proportionate share of public facilities capital
improvement costs;
(i) the need for public facilities capital
improvements required to serve new development;
and
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 8 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
III. Demand Component
Travel Demand
The amount of transportation system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated
using the following variables and is a measure of the person-miles of new travel a unit of
development places on the existing transportation system:
Number of daily trips generated;
Average length of those trips; and
Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already on the
transportation system.
The trip characteristics variables were primarily obtained from two sources: (1) similar studies
conducted locally in Bozeman and outside of Bozeman (Trip Characteristics Database) and (2) the
Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (10th Edition). The
Trip Characteristics Studies Database is included in Appendix A. This database was used to
determine trip length, percent new trips, and the trip generation rate for several land uses.
Conversion of Vehicle-Trips to Person-Trips
In the case of the multi-modal approach, it is necessary to estimate travel in units of person-
miles. Vehicle-trips were converted to person-trips by applying a vehicle-trip to person-trip
conversion factor of 1.30, which accounts for the average number of persons occupying a car.
This value was derived from vehicle occupancy trend data in the 2009 National Household Travel
Survey (NHTS).
Interstate Adjustment Factor
This variable was used to recognize that interstate highway improvements are funded by the
State (specifically, the Montana Department of Transportation) using earmarked State and
Federal funds. The calculated multi-modal fees do not charge for the travel on these facilities
and similarly, the impact fee calculations do not account for cost of or future revenues that will
be spent on these facilities. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for interstate
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 9 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
improvements and, therefore, the associated demand, cost, and credit are eliminated from the
impact fee calculation.
The interstate adjustment factor was calculated using the projected 2040 VMT provided in the
Bozeman Transportation Model. The projected VMT values were summarized based on the
jurisdiction of each roadway segment, resulting in a 19.9 percent adjustment factor calculated
for travel on I-90. By applying this factor to the total VMT for each land use, the reduced VMT is
then representative of only the roadways which can be funded by transportation impact fees.
Appendix A, Table A-1 provides further detail on this calculation.
Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor
Tindale Oliver conducted local trip characteristics studies in Bozeman in 2008 for residential,
office, and retail land uses. Results of these studies are presented in Appendix A. Based on these
local studies, trip length adjustment factors were applied to remaining residential and non-
residential land uses that were not studied, to reflect the local travel characteristics. These
adjustment factors were applied to trip length data from the trip characteristics database
(included in Appendix A).
Single Family trip length reduction factor of 53% was applied to the following land uses:
Group quarters
Assisted living
Lodging
University/college
Hospital
Office trip length reduction factor of 43% was applied to the following land uses:
Elementary school
Secondary school
Day care center
Research & development center
Light industrial
Manufacturing
Warehouse
Mini-warehouse
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 10 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Trip Exchange District (TED) Discount Factor
Downtown TED:
Bozeman has identified the downtown core as a “trip exchange district” meaning that this area
has different travel characteristics than the rest of the city. The downtown TED corresponds with
lower consumption of transportation capacity per unit of development due to the following
factors:
Shared and consolidated parking.
High degree of pedestrian and bicycle access to and throughout the TED.
Public transit availability.
Extensive trip capture between businesses. Person will make a single vehicle trip and visit
multiple establishments.
Currently, Bozeman reduces impact fees for new development within the downtown TED by 29
percent.
The downtown TED reduction factor was reviewed and compared to the internal capture ranges
from several recent research studies on mixed-use development internal trip capture due to the
mix of uses and design characteristics of these types of developments. Table 2 presents a
summary of the findings.
As shown in Table 2, the range of internal capture reductions range from 0 to 62 percent. The
current reduction factor of 29 percent falls within the range of the research studies results.
The Downtown TED boundary is presented in Map 1.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 11 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table 2
Estimated Cost per Lane Mile for City and State Roadway Projects
Map 1: Downtown Trip Exchange District
Source Reference
Range of
Internal Capture
Research Studies
ITE 2nd Edition Institute of Transportation
Engineers Handbook, 2nd Ed.5-25%
NCHRP 684/ITE 3rd Edition National Cooperative Highway
Research Program 28-41%
EPX MXD Model v4.0 EPA, Fehr & Peers 8-28%
ITE 1998 surveys (origins) NCHRP 684, PDF pg 19 0-53%
ITE 1998 surveys (destinations) NCHRP 684, PDF pg 19 0-37%
Districtwide TGR Study, FDOT, District IV, March 1995 NCHRP 684, PDF pg 20 28-41%
FDOT Trip Characteristics Study of MXDs, FDOT, District IV,
March 1993 NCHRP 684, PDF pg 21 (Table 8) 7-62%
Trip Generation for MXDs, Technical Committee Report,
Colorado-Wyoming Section, ITE, January 1986 NCHRP 684, PDF pg 23 25%
Brandermill PUD Traffic Generation Study, Technical Report,
JHK & Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, June 1984 NCHRP 684, PDF pg 23 45-55%
Kittelson & Associates, Crocker Center, Mizner Park, Galleria NCHRP 684, PDF pg 25 38-41%
Mehara and Keller NCHRP 684, PDF pg 25 0-40%
Local Government Practices
Transportation Impact Analyses (ITE Method) NCHRP 684, PDF pg 11 5-25%
29% reduction
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 12 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
University TED:
In 2014/2015, the City of Bozeman recognized an additional TED district encompassing the
Montana State University (MSU) campus and some peripheral private development land. The
University TED boundary is presented in Map 2. A detailed transportation study1 was conducted
to assess internal capture and travel characteristics within this sub-area. This study concluded
that, similar to the downtown TED, the University TED benefits from high trip capture and above
average non-vehicle travel. The following reduction factors were determined for certain land
uses:
Non-Housing, private/near campus = 25%
Housing, private/near campus = 35%
Group Quarters, private/near campus = 59%
Non-Housing, MSU on campus = 31% office, 46% academic
Housing, MSU on campus = 44%
Group Quarters, MSU on campus = 62%
Similar to the adopted downtown reduction factor, the University TED factors fall within the
range of the mixed-use/internal capture observed in the research studies presented in Table 2.
1 University Trip Exchange District Study, Western Transportation Institute, College of Engineering, MSU, October 2014
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 13 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Map 2: University Trip Exchange District
MSU on Campus:
Non-Housing = 31% to 46% reduction
Housing = 44% reduction
Group Quarters = 62% reduction
Private/Near MSU:
Non-Housing = 25% reduction
Housing = 35% reduction
Group Quarters = 59% reduction
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 14 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
IV. Cost Component
This section examines the construction costs of transportation capacity-expansion improvements
within the City of Bozeman.
City Roadway Cost
This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components
associated with city roads with respect to capacity-expansion improvements in Bozeman. For
this purpose, recent bid data and cost estimates for future improvements were reviewed to
provide supporting cost data for city roadway improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity
project was separated into two phases: ROW and construction.
Right-of-Way
The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that were necessary to
have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction,
to build a new road. Based on discussions with City staff, a 10 percent ROW-to-construction
factor was determined for impact fee purposes. This factor reflects that most ROW is acquired
through annexations or is readily available, but accounts for the occasional acquisitions that the
City is forced to purchase for critical improvements.
Construction
The construction cost for city roads was based on a review of projected improvements in the
City’s Transportation Master Plan. The TMP project list totaled over 31 lane miles of committed
and recommended city road improvements, averaging $2.8 million per lane mile. These
improvements include associated intersection improvements that would accompany the
roadway expansion and improve capacity. As mentioned previously, LOS values used in the
Transportation Master Plan are determined by using the methods defined in the Highway
Capacity Manual. The Highway Capacity Manual states that a roadway corridor’s LOS, which is
measured by free flow travel speeds and delay, is contingent upon the performance of the
boundary intersections. Without the associated intersection improvements, the benefit from an
improved roadway segment will be severely limited. Additionally, the capacity of certain
corridors can be improved by solely improving the boundary intersections.
Based on this review, a city road construction cost of $2.8 million per lane mile was used in the
multi-modal transportation impact fee calculation. Additional detail is provided in Appendix B.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 15 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
State Roadway Cost
This section examines the right-of-way (ROW), construction, and other cost components
associated with state roads with respect to capacity-expansion improvements in Bozeman. For
this purpose, cost estimates for future state roadway improvements was reviewed. The cost for
each roadway capacity project was separated into two phases: ROW and construction.
Right-of-Way
The ROW cost factor for state roads was assumed to be the same as the factor for city roads (10
percent of construction).
Construction
A review of the City’s Transportation Master Plan identified over 27 lane miles of committed and
recommended state road improvements, averaging approximately $3.2 million per lane mile.
These improvements include associated intersection improvements that would accompany the
roadway expansion and improve capacity.
Based on this review, a state road construction cost of $3.2 million per lane mile was used in the
multi-modal transportation impact fee calculation. Additional detail is provided in Appendix B.
Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis)
The weighted average cost per lane mile for city and state roads is presented in Table 3. The cost
figures shown include both the construction cost and the ROW cost, as discussed previously. The
resulting weighted average cost of approximately $3.3 million per lane mile was utilized as the
cost input in the calculation of the multi-modal transportation impact fee schedule. The
weighted average cost per lane mile includes city and state roads and is based on weighting the
lane miles of roadway improvements in the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 16 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table 3
Estimated Cost per Lane Mile for City and State Roadway Projects
1) ROW is estimated at 10% of construction costs
2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-1, includes construction, design, construction
administration, utilities and contingency, rounded to nearest $100,000
3) Source: Appendix B, Table B-1
4) Lane mile distribution (Item 3) multiplied by the ROW & construction phase
costs by jurisdiction to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile
Person-Miles of Capacity Added per Lane Mile (Roadways)
An additional component on the impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane mile (also
known as the maximum service volume added per lane mile) of roadway construction. To
calculate the vehicle-miles of capacity (VMC) per lane mile of future roadways, an analysis of the
Bozeman Transportation Master Plan was conducted to review future planned improvements
within the City of Bozeman. As shown in Table 4, the VMC was then converted to person-miles
of capacity (PMC) using the person-trip factor (1.30 persons per vehicle) previously discussed.
Table 4
Weighted Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile
1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-2
2) Vehicle-miles of capacity added divided by lane miles added
3) Total vehicle-miles of capacity added divided by the total lane miles added, rounded to the nearest 100.
4) Source: National Household Travel Survey
5) VMC added per lane mile (Item 3) multiplied by the person-trip factor (Item 4)
City Roads State Roads
City & State
Roads(4)
Right-of-Way(1)$280,000 $320,000 $298,000
Construction(2)$2,800,000 $3,200,000 $2,980,000
Total Cost $3,080,000 $3,520,000 $3,278,000
Lane Mile Distribution(3)55% 45% 100%
Cost Phase
Cost per Lane Mile
Source Lane Mile
Added(1)
Vehicle-Miles
of Capacity
Added(1)
VMC Added
per Lane
Mile(2)
Vehicle-Trip to
Person-Trip
Factor(4)
Weighted
Average PMC
Added per Lane
Mile(5)
City Roads 32.97 260,040 7,887 1.30 10,253
State Roads 27.11 214,125 7,898 1.30 10,267
Total 60.08 474,165
Weighted Average VMC Added per Lane Mile(3)7,900 1.30 10,270
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 17 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Cost per Person-Mile of Capacity Added (Roadways)
The transportation cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per person-mile
of capacity (PMC). As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the cost and capacity for roadways in the City of
Bozeman have been calculated based on typical roadway improvements. As shown in Table 5,
the cost per PMC for travel within the City is $319.
The cost per PMC figure is used in the transportation impact fee calculation to determine the
total multi-modal cost per unit of development based on the person-miles of travel consumed.
For each person-mile of travel that is added to the transportation system, approximately $319 of
transportation capacity is consumed.
Table 5
Cost per Person-Mile of Capacity Added
1) Source: Table 3
2) Source: Table 4
3) Average PMC added per lane mile (Item 2) divided by cost per lane mile (Item 1)
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Costs
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities provide for relatively small quantities of the total vehicle-miles
of travel due to the difference in the average distance traveled by a car trip versus
pedestrian/bicycle trips. Because of their relatively small role in the urban travel scheme, they
do not have a significant effect on evaluating the costs of providing for mobility. However, bike
and pedestrian facilities are important and provide a source of travel for those who cannot drive
or cannot afford to drive, and they are a standard part of an urban street design. Their costs are
included in the standard roadway cross-sections for which costs are estimated for safety and
mobility reasons. Thus, the costs of these facilities on major roads are included in the multi-
modal transportation fee. The multi-modal fee provides funding for only those bike and
pedestrian facilities associated with roadways on the classified road system (excluding
local/neighborhood roads), and allows for facilities to be added to existing classified roadways or
included in the construction of a new classified roadway or lane addition improvement.
Source Cost per
Lane Mile(1)
Average PMC
Added per Lane
Mile(2)
Cost per
PMC(3)
City Roads $3,080,000 10,253 $300.40
State Roads $3,520,000 10,267 $342.85
Weighted Average $3,278,000 10,270 $319.18
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 18 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Transit Capital Cost per Person-Mile of Travel
A model for transit service and cost was developed to establish both the capital cost per person-
mile of capacity and the system operating characteristics in terms of system coverage, hours of
service, and headways. The model developed for Bozeman was based on information from the
Streamline Bus System. Components of the transit capital cost include:
Vehicle acquisition tied to new routes
Bus stops, shelters, and benches
Cost of road network used by transit vehicles
Transit capital costs are computed as the cost of capital features needed to expand the transit
system, as follows:
Transit Capital Cost = Bus Infrastructure Cost + Road Capacity Cost
Taking into account the infrastructure costs and the decline in potential vehicle-capacity that
comes with adding transit, it was determined that the difference between constructing a lane
mile of roadway (for cars only) versus constructing a roadway with transit is not significant.
The roadway with transit cost per PMC is less than three (3) percent higher per lane mile than
the cost to simply construct a road without transit amenities. Therefore, for the multimodal
transportation impact fee calculation, the cost per PMC of approximately $319 is representative
of the cost to provide transportation capacity for all modes of travel. Additional information
regarding the transit capital cost calculation is included in Appendix B, Table B-4.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 19 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
V. Credit Component
Capital Improvement Credit
The present value of the portion of non-impact fee funding generated by new development over
a 25-year period that is expected to be expended on capacity expansion projects was credited
against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. In order
to provide a connection to the demand component that is measured in terms of travel, non-
impact fee dollars are converted to a gas tax equivalency.
City
As shown in Table 6, the City of Bozeman spends approximately $1.9 million per year (or the
equivalent of 3.8 pennies of fuel tax revenue) on transportation capacity-expansion projects
funded with non-impact fee revenues. Additional detail is provided in Appendix C, Table C-2.
County
As indicated in the FY 2018 Gallatin County budget, all non-impact fee transportation revenues
are allocated to maintenance expenditures, therefore, no capital improvement credit is included
in the multi-modal transportation impact fee calculation.
State
As shown in Table 6, State expenditures in Bozeman were reviewed, indicating expenditures of
approximately $1.1 million per year (2.3 equivalent pennies of fuel tax revenue) was given for
the capacity-expansion portion attributable to state transportation improvements. This review
included several years of historical expenditures, including only those improvements located
inside the city limits and tied to a capacity-expansion improvement. Additional detail is provided
in Appendix C, Table C-3.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 20 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table 6
Equivalent Pennies of Capital Improvement Credit
1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-2
2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-3
3) Source: Appendix C, Table C-1
4) Average annual expenditures divided by value per penny (Item 3), divided by 100
Present Worth Variables
Facility Life
The facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life
of a roadway.
Interest Rate
This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. It is used to compute
the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 3.0
percent was used in the multi-modal transportation impact fee calculation based on information
obtained from the City of Bozeman.
Fuel Efficiency
The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of
motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with
a particular land use.
Appendix C, Table C-6 documents the calculation of the fuel efficiency value based on the
following equation, where “VMT” is vehicle-miles of travel and “MPG” is fuel efficiency in terms
of miles per gallon.
TypeRoadwayTypeVehicle
TypeVehicle
TypeRoadway MPG
VMTVMTEfficiencyFuel
Credit Average Annual
Expenditures
Value per
Penny(3)
Equivalent Pennies
per Gallon(4)
City Revenues(1)$1,899,953 $501,545 $0.038
State Revenues(2)$1,129,481 $501,545 $0.023
Total $3,029,434 $0.061
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 21 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
The methodology uses non-interstate VMT and average fuel efficiency data for passenger
vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and other 2-axle, 4-tire vehicles, such as vans, pickups, and SUVs)
and large trucks (i.e., single-unit, 2-axle, 6-tire or more trucks and combination trucks) to
calculate the total gallons of fuel used by each of these vehicle types.
The combined total VMT for the vehicle types is then divided by the combined total gallons of
fuel consumed to calculate, in effect, a “weighted” fuel efficiency value that appropriately
accounts for the existing fleet mix of traffic on non-interstate roadways. The VMT and average
fuel efficiency data were obtained from the most recent Highway Statistics 2016 (Federal
Highway Administration). Based on the calculation completed in Appendix C, Table C-6, the fuel
efficiency rate to be used in the updated multi-modal transportation impact fee equation is 18.74
miles per gallon.
Effective Days per Year
An effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed for all land uses in the calculated fee.
However, this will not be the case since some land uses operate only on weekdays (e.g., office
buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools). The use of 365 days per year, therefore, over-
estimates actual consumption and provides a conservative estimate, ensuring that gasoline taxes
are adequately credited against the fee.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 22 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
VI. Calculated Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee
The multi-modal transportation impact fee calculations for each land use are included in
Appendix D, which includes the major land use categories and the calculated impact fees for the
individual land uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, Appendix D
illustrates the following:
Demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, percent new trips, and person-trip
factor)
Total multi-modal cost
Annual gas tax credit
Present value of the gas tax credit
Net multi-modal transportation impact fee
It should be noted that the net multimodal transportation impact fee illustrated in Appendix D is
not necessarily a recommended fee, but instead represents a technically documented multi-
modal transportation impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in the City of
Bozeman.
For clarification purposes, it may be useful to walk through the calculation of a multi-modal fee
for one of the land use categories. In the following example, the net multi-modal impact fee rate
is calculated for the Residential (1,801-2,000 sq ft) land use (ITE LUC 210) using information from
the calculated multi-modal fee schedule included in Appendix D, Table D-1. For each land use
category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net multi-modal fee:
Net Multi-Modal Fee = Total Multi-Modal Cost – Gas Tax Credit
Where:
Total Multi-Modal Cost = ([Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (1 –
Interstate Adjustment Factor) x (Person-Trip Factor) * (Cost per Person-Mile of Capacity)
Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax), given a 3.0% interest rate & a 25-year facility
life
Annual Gas Tax = ([Trip Rate x Total Trip Length x % New Trips] / 2) x (Effective Days per Year x
$/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 23 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this
example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the
actual inputs used in the calculation of the fee for the residential (1,801-2,000 sq ft) land use
category:
Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (8.31)
Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle-miles
(3.31)
Total Trip Length = the assessable trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile,
which is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for
travel on all roads, including local roads (3.31 + 0.50 = 3.81)
% New Trips = adjustment factor to account for the trips that are already on the roadway
(100%)
Divide by 2 = the total daily miles of travel generated by a particular (i.e., rate * length *
% new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double-counting of travel generated among
land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination
Person-Trip Factor = Converts vehicle-miles of travel to person-miles of travel (1.30)
Interstate Adjustment Factor = discount factor to account for the travel demand occurring
on interstate highways (19.9%)
Cost per Person-Mile of Capacity = unit of person-miles of capacity consumed per unit of
development ($319.18)
Effective Days per Year = 365 days
$/Gallon to Capital = the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for
capital improvements, in $/gallon ($0.061)
Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (18.74)
Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax
payments in this case, given an interest rate, “I”, and a number of periods, “n;” for 3.0%
interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 17.4131
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 24 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Calculation
Using these inputs, a net multi-modal impact fee can be calculated for the residential (1,801-
2,000 sq ft) land use category:
Total Multi-Modal Cost = ([8.31 * 3.31 * 1.0] /2) * (1 – 0.199) * 1.30 * ($319.18) = $4,571
Annual Gas Tax = ([8.31 * 3.81 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.061 /18.74) = $19
Revenue Credit = $19 * 17.4131 = $331
Net Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee = $4,571 - $331 = $4,240
MMTIF with 5% Administrative Fee = $4,240 * (1.05) = $4,452
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 25 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
VII. Impact Fee Revenue Projections
Between 2006 and 2017, the City has generated approximately $2.5 million per year in
transportation impact fee revenue projections, reaching over $4 million per year in 2015 and
2016, as shown in Table 7. Since 2012, the annual transportation impact fee collections averaged
$3.2 million. The City’s Transportation Master Plan estimates approximately $2.9 million per year
for planning purposes.
Table 7
Historical Transportation
Impact Fee Revenues
1) Source: City of Bozeman
2) Source: 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan, Pg. 151
Revenue projections for the multi-modal transportation impact fee are based on a review of
recent permitting activity and estimated growth levels for the City of Bozeman. Using the
calculated MMTIF rates presented in this report, the City is likely to generate an average of $3.5
million to $5.0 million per year through 2040, or a total of $80 million to $115 million over the
next 23 years. These figures are in 2018 dollars without any indexing or fee adjustments.
Year Amount
(1)
2006 $2,572,050
2007 $2,669,701
2008 $1,727,093
2009 $1,011,530
2010 $1,003,127
2011 $1,422,660
2012 $2,495,120
2013 $2,991,069
2014 $3,266,441
2015 $4,298,647
2016 $4,006,149
2017 $2,067,064
Total $29,530,652
Avg. 2006-2017 $2,460,888
Avg. 2012-2017 $3,187,415
TMP Planning(2)$2,900,000
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 26 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Finally, it should be noted that for impact fee purposes, revenue projections serve only as an
overall guideline in planning future infrastructure needs. In their simplest form, impact fees
charge each unit of new growth for the net cost (total cost less credits) of infrastructure needed
to serve that unit of growth. Theoretically, if the growth rates remain high, the City will have
more impact fee revenues to fund growth related projects sooner rather than later. If growth
rates slow down, less revenue will be generated and the timing and need for future infrastructure
improvements will be later rather than sooner.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 27 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
VIII. Impact Fee Benefit Districts
Impact fee benefit districts are boundaries that dictate where the impact fee revenues can be
spent to ensure that the fee payers receive the associated benefit. These differ from fee districts,
which dictate the impact fee rate that is charged. Fee districts are based on technical data to
justify different fee rates. In Bozeman, an example would be the lower rates calculated for the
trip exchange district (TED).
Benefit district boundaries typically follow geographical man-made or natural barriers to
transportation. In the case of most counties, there are multiple benefit districts due to larger
geographic areas. In the case of most cities, due to the relatively small geographical footprint,
the entire city is considered as a single benefit district, which is also the case for Bozeman. As
such, impact fees collected from new development may be spent on transportation capacity
expansion improvements anywhere within the city limits.
DRAFT
Appendix A
Demand Component
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix A: Demand Component
This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the demand component of the City of
Bozeman’s transportation impact fee study.
Interstate Adjustment Factor
Table A-1 presents the portion of VMT occurring on Interstate 90, which represents the interstate
adjustment factor used in the calculation of the multi-modal impact fee. This variable is based on
the roadway inventory and projected 2040 VMT in the City of Bozeman’s
Transportation Model. The interstate adjustment factor is used to reduce the PMT that the
multi-modal fee charges for each land use.
Table A-1
Interstate Adjustment Factor
1) Interstate adjustment factor for the Bozeman MMTIF
Source: Bozeman Transportation Model
Trip Characteristics Database
The Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non-
residential land uses collected over the last 25 years. Data from these studies include trip
generation, trip length, and percent new trips for each land use. This information has been used
in the development of impact fees and the creation of land use plan category trip characteristics
for communities throughout the U.S.
Tindale Oliver estimates trip generation rates for land uses in a roadway impact fee schedule
using data from studies in the Trip Characteristics Studies (TCS) Database and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (10th edition). In instances,
when both ITE Trip Generation reference report (10th edition) and TCS trip generation rate (TGR)
data are available for a particular land use, the data is typically blended to increase the sample
Roadway 2040 VMT Distribution
I-90(1)251,459 19.9%
State Roads 453,042 35.9%
County Roads 28,923 2.3%
City Roads 528,175 41.9%
Total 1,261,599 -
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
size and provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips generated per unit of
development.
The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that
record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses are set at entrances
to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses and at all access points for non-residential
land uses.
The trip length information is obtained through origin-destination surveys that ask respondents
where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving
the site. The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use.
The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin-
destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent
new trip variable is then calculated as 1 minus the percentage of trips that are captured.
Square Footage Definitions:
For residential land uses, the fees are assessed on a per unit basic, but are tiered by size. The
related square footage (SF) excludes unfinished attics, carports, attached garaged, porches that
are not protected from the weather (such as screened porches) and mobile home hitches. Both
finished and unfinished basements are included.
For non-residential land uses, two types of square footage are used based on the data available
from the ITE. The following paragraphs provide a definition of each type and the calculated fee
schedule shown in Table D-1 indicates the appropriate type of square footage for each non-
residential land use.
Gross Floor Area (GFA): the sum of the area of each floor level of a building (expressed in
square feet), including cellars, basements, mezzanines, penthouses, corridors, lobbies,
stores, and offices, that are within the principal outside faces of exterior walls, not
including architectural setbacks or projections. Included are all areas that have floor
surfaces with clear standing head room (6 ft. 6 in. minimum) regardless of their use. With
the exception of buildings containing enclosed malls or atriums, GFA is equal to gross
leasable area and gross rentable area. Occupied gross floor area refers to GFA within the
facility which is currently being utilized. If a ground-level area, or part thereof, within the
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
principal outside faces of the exterior walls is not enclosed, this floor area is considered
part of the overall GFA of the building. However, unroofed areas and unenclosed roofed-
over spaces, except those contained within the principal outside faces of exterior walls,
would be excluded from the area calculations. For the purpose of trip generation
calculation, the floor area of all parking garages within the building should not be included
in the GFA of the entire building. The majority of land uses in the Trip Generation Manual
use GFA as an independent variable.
Gross Leasable Area (GLA): the total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and
exclusive use, including and basements, mezzanines, or upper floors, expressed in square
feet and measured from the centerline of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. For
the purpose of trip generation calculation, the floor area of all parking garages within the
building should not be included within the GLA of the entire building. GLA is the area for
which tenants pay rent; it is the area that produces income for the property
owner. Occupied gross leasable area refers to GLA within the facility which is currently in
use. Leased space that is not in productive use is not considered occupied. In the retail
business, GLA lends itself readily to measurement and comparison and it has been
adopted by the shopping center industry as its standard for statistical
comparison. Accordingly, GLA is used in the Trip Generation Manual for shopping
centers. For specialty retail, strip centers, discount stores and freestanding retail
facilities, GLA usually equals GFA.
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Orange Co, FL 89.6 2006 - - 1.23 - - - - Orange County
Orange Co, FL 84.7 2006 - - 1.39 - - - - Orange County
Orange Co, FL 93.0 2006 - - 1.51 - - - - Orange County
Orange Co, FL 107.0 2007 - - 1.45 - - - - Orange County
Orange Co, FL 77.0 2009 - - 2.18 - - - - Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 93.7 2012 - - 1.15 - - - - Tindale Oliver
Total Size 545.0 5 Average Trip Length: n/a
ITE 780.0 15 Weighted Average Trip Length: n/a
Blended total 1,325.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: -
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.47
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.51
Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 1.49
Land Use 151: Mini-Warehouse
Bozeman, MT 41 Dec-06 180 180 9.32 - 4.53 n/a 42.22 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 105 Dec-06 249 249 - - 1.59 n/a - Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 142 Dec-06 819 819 9.69 - 3.23 n/a 31.30 Tindale Oliver
ITE 41,976 159 Average Trip Length: 3.12
Total (all): 288 Weighted Average Trip Length*: 3.52
Total (excluding #2): 183 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:9.61
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 9.44
Note: 2nd study excluded from summary statistics Blend of Local Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 9.44
Land Use 210: Single-Family Detached Housing (Bozeman)
Location Size / Units Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Bozeman, MT 57 Jan-07 95 95 5.74 - 3.58 N/A 20.55 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 63 Dec-06 200 200 7.70 - 2.67 N/A 20.56 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 120 2 Average Trip Length: 3.13
ITE 10,024 56 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.10
Blended total 10,144 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:6.77
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (9th Edition): 5.81
Blend of Local Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.82
Land Use 230 (ITE 9th Edition): Residential Condominium/Townhouse (Bozeman)
Location Size / Units Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Bozeman, MT 41 Dec-06 180 180 9.32 - 4.53 n/a 42.22 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 105 Dec-06 249 249 - -1.59 n/a - Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 142 Dec-06 819 819 9.69 - 3.23 n/a 31.30 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 57 Jan-07 95 95 5.74 - 3.58 N/A 20.55 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 63 Dec-06 200 200 7.70 - 2.67 N/A 20.56 Tindale Oliver
ITE 41,976 159 Average Trip Length: 3.12
Total (all): 408 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.36
Total (excluding #2): 303 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:8.48
Average Trip Generation Rate: 8.11
Average Trip Generation Rate of Single/Multi-Family*:8.19
*Average of Single/Multi-Family reflects historical permitting distribution within the City Average Trip Length of Single/Multi-Family*:3.31
SourceTotal #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New TripsLocation Size / Units Date VMT
Residential Combined (Bozeman)
Location Size / Units Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Sarasota Co, FL 76 Jun-93 70 70 10.03 - 6.00 - 60.18 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 79 Jun-93 86 86 9.77 - 4.40 - 42.99 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 135 Jun-93 75 75 8.05 - 5.90 - 47.50 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 152 Jun-93 63 63 8.55 - 7.30 - 62.42 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 193 Jun-93 123 123 6.85 - 4.60 - 31.51 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 97 Jun-93 33 33 13.20 - 3.00 - 39.60 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 282 Jun-93 146 146 6.61 - 8.40 - 55.52 Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 393 Jun-93 207 207 7.76 - 5.40 - 41.90 Sarasota County
Hernando Co, FL 76 May-96 148 148 10.01 9a-6p 4.85 - 48.55 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 128 May-96 205 205 8.17 9a-6p 6.03 - 49.27 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 232 May-96 182 182 7.24 9a-6p 5.04 - 36.49 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 301 May-96 264 264 8.93 9a-6p 3.28 - 29.29 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 135 Oct-97 230 - 5.30 9a-5p 7.90 - 41.87 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 142 Oct-97 245 - 5.20 9a-5p 4.10 - 21.32 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 150 Oct-97 160 - 5.00 9a-5p 10.80 - 54.00 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 215 Oct-97 158 - 7.60 9a-5p 4.60 - 34.96 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 257 Oct-97 225 - 7.60 9a-5p 7.40 - 56.24 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 345 Oct-97 161 - 7.00 9a-5p 6.60 - 46.20 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 368 Oct-97 152 - 6.60 9a-5p 5.70 - 37.62 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 383 Oct-97 516 - 8.40 9a-5p 5.00 - 42.00 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 441 Oct-97 195 - 8.20 9a-5p 4.70 - 38.54 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 1,169 Oct-97 348 - 6.10 9a-5p 8.00 - 48.80 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 90 Dec-99 91 - 12.80 8a-6p 11.40 - 145.92 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 400 Dec-99 389 - 7.80 8a-6p 6.40 - 49.92 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 49 Apr-02 170 - 6.70 7a-6p 10.20 - 68.34 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 52 Apr-02 212 - 10.00 7a-6p 7.60 - 76.00 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 126 Apr-02 217 - 8.50 7a-6p 8.30 - 70.55 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 55 Apr-02 133 - 6.80 8a-6p 8.12 - 55.22 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 60 Apr-02 106 - 7.73 8a-6p 8.75 - 67.64 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 70 Apr-02 188 - 7.80 8a-6p 6.03 - 47.03 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 74 Apr-02 188 - 8.18 8a-6p 5.95 - 48.67 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 189 Apr-02 261 - 7.46 8a-6p 8.99 - 67.07 Tindale Oliver
Marion Co, FL 102 Apr-02 167 - 8.02 7a-6p 5.10 - 40.90 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 105 Apr-02 169 - 7.23 7a-6p 7.22 - 52.20 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 124 Apr-02 170 - 6.04 7a-6p 7.29 - 44.03 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 132 Apr-02 171 - 7.87 7a-6p 7.00 - 55.09 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Marion Co, FL 133 Apr-02 209 - 8.04 7a-6p 4.92 - 39.56 Kimley-Horn & Associates
Citrus Co, FL 111 Oct-03 273 - 8.66 7a-6p 7.70 - 66.68 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 231 Oct-03 155 - 5.71 7a-6p 4.82 - 27.52 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 306 Oct-03 146 - 8.40 7a-6p 3.94 - 33.10 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 364 Oct-03 345 - 7.20 7a-6p 9.14 - 65.81 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 374 Oct-03 248 - 12.30 7a-6p 6.88 - 84.62 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 42 Dec-06 122 - 11.26 - 5.56 - 62.61 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 51 Dec-06 346 - 18.22 - 9.46 - 172.36 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 59 Dec-06 144 - 12.07 - 10.79 - 130.24 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 90 Dec-06 194 - 9.12 - 5.78 - 52.71 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 239 Dec-06 385 - 7.58 - 8.93 - 67.69 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 232 Apr-07 516 - 8.02 7a-6p 8.16 - 65.44 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 95 Apr-07 256 - 8.08 7a-6p 5.88 - 47.51 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 90 Apr-07 338 - 7.13 7a-6p 5.86 - 41.78 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 58 Apr-07 153 - 6.16 7a-6p 8.39 - 51.68 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 74 Mar-08 503 - 12.81 7a-6p 3.05 - 39.07 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 97 Mar-08 512 - 8.78 7a-6p 11.29 - 99.13 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 315 Mar-08 1,347 - 6.97 7a-6p 6.55 - 45.65 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 42 Mar-08 314 - 9.55 7a-6p 10.98 - 104.86 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 10,380 55 13,130 Average Trip Length: 6.79
Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.62
Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length (≈53%): 3.52
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 7.81
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 9.44
Land Use 210: Single Family - Detached (Florida)
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Residential Trip Generation Rate Tiering
As part of this study, the residential trip generation rate tiering was included to reflect a multi-
tier analysis to ensure equity by the size of a home. To facilitate this, an analysis was completed
on the comparative relationship between housing size and household travel behavior. This
analysis utilized data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2015
Location Size / Units Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Park, FL 72 Aug-89 25 19 3.50 9am-5pm 2.20 79.0 7.70 Tindale Oliver
Palm Harbor, FL 200 Oct-89 58 40 - 9am-5pm 3.40 69.0 - Tindale Oliver
Total Size 272 2 83 Average Trip Length: 2.80
ITE 388 2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.08
Blended total 660 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length (≈53%): 1.63
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 71.6
Land Use 253: Congregate Care Facility
Location Size (Rooms) Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Co, FL 48 Oct-89 46 24 - 10a-2p 2.80 65.0 - Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 54 Oct-89 32 22 - 12p-7p 3.80 69.0 - Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 120 Oct-89 26 22 - 2p-7p 5.20 84.6 - Tindale Oliver
Total Size 222 3 104 Average Trip Length: 3.93
ITE 654 6 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.34
Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length (≈53%): 2.30
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.6
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 3.35
Land Use 320: Motel
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Pinellas Co, FL 5.6 Aug-89 94 66 66.99 7a-6p 1.90 70.0 89.10 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 10.0 Sep-89 179 134 66.99 7a-6p 2.10 75.0 105.51 Tindale Oliver
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 28 25 - - 2.60 89.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates
Total Size 15.6 301 Average Trip Length: 2.20
Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.03
Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length (≈43%): 0.87
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 73.2
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate - per student: 4.09
Land Use 565: Day Care Center
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Bozeman, MT 39.0 Dec-06 107 107 - - 1.64 77.0 - Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 48.3 Dec-06 153 153 21.37 - 2.83 69.0 41.73 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 61.2 Dec-06 268 268 28.92 - 1.74 72.0 36.23 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 109.5 3 Average Trip Length: 2.29
Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.22
Note: 1st study excluded from summary statistics Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 70.7
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 9.74
Land Use 710: General Office Building (Bozeman)
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Collier Co, FL 14.1 May-99 - 55 33.48 8a-6p 3.60 72.7 87.62 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 66.0 May-99 - 43 11.53 8a-6p 5.70 79.0 51.92 Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL 211.1 May-99 - 284 17.91 8a-6p 5.40 93.0 89.94 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 291.2 3 Average Trip Length: 4.90
Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.38
Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length (≈43%): 2.31
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.8
Land Use 770: Business Park
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date
Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Bozeman, MT 104.3 Dec-06 359 359 46.96 - 3.35 49.0 77.08 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 159.9 Dec-06 502 502 56.49 - 1.56 54.0 47.59 Tindale Oliver
Bozeman, MT 35.9 Dec-06 329 329 69.30 - 1.39 74.0 71.28 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 300.1 3 Average Trip Length: 2.10
Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.16
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 54.7
ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 37.75
Land Use 820: Shopping Center/Retail (Bozeman)
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-6 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine overall trip-making characteristics of households in
the United States.
Table A-2 presents that trip characteristics being utilized in the proposed multimodal
transportation impact fee schedule for the residential land use. These variables are based on five
local trip characteristics studies conducted in Bozeman (details on page A-2 and A-3). The data
for single and multi-family developments was averaged to reflect the 50/50 split in single and
multi-family permitting that the City has experienced in recent years. The 2009 NHTS database
was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual
household income levels. In addition, the 2015 AHS database was used to compare median
annual family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the
use of the income variable in each of these databases is completed simply to provide a
convenient linking mechanism between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size
from the AHS.
Table A-2
Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics
Source: Local trip characteristics studies included in this Appendix
The results of the NHTS and AHS analyses are included in Tables A-3 and A-4. First, the data
shown in Table A-3 presents that average income in the U.S. for families/households living in
various housing tiers.
Table A-3
Annual Income by Housing Size
Source: American Housing Survey for the United State in 2015
1) Weighted average of annual income for each tier
Calculated Values Excluding Tiering Trip Rate
Assessable Trip
Length
Daily
VMT
Single/Multi-Family 8.19 3.31 27.11
2015 AHS Average Income Data by Housing
Size (Single Family, detached)
Annual
Income(1)
Less than 500 sf $28,633
500 to 749 sf $35,633
750 to 999 sf $41,065
1,000 to 1,499 sf $53,059
1,500 to 1,999 sf $66,193
2,000 to 2,499 sf $75,787
2,500 to 2,999 sf $85,483
3,000 to 3,999 sf $87,131
4,000 sf or more $91,528
Average of All Houses $57,146
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-7 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
To calculate a corresponding trip rate for the new tiers, it was necessary to rely on comparative
ratios. As an example, consider the $66,193 annual income category. First, it was determined
that the average annual household VMT for this income level is 25,352 miles. This figure was
then compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S. and normalized to
the average of $57,146 (23,482 miles) category to derive a ratio of 1.080, as shown in Table A-4.
Next, the normalized ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average residential housing unit
size of 1,500 to 1,999 square feet. This range is estimated to correspond with the average
household size of typical construction in Bozeman. As shown in Figure A-1, the average size of
single family homes has been increasing in recent years, typically averaging over 2,000 sq ft.
However, since this land use category is representative of all residential development, the
average trip generation rate of 8.19 (as shown in Table A-2) was tied to the 1,500-1,999 sq ft tier.
This reflects that multi-family units are typically smaller (approximately 60% of single family) and
have been accounting for half of the cities recent permitting.
Figure A-1
Single Family Home Size Trend in Bozeman
Source: Gallatin County Property Appraiser
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
2,400
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-8 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-4
NHTS Annual VMT by Income Category
Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration
Table A-5 presents the resulting trip generation rates calculated for each tier.
Table A-5
Estimated TGR by Income Category
1) The average TGR of 8.19 (Table A-2) multiplied by the ratio to the mean (Item 4)
2) Source: Table A-2
3) Trip Rate (Item 1) multiplied by the assessable trip length (Item 2)
4) Source: Table A-4
While Table A-5 presents a tiering analysis, the tiers that are presented in the AHS do not align
with the tiers that are used to assess the City’s transportation impact fee. Therefore, the data
points established in Table A-5 were placed on a scatterplot and a line of best fit equation was
determined. Using this equation, the TGR for the Bozeman tier criteria were calculated.
2009 NHTS Travel Data by
Annual HH Income
Annual
VMT/HH Days Daily
VMT
Ratio to
Mean
Normalized
to 1.080
Average of $28,633 14,890 365 40.79 0.634 0.587
Average of $35,633 17,454 365 47.82 0.743 0.688
Average of $41,065 18,591 365 50.93 0.792 0.733
Average of $53,059 22,501 365 61.65 0.958 0.887
Total (All Homes) 23,482 365 64.33 1.000 0.926
Average of $66,193 25,352 365 69.46 1.080 1.000
Average of $75,787 27,790 365 76.14 1.184 1.096
Average of $85,483 29,025 365 79.52 1.236 1.144
Average of $87,131 29,210 365 80.03 1.244 1.152
Average of $91,528 30,229 365 82.82 1.287 1.192
Estimation of Trip Rate by Tier Trip Rate(1)Assessable Trip
Length(2)Daily VMT(3)Ratio to
Mean(4)
Single Family (Detached)
Less than 500 sf 4.81 3.31 15.91 0.587
500 to 749 sf 5.63 3.31 18.65 0.688
750 to 999 sf 6.00 3.31 19.87 0.733
1,000 to 1,499 sf 7.27 3.31 24.05 0.887
1,500 to 1,999 sf 8.19 3.31 27.11 1.000
2,000 to 2,499 sf 8.98 3.31 29.71 1.096
2,500 to 2,999 sf 9.37 3.31 31.01 1.144
3,000 to 3,999 sf 9.44 3.31 31.23 1.152
4,000 sf or more 9.76 3.31 32.31 1.192
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 A-9 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-6
TGR Inputs for Best-Fit Line
1) Source: Table A-5. Data points
plotted at the mid-point of each
square footage tier
Table A-7 presents the trip generation rates used in the transportation impact fee calculation.
These were calculated by using the line of best fit from Table A-6 and the square footage tiers
from the cities current impact fee schedule (mid-point of square footage of each tier used in
calculation).
Table A-7
Tiered Residential Trip Generation Rates
1) TGR for each square footage tier calculating
using the max square footage of each tier and
the line of best fit previously presented
Tier Trip Rate(1)
Less than 500 sf 4.81
500 to 749 sf 5.63
750 to 999 sf 6.00
1,000 to 1,499 sf 7.27
1,500 to 1,999 sf 8.19
2,000 to 2,499 sf 8.98
2,500 to 2,999 sf 9.37
3,000 to 3,999 sf 9.44
4,000 sf or more 9.76
Tier Trip Rate(1)
Residential: 1,400 sf or less 7.62
Residential: 1,401 to 1,600 sf 7.88
Residential: 1,601 to 1,800 sf 8.11
Residential: 1,801 to 2,000 sf 8.31
Residential: 2,001 to 2,200 sf 8.49
Residential: 2,201 to 2,400 sf 8.66
Residential: 2,401 to 2,600 sf 8.82
Residential: 2,601 to 2,800 sf 8.96
Residential: 2,800 to 3,000 sf 9.09
Residential: 3,001 sf or more 9.13
y = 1.93ln(x) - 6.361
R² = 0.9458
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
DRAFT
Appendix B
Cost Component
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 B-1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix B: Cost Component
This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the cost component of the multi-modal
transportation impact fee. Supporting data and estimates are provided for all cost variables,
including:
Right-of-Way
Construction
Roadway Capacity
Transit Capital Costs
Right-of-Way
The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along a corridor that was necessary to
have sufficient cross-section width to widen an existing road or, in the case of new construction,
build a new road.
City Roadways
For impact fee purposes, the ROW cost for city roads was estimated as a percentage of the
construction cost per lane mile. This factor was developed through discussions with City staff
regarding recent and planned acquisitions. For many improvements, the City is able to acquire
ROW inexpensively through annexations or the land is readily available. However, in certain
cases, large tracts must be purchased for critical improvements. Through these discussions, it
was estimated that ROW costs are, on average, equivalent to 10 percent of the construction cost
of a capacity-expansion improvement.
State Roadways
The ROW factor for state roads was assumed to be the same as the factor determined for city
roads.
Construction
The construction cost estimates that follow include construction, design, construction
administration, utilities, and contingency cost elements for capacity expansion.
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 B-2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
City Roadways
As shown in Table B-1, the Transportation Master Plan’s committed and recommended
improvement list was reviewed to determine a cost per lane mile for city roadway improvements.
As show, for city roads, the estimated construction cost is approximately $2.8 million per lane
mile.
State Roadways
Similar to city roads, the construction cost for state roads was determined through a review of
the TMP’s committed and recommended list of improvements. As shown in Table B-1, for state
roads, the estimated construction cost is approximately $3.2 million per lane mile.
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 B-3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table B-1 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan – Committed and Recommended Improvements TMP ID Jurisdiction Title Description Improvement LengthExisting LanesFuture LanesLanes AddedLane Miles AddedCostCost per Lane MileCommitted MSN Improvements (FY 2018-2022)CMSN-1 State Griffin Dr from N. 7th Ave to Rouse Rd Reconstruct 3-Lane Urban Arterial State, 2 to 3 0.74 2 3 1 0.74 $5,000,000 $6,756,757CMSN-2 City Cottonwood Rd from Babcock St to Durston Rd Widen to 5-Lane Urban Arterial City, 2 to 5 0.50 2 5 3 1.50 $2,555,883 $1,703,922CMSN-5 City Durston Rd from Ferguson Rd to Fowler Ave Complete to a 3-Lane Urban Arterial City, 2 to 3 0.50 2 3 1 0.50 $1,514,842 $3,029,684CMSN-7 City S. 11th Ave from Kagy Blvd to Graf St Ext. Complete to a 2-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.76 2 3 1 0.76 $1,600,000 $2,105,263CMSN-9 City W. Babcock St from S. 11th Ave to S. 19th St Upgrade to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.52 2 3 1 0.52 $1,500,000 $2,884,615CMSN-10 State Oak St from Rouse Ave thru Cannery District Improve and add turn lane State, 2 to 3 0.24 2 3 1 0.24 $266,000 $1,108,333CMSN-11 State Rouse Ave from E Main St to Oak St Reconstruct 3-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 3 0.84 2 3 1 0.84 $9,185,756 $10,935,424CTSM-2 City Ferguson Ave and Durston Rd Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection-----$2,256,220 -CTSM-3 City Oak St and Davis Lane Roundabout Installation Intersection-----$1,761,508 -CTSM-4 City Oak St and Ferguson Ave Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection-----$1,345,331 -CTSM-5 City S. 3rd Ave and Graf St Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection-----$1,000,000 -CTSM-6City Cottonwood Rd and Babcock St Traffic Signal Installation Intersection -----$1,435,336 -CTSM-9StateBozeman Signal Safety Signal upgrades Intersection -----$1,635,776 -CTSM-10 State Cottonwood Rd & Stucky Rd Roundabout Installation Intersection-----$3,158,260 -CTSM-11City Highland Blvd and Main St Intersection Improvement Intersection -----$150,000 -CTSM-12City Baxter Ln and Davis St Intersection Improvement Intersection -----$2,500,000 -CTSM-14City Kagy Blvd (S. 19th Ave to Wilson Ave) Intersection Improvement Intersection -----$500,000 -Recommended MSN ImprovementsMSN-1 State Kagy Blvd from Wilson Ave to Highland Blvd Reconstruct to a 4-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 4 1.05 2 4 2 2.10 $6,000,000 $2,857,143MSN-2 State Oak St from N. 7th Ave to west edge of Cannery District Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 3 0.49 2 3 1 0.49 $1,950,000 $3,979,592MSN-3 City N. 11th Ave from Durston Rd to Oak St Construct to a 2-Lane Urban Collector City, 0 to 2 0.51 0 2 2 1.02 $1,120,000 $1,098,039MSN-4 City N. 15th Ave from Patrick St to Baxter Ln Construct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 0 to 3 0.32 0 3 3 0.96 $705,000 $734,375MSN-5 State N. 19th Ave from Interstate 90 to Springhill Rd Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 3 to 5 0.47 3 5 2 0.94 $2,500,000 $2,659,574MSN-6 State Springhill Rd from Frontage Rd to Sypes Canyon Rd Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Rural Minor Arterial State, 2 to 5 1.50 2 3 1 1.50$2,850,000 $1,900,000MSN-7 City N. 27th Ave from Baxter Ln to Valley Center Rd Construct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 1.41 2 3 1 1.41 $4,200,000 $2,978,723MSN-8 State Kagy Blvd from Wilson Ave to S. 19th Ave Reconstruct to a 4-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 4 1.04 2 4 2 2.08 $8,000,000 $3,846,154MSN-9 State Oak St from N. 27th Ave to N. 19th Ave Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 5 0.50 2 5 3 1.50 $2,100,000 $1,400,000MSN-10 City Cattail St from Davis Ln to Harper Puckett Rd Construct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 0 to 3 1.00 0 3 3 3.00 $3,000,000 $1,000,000MSN-11 City Davis Ln from Baxter Ln to Valley Center Rd Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 5 1.71 2 5 3 5.13 $8,500,000 $1,656,920MSN-12 City Cottonwood Rd from Oak St to Cattail St Construct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial City, 0 to 5 1.00 0 5 5 5.00 $5,000,000 $1,000,000MSN-13 City Fowler Ave Connection from Huffine Ln to Oak St Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 5 1.51 2 5 3 4.53 $7,500,000 $1,655,629MSN-15 City Cottonwood Rd from Durston Rd to Oak St Construct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial City, 2 to 5 0.50 2 5 3 1.50 $2,500,000 $1,666,667MSN-17 State College St from S. 11th Ave to S. 19th Ave Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Minor Arterial State, 2 to 3 0.52 2 3 1 0.52 $1,100,000 $2,115,385MSN-18 City Oak St from Cottonwood Rd to Flanders Mill Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial City, 0 to 5 0.26 0 5 5 1.30 $1,550,000 $1,192,308MSN-21 City S. 3rd Ave from Graf St to Kagy Blvd Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.72 2 3 1 0.72 $2,100,000 $2,916,667MSN-22 State Highland Blvd from Main St to Kagy Blvd Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 5 1.63 2 5 3 4.89 $10,000,000 $2,044,990MSN-26 State Cottonwood Rd from Loyal Dr to Graf St Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 5 1.09 2 5 3 3.27 $5,500,000 $1,681,957
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 B-4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table B-1 (continued) Bozeman Transportation Master Plan – Committed and Recommended Improvements Source: 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan, Chapter 4; additional information provided by city staff TMP ID Jurisdiction Title Description Improvement LengthExisting LanesFuture LanesLanes AddedLane Miles AddedCostCost per Lane MileRecommended MSN ImprovementsMSN-29 State Valley Center Rd from Valley Center Spur Rd to N. 27th Ave Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 3 1.07 2 3 1 1.07 $3,510,000 $3,280,374MSN-34 City Cattail St from N. 19th Ave to N. 27th Ave Construct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.32 2 3 1 0.32 $960,000 $3,000,000MSN-36 City Manley Rd from Griffin Dr to Gallatin Park Dr North Reconstruct to an Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.63 2 3 1 0.63 $1,950,000$3,095,238MSN-37 City W. Lincoln St from N. 19th Ave to S. 11th Ave Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.52 2 3 1 0.52 $1,500,000$2,884,615MSN-38 City Oak St from Flanders Mill to Ryunson Way Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial City, 0 to 5 0.21 0 5 5 1.05 $1,500,000 $1,428,571MSN-39 City Baxter Ln from Ferguson Ave to Harper Puckett Rd Complete to a 3-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 3 0.50 2 3 1 0.50 $1,500,000 $3,000,000MSN-40 City Baxter Ln from N. 19th Ave to Davis Ln Complete to a 3-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 3 0.85 2 3 1 0.85 $1,500,000 $1,764,706MSN-41 State Baxter Ln from N. 7th Ave to N. 19th Ave Complete to a 3-Lane Urban Collector State, 2 to 3 1.08 2 3 1 1.08 $1,500,000 $1,388,889MSN-43 State Oak St from N. 15th Ave to N. 19th Ave Complete to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 3 to 5 0.27 3 5 2 0.54 $765,000 $1,416,667MSN-44 City N. 27th Ave from Oak St to Tschache Ln Complete to a 5-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 5 0.25 2 5 3 0.75 $350,000 $466,667MSN-46 State S. 19th Ave from Kagy Blvd to Goldenstein Ln Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Principal Arterial Standard State, 2 to 5 1.77 2 5 3 5.31 $9,000,000 $1,694,915MSN-47 City Durston Rd from Cottonwood Rd to Ferguson Ave Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 3 0.50 2 3 1 0.50 $2,500,000 $5,000,000TSM-2 City N. 27th Ave and Oak St Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - -$650,000 -TSM-3 City Baxter Ln and Cottonwood Rd Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,500,000 -TSM-4 City Oak St and Cottonwood Rd Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,750,000 -TSM-5 City Durston Rd and Flanders Mill Rd Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-6 City Bridger Dr and Story Mill Rd Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $1,000,000 -TSM-7 City Fowler Ave and Babcock St Intersection Improvement Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-9 City Fowler Ave and Durston Rd Intersection Improvement Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-10 City Davis Ln and Cattail St Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-11 City Davis Ln and Catamount St Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-13 City N. 27th Ave and Tschache Ln Traffic Signal Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-14 City Davis Lane and Valley Center Rd Traffic Signal Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-15 City N. 27th Ave and Valley Center Rd Traffic Signal Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-16 State Oak St and N. 19th Ave Intersection Improvement Intersection - - - - - $530,000 -TSM-17 City Oak St and N. 11th Ave Traffic Signal Installation Intersection - - - - - $1,150,000 -TSM-18 State N. 7th Ave and Griffin Dr Intersection Improvement Intersection - - - - - $2,350,000 -TSM-19 State Oak St and N. 7th Ave Intersection Improvement Intersection - - - - - $750,000 -TSM-23 State Highland Blvd and Ellis St Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -TSM-24 State Highland Blvd and Kagy Blvd Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,850,000 -TSM-25 State Kagy Blvd and S. Church Ave/Sourdough Rd (Opt. 1) Traffic Signal or Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,850,000 -TSM-27 City Huffine Ln and Fowler Ave Signal Turn-Phase Evaluation Intersection - - - - - $150,000 -TSM-29 State Oak St and Stoneridge Dr Modify Intersection Approach Intersection - - - - - $70,000 -TSM-39 City Lincoln St and S. 11th Ave Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $2,000,000 -Total60.08City Roads OnlyLane Mile Distribution:55%32.97 $92,254,120$2,798,123State Roads OnlyLane Mile Distribution:45%27.11 $85,420,792$3,150,896
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 B-5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Roadway Capacity
As shown in Table B-2, the average capacity per lane-mile was based on the projects in the
Bozeman Transportation Master Plan’s committed and recommended projects lists. The listing
of projects reflects the mix of improvements that will yield the vehicle-miles of capacity (VMC)
that will be built in the City of Bozeman. The initial and future capacity values are based on the
planning level estimates provided in the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan, Table 2.7, with an
adjustment of 25 percent, based on discussions with City staff. This adjustment reflects that
future improvements are designed to account for such factors as limiting direct access points to
a facility, provided adequate roadway geometrics, and improving sight distance. The resulting
weighted average capacity per lane mile of approximately 7,900 was used in the multi-modal
transportation impact fee calculation.
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 B-6 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table B-2 City of Bozeman Transportation Master Plan, Committed and Recommended Improvements Source: City of Bozeman 2017 Transportation Master Plan, Chapter 4; includes additional detail provided by city staff TMP ID Jurisdiction Title Description Improvement LengthExisting LanesFuture LanesLanes AddedLane Miles AddedInitial CapacityFuture CapacityAdded CapacityVMC AddedVMC Added per Lane MileTable 4.1: Committed MSN Improvements (FY 2018-2022)CMSN-1StateGriffin Dr from N. 7th Ave to Rouse Rd Reconstruct 3-Lane Urban Arterial State, 2 to 3 0.742310.7415,00022,5007,5005,5507,500CMSN-2City Cottonwood Rd from Babcock St to Durston Rd Widen to 5-Lane Urban Arterial City, 2 to 5 0.502531.5015,00040,00025,00012,500 8,333CMSN-5City Durston Rd from Ferguson Rd to Fowler Ave Complete to a 3-Lane Urban Arterial City, 2 to 3 0.502310.5015,00022,5007,5003,750 7,500CMSN-7City S. 11th Ave from Kagy Blvd to Graf St Ext. Complete to a 2-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.762310.7612,00018,0006,000 4,560 6,000CMSN-9City W. Babcock St from S. 11th Ave to S. 19th St Upgrade to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.522310.5215,00022,5007,500 3,900 7,500CMSN-10StateOak St from Rouse Ave thru Cannery District Improve and add turn lane State, 2 to 3 0.242310.2415,00022,5007,5001,8007,500CMSN-11StateRouse Ave from E Main St to Oak St Reconstruct 3-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 3 0.842310.8415,00022,5007,500 6,300 7,500Table 4.2: Recommended MSN ImprovementsMSN-1StateKagy Blvd from Wilson Ave to Highland Blvd Reconstruct to a 4-Lane Urban Principal ArterialState, 2 to 4 1.052422.1015,000 30,000 15,000 15,750 7,500MSN-2 State Oak St from N. 7th Ave to west edge of Cannery District Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 3 0.492310.4915,00022,5007,5003,6757,500MSN-3City N. 11th Ave from Durston Rd to Oak St Construct to a 2-Lane Urban Collector City, 0 to 2 0.510221.02 015,00015,0007,6507,500MSN-4City N. 15th Ave from Patrick St to Baxter Ln Construct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 0 to 3 0.320330.96 022,50022,5007,2007,500MSN-5 State N. 19th Ave from Interstate 90 to Springhill Rd Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 3 to 5 0.473520.9430,00040,00010,0004,7005,000MSN-6StateSpringhill Rd from Frontage Rd to Sypes Canyon Rd Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Rural Minor Arterial State, 2 to 5 1.502311.5015,000 22,500 7,500 11,250 7,500MSN-7City N. 27th Ave from Baxter Ln to Valley Center Rd Construct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 1.412311.4115,00022,5007,500 10,575 7,500MSN-8StateKagy Blvd from Wilson Ave to S. 19th Ave Reconstruct to a 4-Lane Urban Principal ArterialState, 2 to 4 1.042422.0815,000 30,000 15,000 15,600 7,500MSN-9StateOak St from N. 27th Ave to N. 19th Ave Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal ArterialState, 2 to 5 0.502531.5015,00040,000 25,000 12,500 8,333MSN-10City Cattail St from Davis Ln to Harper Puckett Rd Construct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 0 to 3 1.000333.00 022,50022,500 22,500 7,500MSN-11City Davis Ln from Baxter Ln to Valley Center Rd Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 5 1.712535.1315,00040,000 25,000 42,750 8,333MSN-12City Cottonwood Rd from Oak St to Cattail St Construct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial City, 0 to 5 1.000555.00 040,00040,000 40,000 8,000MSN-13City Fowler Ave Connection from Huffine Ln to Oak St Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 5 1.512534.5315,000 40,000 25,000 37,750 8,333MSN-15City Cottonwood Rd from Durston Rd to Oak St Construct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial City, 2 to 5 0.502531.5015,00040,000 25,000 12,500 8,333MSN-17StateCollege St from S. 11th Ave to S. 19th Ave Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Minor Arterial State, 2 to 3 0.522310.5215,00022,500 7,500 3,900 7,500MSN-18City Oak St from Cottonwood Rd to Flanders Mill Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal ArterialCity, 0 to 5 0.260551.30 040,000 40,000 10,400 8,000MSN-21City S. 3rd Ave from Graf St to Kagy Blvd Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.722310.7215,00022,5007,5005,400 7,500MSN-22StateHighland Blvd from Main St to Kagy Blvd Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal ArterialState, 2 to 5 1.632534.8915,000 40,000 25,000 40,750 8,333MSN-26StateCottonwood Rd from Loyal Dr to Graf St Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal ArterialState, 2 to 5 1.092533.2715,00040,000 25,000 27,250 8,333MSN-29 State Valley Center Rd from Valley Center Spur Rd to N. 27th Ave Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 2 to 3 1.072311.0715,00022,5007,5008,0257,500MSN-34City Cattail St from N. 19th Ave to N. 27th Ave Construct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.322310.3215,00022,5007,500 2,400 7,500MSN-36City Manley Rd from Griffin Dr to Gallatin Park Dr North Reconstruct to an Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.632310.6312,00018,000 6,000 3,780 6,000MSN-37City W. Lincoln St from N. 19th Ave to S. 11th Ave Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 3 0.522310.5215,00022,500 7,500 3,900 7,500MSN-38 City Oak St from Flanders Mill to Ryunson Way Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial City, 0 to 5 0.210551.05 040,00040,0008,4008,000MSN-39City Baxter Ln from Ferguson Ave to Harper Puckett Rd Complete to a 3-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 3 0.502310.5015,000 22,500 7,500 3,750 7,500MSN-40City Baxter Ln from N. 19th Ave to Davis Ln Complete to a 3-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 3 0.852310.8515,00022,5007,500 6,375 7,500MSN-41StateBaxter Ln from N. 7th Ave to N. 19th Ave Complete to a 3-Lane Urban Collector State, 2 to 3 1.082311.0815,00022,5007,500 8,100 7,500MSN-43StateOak St from N. 15th Ave to N. 19th Ave Complete to a 5-Lane Urban Principal Arterial State, 3 to 5 0.273520.5422,50040,000 17,500 4,725 8,750MSN-44City N. 27th Ave from Oak St to Tschache Ln Complete to a 5-Lane Urban Collector City, 2 to 5 0.252530.7515,00040,00025,0006,250 8,333MSN-46StateS. 19th Ave from Kagy Blvd to Goldenstein Ln Reconstruct to a 5-Lane Principal Arterial StandardState, 2 to 5 1.772535.31 15,000 40,000 25,000 44,250 8,333MSN-47City Durston Rd from Cottonwood Rd to Ferguson Ave Reconstruct to a 3-Lane Urban Minor Arterial City, 2 to 3 0.502310.5015,000 22,500 7,500 3,7507,500Total60.08 474,165 7,892
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 B-7 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Transit Capital Costs
To convert the roadway impact fee into a multi-modal fee, the marginal cost of adding transit
infrastructure is considered. This section details the difference in cost per person-mile of capacity
between expanding a roadway without transit amenities versus expanding a roadway with transit
amenities. This calculation also accounts for the change in roadway PMC that occurs when a bus
is on the road.
Table B-3 calculates the person-miles of capacity added for each new transit vehicle on the road.
This calculation adjusts for the fact that buses have a significantly higher person-capacity than
passenger vehicles. This table also identifies transit capital cost variables that will be used to
calculate the added capital cost of constructing/expanding a roadway with transit facilities.
Table B-4 combines the roadway VMC and the transit PMC to calculate the marginal change in
cost per PMC. First, the roadway characteristics, including cost and capacity, were used to
calculate the roadway cost per VMC for a generic 8-mile roadway segment. Then, an adjustment
factor was applied to recognize that incorporating transit along a segment of roadway decreases
the vehicle-capacity as the bus makes intermittent stops and interrupts the free-flowing traffic.
As shown in Table B-4, the bus blockage adjustment factor is much higher for a 2-lane roadway
than for a 4-lane roadway. On a 2-lane road, all cars get caught behind the bus during a stop,
while on a 4-lane roadway, there is an unobstructed travel lane that cars can use to pass-by or
maneuver around the slower transit vehicle. This adjusted VMC was then converted to PMC
using the vehicle-miles to person-miles adjustment factor previously discussed in this report. The
additional person-capacity from the buses was added to the adjusted roadway PMC. The person-
miles of capacity that a transit system would add to the stretch of roadway (Table B-4) mitigates
the decrease in vehicle-miles of capacity due to the bus blockage adjustments.
Next, the capital cost of transit infrastructure was added to the capital cost of the roadway
expansion for both new road construction (0 to 2 lanes) and lane addition (2 to 4 lanes). With
the transit infrastructure included, the updated cost per PMC was calculated, which now reflects
the total cost of building a new road with transit, or expanding a roadway and adding transit
amenities. When compared to the cost per PMC for simply building/expanding a roadway
without transit, the added cost of transit is between one (1) percent and four (4) percent.
As a final step, the increased costs were then weighted by the lane mile distribution of new road
construction and lane addition improvements in the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan. As
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 B-8 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
shown, the plan calls for a higher number of lane addition improvements in the future. When
the marginal cost of transit is included and weighted by this ratio, the resulting percent change
is approximately 2.1 percent. Essentially, at a less than three percent cost difference, adding
transit does not have a significant effect on the cost per person-mile of capacity for new road
construction and lane addition improvements.
As it is currently structured, the transit model detailed in Tables B-3 and B-4 assumes that transit-
miles and road-miles will be added to the system at the same rate. If the City adds more transit-
miles, this would increase the bus traffic on existing roads, adding more stops, higher stop
frequency, and creating additional bus blockage. As a result, the capital cost per person-mile for
a roadway with transit would increase in relation to the ratio of added transit-miles vs. roadway-
miles. For example, if the transit-mile investment was double that of roadway
construction/expansion, the 2.0 percent change calculated in Table B-4 would increase to
approximately 4.0 percent. The annual construction figures for transit-miles and road-miles
should be tracked by the City and adjusted for in subsequent multi-modal fee update studies.
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 B-9 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table B-3 Multi-Modal Cost per Person-Mile of Capacity Input Local TransitSource:Vehicle Capacity(1)30 1) Source: City staffNumber of Vehicles (25% fleet margin)(2)1 2) Cycle time (Item 9) divided by headway time (Item 6) increased by 25 percent to accommodate the required fleet marginService Span (hours)(3)12 3) Source: Assumption based on current Streamline RoutesCycles/Hour (aka Peak Vehicles)(4)1.00 4) Headway time (Item 6) divided by 60Cycles per Day(5)12 5) Service span (Item 3) multiplied by the cycles/hour (Item 4)Headway Time (minutes)(6)60 6) Source: Assumption based on current Streamline routesSpeed (mph)(7)13 7) Source: Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS). 6-yr averageRound Trip Length (miles)(8)8.0 8) Source: Average trip length of current Streamline routesCycle Time (minutes)(9)37 9) Round trip length (Item 8) divided by speed (Item 7) multiplied by 60Total Person-Miles of Capacity(10)2,880 10) Vehicle capacity (Item 1) multiplied by the cycles per day (Item 5) multiplied by the round trip length (Item 8)Load Factor/System Capacity(11)40% 11) Source: Optimistic assumption based on future goals (current load factor = 33%)Adjusted Person-Miles of Capacity(12)1,152 12) Total person-miles of capacity (Item 10) multiplied by the load factor (Item 11)Stops per Mile (w/o Shelter)(13)4 13) Source: Model assumes 4 bench stops per mileShelters per Mile(14)1 14) Source: Model assumes 1 shelter stop per mileVehicle Cost(15)$200,000 15) Source: City staffSimple Bus Stop(16)$25 16) Source: City staff, includes signageSheltered Bus Stop(17)$8,000 17) Source: City staff, includes signage, bench, shelterTransit Person-Miles of Capacity CalculationCapital Cost Variables
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 B-10 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table B-4 Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee: Transit Component Model Roadway Transit Roadway TransitSource:Roadway Cost per Mile(1)$6,556,000 $6,556,000 1) Source: Table 3, adjusted to cost "per mile"Roadway Segment Length (miles)(2)8.0 8.0 2) Source: Average length of BCT routeRoadway Segment Cost(3)$52,448,000PMC$52,448,000PMC 3) Roadway cost per mile (Item 1) multiplied by the roadway segment length (Item 2)Average Capacity Added (per mile)(4)20,540 26,702 20,540 26,702 4) Source: Table 4, adjusted to capacity "per mile"VMC/PMC Added (entire segment)(5)164,320 213,616 164,320 213,616 5) Roadway segment length (Item 2) multiplied by the average capacity added (Item 4) for both VMC and PMCRoadway Cost per VMC/PMC(6)$319.18$245.52$319.18$245.52 6) Roadway segment cost (Item 3) divided by the VMC/PMC added (Item 5) individuallyAdjustment for Bus Blockage(7)3.2% - 1.6% - 7) Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Equation 18-9VMC/PMC Added (transit deduction)(8)5,258 6,835 2,629 3,418 8) VMC added (Item 5) multiplied by the adjustment for bus blockage (Item 7). For PMC, multiply the VMC by 1.40 persons per vehicleVMC/PMC Added (less transit deduction)(9)159,062 206,781 161,691 210,198 9) VMC/PMC added (entire segment) (Item 5) less the VMC/PMC added (transit deduction) (Item 8) for VMC and PMC individuallyPMC Added (transit addition ONLY)(10)1,1521,152 10) Source: Table B-4, Adjusted Person-Miles of Capacity (Item 12)Net PMC Added (transit effect included)(11)207,933 211,350 11) PMC added (less transit deduction) (Item 9) plus the PMC added (transit addition ONLY) (Item 10)Road/Transit Cost per PMC (Road Capital)(12)$252.24 $248.16 12) Road segment cost (Item 3) divided by the net PMC added (transit effect included) (Item 11)Buses Needed(13)1 $200,000 1 $200,000 13) Number of vehicles (see Table B-4, Item 2) multiplied by the vehicle cost (see Table B-4, Item 15)Stops per mile (both sides of street)(14)4 $1,600 4 $1,600 14) Stops per mile (3) multiplied by the roadway segment length (Item 2) multiplied by the cost per stop (Table B-4, Item 16)Shelters per mile (both sides of street)(15)1 $128,0001 $128,000 15) Shelters per mile (1) multiplied by the roadway segment length (Item 2) multiplied by the cost per shelter (Table B-4, Item 17)Total infrastructure(16)$329,600 $329,600 16) Sum of buses needed (Item 13), stops needed (Item 14), and shelters needed (Item 15)Road/Transit Cost per PMC(17)$253.82 $249.72 17) Sum of the roadway segment cost (Item 3) and the total transit infrastructure cost (Item 16) divided by the net PMC added (Item 11)Percent Change(18)3.38% 1.71% 18) Percent difference between the road/transit cost per PMC (Item 17) and the Roadway cost per PMC (Item 6)Lane Mile Distribution(19)20% 80% 19) Source: Estimate based on mix of Committed and Recommended Master Plan improvementsWeighted Roadway Cost per PMC(20)$49.10 $196.42 20) Roadway cost per PMC (Item 6) multiplied by the lane mile distribution (Item 19)Weighted Road/Transit Cost per PMC(21)$50.76 $199.77 21) Road/Transit cost per PMC (Item 17) multiplied by the lane mile distribution (Item 19)$245.52 22) Sum of the weighted roadway cost per PMC (Item 20) for new road construction and lane additions$250.53 23) Sum of the weighted road/transit cost per PMC (Item 21) for new road construction and lane additions2.04% 24) Percent difference between the weighted average road/transit cost per PMC (Item 23) and the weighted average roadway cost per PMC (Item 22)Multi-Modal Cost per PMC:ItemNew Road Construction Lane AddtionsRoadway Characteristics:Transit Capacity:Transit Infrastructure:Weighted Average Road/Transit Cost per PMC (new road construction and lane additions)(23)Percent Change(24)Weighted Multi-Modal Cost per PMC:Weighted Average Multi-Modal Cost per PMC:Weighted Average Roadway Cost per PMC (new road construction and lane additions)(22)
DRAFT
Appendix C
Credit Component
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 C-1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix C: Credit Component
The methodology used to calculate the fuel tax distribution per penny of gas tax is based on the
following process summarized below and presented in Table C-1. Since the impact fee is based
on consumption of capacity on all roads, the revenue credit considers capital investment on city,
county, and state roadways.
Estimating the value per penny using the Highway State Special Revenue Fund;
Dividing the fuel tax revenue by 31.5 pennies;
Calculating the value per penny of gas tax;
Estimating the fuel tax distribution in Gallatin County based on the value per penny, per
person, multiplied by the 2017 population estimate; and
The use of Gallatin County data reflects a regional approach to the capital improvement
credit which accounts for traffic entering and exiting the city, but do not necessarily
remain in the city during the entire trip.
Table C-1
MDOT Fuel Tax Distribution per Penny
1) Source: Montana Department of Transportation
2) Highway State Special Revenue Fund divided by 31.5 pennies
3) American Community Survey 5-yr population estimate
4) Value per penny for Montana (Item 2) divided by the Montana
population estimate
5) Value per penny per person (Item 4) multiplied by the Gallatin County
population estimate
City Capital Improvement Credit
A review of the City of Bozeman’s 5-year planned expenditures shows that transportation
projects are primarily being funded by a combination of impact fees and arterial & collector
Item Figure
Highway State Special Revenue Fund(1)$165,000,000
State Fuel Tax Rate (Pennies)(1)31.5
Value per Penny - State of Montana(2)$5,238,095
Montana Population Estimate_2016(3)1,023,391
Value per Penny per Person(4)$5.12
Gallatin County Population Estimate_2016(3)97,958
Value per Penny - Gallatin County(5)$501,545
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 C-2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
special assessment revenues. The FY 2018-2022 Capital Improvements Program indicates that
city fuel tax revenues will be transferred to the Street Maintenance District fund and dedicated
to maintenance projects and equipment. As shown in Table C-2, a total “gas tax equivalent”
revenue credit of 3.8 pennies was given for transportation capacity-expansion projects funded
with non-impact fee revenues.
Table C-2
City of Bozeman Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies
1) Source: Table C-4
2) Source: Table C-1
3) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 2) and multiplied by 0.01
County Capital Improvement Credit
A review of the Gallatin County FY 2018 budget indicated that road impact fees appear to be the
only revenue source earmarked for capacity enhancements. However, recent changes in the
collection of impact fees and the completion of several large projects have nearly exhausted the
existing fund balance. The budget indicates that the portion of the state fuel tax distributed to
the County is used to purchase materials and contracts for road maintenance. Therefore, the
multi-modal transportation impact fee calculations do not include a County credit due to all non-
impact fee revenue sources being spent on non-capacity improvements.
State Capital Improvement Credit
A review of historical state expenditures was conducted to calculate a credit for capacity
improvements funded by the Montana Department of Transportation. The projects identified,
as shown in Table C-5, include roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements located within
the City of Bozeman. As shown in Table C-3, a total “gas tax equivalent” revenue credit of 2.3
pennies was given for MDT-funded transportation capacity-expansion improvements.
Source Cost of
Projects
Number
of Years
Revenue
from 1
Penny(2)
Equivalent
Pennies(3)
Projected CIP Expenditures (FY 2018-2022)(1)$9,499,766 5 $501,545 $0.038
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 C-3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table C-3
State of Montana Fuel Tax Equivalent Pennies
1) Source: Table C-5
2) Source: Table C-1
3) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from 1 penny (Item 2) and multiplied by 0.01
Source Cost of
Projects
Number
of Years
Revenue
from 1
Penny(2)
Equivalent
Pennies(3)
Historical Expenditures (2000-2017)(1)$19,201,181 17 $501,545 $0.023
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 C-4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table C-4 City of Bozeman FY 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Section V, Table VM-1 Proj. Project Name Description FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 TotalSIF036 Cottonwood (Babcock to Durston) Complete 5-lane expansion $1,278,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,278,000SIF039 Ferguson & Durston (Intersection) Install roundabout $451,244 $0 $0 $0 $0 $451,244SIF046 Oak (New Holland to Ferguson) Complete 5-lane expansion $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000SIF061 Oak & Ferguson (Intersection) Signal Installation $269,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $269,066SIF062 Durston (Fowler to Ferguson) Complete 3-lane expansion $0 $757,421 $0 $0 $0 $757,421SIF074 Oak & Davis (Intersection) Install roundabout $352,302 $0 $0 $0 $0 $352,302SIF076 Fowler Connection (Huffine to Oak) New Road Construction $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000SIF080 Ferguson (Baxter to Oak) New Road Construction $666,666 $0 $0 $0 $0 $666,666SIF104 Cottonwood & Babcock (Intersection) Signal Installation $287,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,067SIF108 S 3rd and Graf Signal Installation $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000SIF109 Oak (Rouse through Cannery District) Add Turn Lane $0 $133,000 $0 $0 $0 $133,000SIF110 Manley & Griffin (Intersection) Intersection Improvement $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $400,000SIF112 Highland & Main (Intersection) Intersection Improvement $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000SIF113 Griffin (7th to Rouse) Intersection Improvement $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000SIF117 Story Mill (Griffin to Bridger) Lane Addition $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $225,000SIF118 Babcock (11th Ave to 19th Ave) Lane Addition $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $750,000SIF121 Baxter & Davis (Intersection) Install roundabout $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000SIF125 College (11th to 19th) Lane Addition $0$0$0$100,000$0$100,000$3,934,345 $1,090,421 $2,900,000 $825,000 $750,000 $9,499,766$1,899,953 Total Average Annual Expenditures (over 5 years)
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 C-5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table C-5 Montana Department of Transportation – Recent Capacity Expenditures in Bozeman Source: Montana Department of Transportation and City of Bozeman Cont. ID Proj. # Project Name Award Date Amount03900 04490002000 NORTH 7TH AVENUE & GRIFFIN DRIVE 8/31/2000 $67,22004900 04319006000 SIGNAL - NORTH 19TH & BAXTER 9/28/2000 $462,39205603 04179037000 19TH & MAIN 4/5/2004 $2,266,44616404 05094003000 HIGHLAND - KAGY TO MAIN 4/29/2004 $1,488,0804952012000 BABCOCK TO KAGY4918009000 S 19TH & COLLEGE4713011000 SIGNAL-19TH & KOCH03B11 7412003000 BAXTER LN - N 7TH TO N 19TH 11/29/2011 $197,99404614 7426003000 COLLEGE - MAIN TO S 19TH 6/24/2014 $5,780,77722915 8689036000 DURSTON ROAD SIDEWALK 10/6/2015 $65,87507616 8688039000 ELEM SCHOOL BIKE PED 6/28/2016 $285,620$19,201,181$1,129,48102708 9/8/2008 $8,586,776 Total (2000-2016) Average Annual Expenditures (over 17 years)
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 C-6 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table C-6 Average Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency – Excluding Interstate Travel Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Section V, Table VM-1 Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data – 2016 by Highway Category and Vehicle Type https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm 22.0 6.4@ 22.0 mpg @ 6.4 mpgOther Arterial Rural317,691,000,000 45,164,000,000 362,855,000,000 88% 12%Other Rural302,483,000,000 27,939,000,000 330,422,000,000 92% 8%Other Urban1,553,636,000,000 93,910,000,000 1,647,546,000,000 94% 6%Total 2,173,810,000,000 167,013,000,000 2,340,823,000,000 93% 7%Gallons @ 22.0 mpg Gallons @ 6.4 mpg2,340,823 miles (millions)Other Arterial Rural14,440,500,000 7,056,875,000 21,497,375,000 124,905 gallons (millions)Other Rural13,749,227,273 4,365,468,750 18,114,696,023 18.74 mpgOther Urban70,619,818,182 14,673,437,500 85,293,255,682 Total 98,809,545,455 26,095,781,250 124,905,326,705 TravelVehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) @Percent VMTFuel Consumed Total Mileage and Fuel
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 C-7 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table C-7 Annual Vehicle Distance Travelled in Miles and Related Data – 2016(1) By Highway Category and Vehicle Type Published December 2017TABLE VM-1ALL LIGHT VEHICLES(2)SINGLE-UNIT 2-AXLE 6-TIRE OR MORE AND COMBINATION TRUCKS Motor-Vehicle Travel: (millions of vehicle-miles)2016 Interstate Rural 139,460 1,095 1,740 44,086 9,905 50,430183,546 60,335246,7162016 Other Arterial Rural 226,036 2,633 2,116 91,655 16,371 28,794317,691 45,164367,6052016 Other Rural 212,457 2,856 1,946 90,026 15,563 12,375302,483 27,939335,2242016 All Rural 577,954 6,583 5,802 225,768 41,839 91,599 803,721 133,439 949,5452016 Interstate Urban 392,838 2,939 2,542 99,523 18,555 41,991492,361 60,546558,3882016 Other Urban 1,220,973 10,923 8,006 332,663 52,944 40,9661,553,636 93,9101,666,4752016 All Urban 1,613,810 13,862 10,548 432,186 71,499 82,958 2,045,997 154,456 2,224,8632016 Total Rural and Urban(5)2,191,764 20,445 16,350 657,954 113,338 174,557 2,849,718 287,895 3,174,4082016 Number of motor vehicles 192,774,508 8,679,380 976,161 54,870,473 8,746,518 2,752,043 247,644,981 11,498,561 268,799,083 registered(2)2016 Average miles traveled 11,370 2,356 16,749 11,991 12,958 63,428 11,507 25,037 11,810 per vehicle2016 Person-miles of travel(4)3,045,205 22,022 346,610 878,994 113,338 174,557 3,924,199 287,895 4,580,725 (millions)2016 Fuel consumed 91,487,810 465,802 2,225,795 37,818,755 15,338,479 29,554,641 129,306,565 44,893,120 176,891,283 (thousand gallons)2016 Average fuel consumption per 475 54 2,280 689 1,754 10,739 522 3,904 658 vehicle (gallons)2016 Average miles traveled per 24.0 43.9 7.3 17.4 7.4 5.922.0 6.417.9 gallon of fuel consumed(3) Single-Unit - single frame trucks that have 2-Axles and at least 6 tires or a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 10,000 lbs.(4) Vehicle occupancy is estimated by the FHWA from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS); For single unit truck and heavy trucks, 1 motor vehicle mile travelled = 1 person-mile traveled.(5) VMT data are based on the latest HPMS data available; it may not match previous published results.SINGLE-UNIT TRUCKS(3)COMBINATION TRUCKSSUBTOTALSALL MOTOR VEHICLES(1) The FHWA estimates national trends by using State reported Highway Performance and Monitoring System (HPMS) data, fuel consumption data (MF-21 and MF-27), vehicle registration data (MV-1, MV-9, and MV-10), other data such as the R.L. Polk vehicle data, and a host of modeling techniques. Starting with the 2009 VM-1, an enhanced methodology was used to provide timely indicators on both travel and travel behavior changes.(2) Light Duty Vehicles Short WB - passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase (WM) equal to or less than 121 inches. Light Duty Vehicles Long WB - large passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases (WB) larger than 121 inches. All Light Duty Vehicles - passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles regardless of YEAR ITEMLIGHT DUTY VEHICLES SHORT WB(2)MOTOR-CYCLESBUSESLIGHT DUTY VEHICLES LONG WB(2)
DRAFT
Appendix D
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee
Schedule
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
May 2018 D-1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Appendix D: MMTIF Fee Schedule
This appendix presents the detailed fee calculations for each land use in the City of Bozeman’s
multi-modal transportation impact fee schedule.
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 D-2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table D-1 Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Unit Cost per Lane Mile: $3,278,000 Interstate Adjustment Factor: 19.9%$$ per Gallon to Capital: $0.061 Average VMC per Lane Mile: 10,270 Cost per PMC: $319.18Facility Life (Years): 25Fuel Efficiency: 18.74 mpg Person-Trip Factor: 1.30Interest Rate: 3.00% Effective Days per Year: 365ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate SourceAssessable Trip LengthTotal Trip LengthTrip LengthSourcePercentNew Trips % New Trips SourceNet VMT(1) Person-Trip FactorNet PMT(2) TotalImpact CostAnnualCap. Imp. CreditCap. Imp. CreditNetImpact FeeNet IFw/5% Admin(3)RESIDENTIAL:Residential: 1,400 sf or lessdu 7.62Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a10.10 1.30 13.13 $4,191 $17 $296$3,895 $4,090Residential: 1,401 to 1,600 sfdu 7.88Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a10.45 1.30 13.59 $4,334 $18 $313$4,021 $4,222Residential: 1,601 to 1,800 sfdu 8.11Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a10.75 1.30 13.98 $4,461 $18 $313$4,148 $4,355Residential: 1,801 to 2,000 sfdu 8.31Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a11.02 1.30 14.33 $4,571 $19 $331$4,240 $4,452Residential: 2,001 to 2,200 sfdu 8.49Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a11.25 1.30 14.63 $4,670 $19 $331$4,339 $4,556Residential: 2,201 to 2,400 sfdu 8.66Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a11.48 1.30 14.92 $4,764 $20 $348$4,416 $4,637Residential: 2,401 to 2,600 sfdu 8.82Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a11.69 1.30 15.20 $4,852 $20 $348$4,504 $4,729Residential: 2,601 to 2,800 sfdu 8.96Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a11.88 1.30 15.44 $4,929 $20 $348$4,581 $4,810Residential: 2,801 to 3,000 sfdu 9.09Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a12.05 1.30 15.67 $5,000 $21 $366$4,634 $4,866Residential: 3,001 sf or moredu 9.13Local StudiesTiered, App. A3.31 3.81Local Studies100%n/a12.10 1.30 15.73 $5,022 $21 $366$4,656 $4,889n/aGroup Quartersperson 3.102012 Study3.31 3.81Same as LUC 210100%n/a4.11 1.30 5.34 $1,705 $7 $122$1,583 $1,662254Assisted Livingbed 2.60ITE 10th Edition1.63 2.13Same as LUC 253(Appendix A)72%Same as LUC 253(Appendix A)1.22 1.30 1.59 $507 $2 $35$472 $496LODGING:320Lodgingroom 3.35ITE 10th Edition2.30 2.80FL Studies77%FL Studies2.38 1.30 3.09 $986 $4 $70$916 $962INSTITUTIONS:520Elementary School (Private)1,000 sf (gfa) 19.52ITE 10th Edition1.85 2.35FL Studies(Pinellas County)80%FL Studies(Pinellas County)11.57 1.30 15.04 $4,801 $22 $383$4,418 $4,639530Secondary School (Private)1,000 sf (gfa) 14.07ITE 10th Edition1.85 2.35FL Studies(Pinellas County)90%FL Studies(Pinellas County)9.38 1.30 12.19 $3,893 $18 $313$3,580 $3,759550University/Collegestudent 1.50ITE Regression Analysis3.31 3.81Same as LUC 21090%FL Studies(Pinellas County)1.79 1.30 2.33 $743 $3 $52$691 $726565Day Care Centerstudent 4.09ITE 10th Edition0.87 1.37FL Studies73%FL Studies1.04 1.30 1.35 $432 $2 $35$397 $417610Hospital1,000 sf (gfa) 10.72ITE 10th Edition3.31 3.81Same as LUC 21077%FL Studies(Pinellas County)10.94 1.30 14.22 $4,540 $19 $331$4,209 $4,419n/a
DRAFT Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman May 2018 D-3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Table D-1 (continued) Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 1) Net VMT is calculated as ((Trip Generation Rate * Trip Length * % New Trips)*(1-Interstate Adjustment Factor)/2). This reflects the unit of vehicle-miles of capacity consumed per unit of development and is multiplied by the cost per vehicle 2) Net VMT multiplied by the person-trip factor 3) Net Impact Fee with the 5% administrative fee applied ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate SourceAssessable Trip LengthTotal Trip LengthTrip LengthSourcePercentNew Trips % New Trips SourceNet VMT(1) Person-Trip FactorNet PMT(2) TotalImpact CostAnnualCap. Imp. CreditCap. Imp. CreditNetImpact FeeNet IFw/5% Admin(3)OFFICE:710Office1,000 sf (gfa) 9.74ITE 10th Edition2.22 2.72Local Studies71%Local Studies6.15 1.30 8.00 $2,551 $11 $192$2,359 $2,477760Research & Development Center1,000 sf (gfa) 11.26ITE 10th Edition2.31 2.81Same as LUC 770(Appendix A)89%Same as LUC 770(Appendix A)9.27 1.30 12.05 $3,847 $17 $296$3,551 $3,729RETAIL:820Retail/Restaurant1,000 sf (gla) 37.75ITE 10th Edition2.16 2.66Local Studies55%Local Studies17.96 1.30 23.35 $7,453 $33 $575$6,878 $7,222INDUSTRIAL:110Light Industrial1,000 sf (gfa) 4.96ITE 10th Edition2.22 2.72Same as LUC 71071%Same as LUC 7103.13 1.30 4.07 $1,299 $6 $104$1,195 $1,255140Manufacturing1,000 sf (gfa) 3.93ITE 10th Edition2.22 2.72Same as LUC 71071%Same as LUC 7102.48 1.30 3.22 $1,029 $5 $87$942 $989150Warehouse1,000 sf (gfa) 1.74ITE 10th Edition2.22 2.72Same as LUC 71071%Same as LUC 7101.10 1.30 1.43 $456 $2 $35$421 $442151Mini-Warehouse1,000 sf (gfa) 1.49Blend ITE 10th &FL Studies1.33 1.83FL Studies(Pinellas County)71%Same as LUC 7100.56 1.30 0.73 $234 $1 $17$217 $228