HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-19 City Commission Packet Materials - A3. Transportation Impact Fee Study, Additional Info and DirectionCommission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Anna Rosenberry, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Transportation (Street) Impact Fee Study –Additional requested
information and direction to staff regarding adopting new study and making changes to the
City’s Transportation (Street) Impact Fees.
MEETING DATE: February 11, 2019
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Listen to the presentation, take public comment, and direct staff to
return with a resolution to adopt the new study and change Transportation Impact Fees.
BACKGROUND: State law requires the city to periodically review and update our
transportation system development impact fees. During their January 14, 2019 meeting
the Commission heard presentation of the Transportation Impact Fee Study Update.
The Commission voted to proceed with a fee based on the 0.73 volume-to-capacity ratio.
This was what the Study described as “Scenario #2: Calculations reflect the congestion
levels projected in 2040.” They also voted to have staff and the Study consultants provide
more information regarding the Arterial & Collector District funding and the calculation of
the credit component of the Impact Fee.
Credit Calculation:
Discussion of the credit calculation begins on page 22 of the Study. Credit is given for both
City non-impact fee revenues and State non-impact fee revenues. Because Gallatin County
provides no capacity-expanding non-impact fee revenues, there is no credit calculated. Gas
Tax is credited at its present value, given a 3.0% interest rate and 25 year facility life.
366
The credit component of the fee calculation is detailed in Appendix C of the Study
(beginning on page C-1.) Under the heading of “City Capital Improvement Credit”, they
have used the full, adopted Arterial & Collector District (A&C District) capital improvement
plan for calculation of the credit. They have “credited” over $9 Million dollars worth of
planned Arterial & Collector District funded projects as being “capacity expansion projects
funded with non-impact fee revenues.” Arterial & Collector District annual assessments are
paid by the majority of property owners in the city. I believe this is a conservative
approach in calculating the impact fee. I had discussions with the consultant about this
topic and they were confident in their approach to the credit calculation. They are
reducing the impact fee for the share of project costs that we are deeming as maintenance-
related.
The Table C-4 schedule (page C-4) shows the Arterial & Collector CIP for FY18-FY22 and
the amount of the credit highlighted in green “$9,499,766.” Although the CIP changes every
year, this is a good estimate of spending in future years.
Our Capital Improvement Plan splits funding for a majority of our planned street
construction projects between Street Impact Fees and the Arterial & Collector District. The
split in funding reflects the portion of the project that adds capacity to the system (paid by
Impact Fees) and the portion of the project related to “replacement” or “maintenance” of
existing lanes of road. For instance, without the need to expand Griffin Road’s capacity, the
city would likely only be performing a mill-and-overlay or other maintenance activity on
the street surface.
No. Description Street
Impact
Fees
Arterial &
Collector
District
SIF 113 Griffin Construction (7th
to Rouse)
Maintenance Element – on existing 2 Lanes 36%
$2,000,000
Capacity Expansion – Addition of
3rd
Lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lane, and sub-
surface improvements for capacity.
64%
$3,500,000
367
You will note that Table C-4 includes the SIF113 – Griffin (7th
to Rouse) $2,000,000 Arterial
& Collector District contribution as a credit to the impact fee calculation.
Arterial & Collector District Spending:
Since its creation in FY2016, we have spent roughly $4.6 Million in Arterial & Collector
District funds.
Spending has been on 14 primary projects, listed and charted below.
Projects A&C District Expenditures
SIF085 - Baxter (7th to 19th) $ 1,657,975.00
SIF080 - Ferguson (Baxter to Oak) $ 665,460.00
SIF046 - Oak (New Holland to Ferguson) $ 603,178.00
SIF072 - Baxter (Ferguson to Cottonwood) $ 517,250.00
SIF074 - Oak & Davis (Intersection/Roundabout) $ 361,046.00
SIF042 - Baxter & Davis (Intersection) $ 241,695.00
SIF055 - Baxter (19th to Davis) $ 217,075.00
SIF109 - Oak (Rouse through Cannery District) $ 111,936.00
SIF061 - Oak & Ferguson (Intersection) $ 98,820.00
SIF036 - Cottonwood (Baxter to Durston) $ 75,961.00
A&C004 -Oak & 7th Intersection $ 43,795.00
SIF039 - Ferguson & Durston (Intersection) $ 18,600.00
SIF740 - SID740 West Oak & Ferguson $ 17,909.00
411802 - Flanders Mill (Sunshine to Oak) $ 1,425.00
FY16-FY19 YTD, Miscellaneous $ 26,218.00
Total $ 4,658,343.00
$395.00
$641,726.00
$1,741,415.00
$2,274,807.00
$-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19, YTD
Arterial & Collector District Expenditures
368
Comparisons of Existing and Proposed Fee: Comparisons of the existing and proposed fee
for specific dwelling sizes and commercial projects are shown in the next table. These scenarios
are based on the fee that includes the full credit amount, including credit for our Arterial &
Collector District funds.
Scenario #2 Comparisons
Transportation Impact Fee - Residential Scenario #2
Existing Fee Proposed Fee Change Change
Median Detached Home $ 5,395.22 $ 8,566.00 59% $ 3,170.78
2,400 sq. ft.
6,500 sq. ft. lot
Small Detached Home $ 3,692.72 $ 6,556.00 78% $ 2,863.28
1,500 sq. ft.
4,500 sq. ft. lot
Townhome $ 3,141.14 $ 5,886.00 87% $ 2,744.86
1,350 sq. ft.
3,000 sq. ft. lot
$1,657,975
$665,460
$603,178
$517,250
$361,046
$241,695
$217,075
$111,936
$98,820
$75,961
$43,795
$18,600
$17,909
$1,425
$26,218
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
SIF085 - Baxter (7th to 19th)
SIF080 - Ferguson (Baxter to Oak)
SIF046 - Oak (New Holland to Ferguson)
SIF072 - Baxter (Ferguson to Cottonwood)
SIF074 - Oak & Davis (Intersection/Roundabout)
SIF042 - Baxter & Davis (Intersection)
SIF055 - Baxter (19th to Davis)
SIF109 - Oak (Rouse through Cannery District)
SIF061 - Oak & Ferguson (Intersection)
SIF036 - Cottonwood (Baxter to Durston)
A&C004 -Oak & 7th Intersection
SIF039 - Ferguson & Durston (Intersection)
SIF740 - SID740 West Oak & Ferguson
411802 - Flanders Mill (Sunshine to Oak)
FY16-FY19 YTD, Miscellaneous
Arterial & Collector District Expenditures - By Project, To Date
369
Group Quarters $ 24,773.37 $ 21,680.00 -12% $ (3,093.37)
10 residents
15,246 sq. ft. lot
Apartment Building $ 37,693.72 $ 43,884.00 16% $ 6,190.28
12 homes@ 1,000 sq. ft. each
21,408 sq. ft. lot
Affordable Housing Townhome $ 3,141.14 $ 5,886.00 87% $ 2,744.86
800 sq. ft
2,500 sq. ft. lot
Transportation Impact Fee - Non
Residential Scenario #2
Existing Fee Proposed Fee Change Change
Offices $ 39,664.76 $ 29,469.50 -26% $ (10,195.26)
3/4 inch meter
30,000 sq. ft. lot
10,000 sq. ft. bldg
Retail $ 109,952.18 $ 103,142.40 -6% $ (6,809.78)
3/4 inch meter
40,000 sq. ft. lot
12,000 sq. ft. bldg
Restaurant $ 54,976.09 $ 51,571.20 -6% $ (3,404.89)
1.5 inch meter
25,000 sq. ft. lot
6,000 sq. ft. bldg
Manufacturing $ 20,605.52 $ 17,709.75 -14% $ (2,895.77)
1 inch meter
45,000 sq. ft. lot
15,000 sq. ft. bldg
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: Multiple alternatives are discussed in the report.
FISCAL EFFECTS: This presentation has no immediate fiscal effects. Once the Commission
adopts the study and resolution necessary to change Impact Fees, amounts deposited to the
Transportation Impact Fee Fund will be based upon the new schedule.
370
Attachments:
Transportation Impact Fee Update Study – Dated December 21, 2018
Report compiled on: January 29, 2019
371
City of Bozeman
Transportation Impact Fee
Update Study
DRAFT REPORT
December 21, 2018
Prepared for:
City of Bozeman
20 E. Olive Street
Bozeman, MT 59715
ph (406) 582-2273
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
372
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 i Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
City of Bozeman
Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1
II. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 5
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 5
Legal Compliance Overview .......................................................................................... 7
III. DEMAND COMPONENT .............................................................................................. 10
Travel Demand .............................................................................................................. 10
Conversion of Vehicle-Trips to Person-Trips ................................................................ 10
Interstate Adjustment Factor ....................................................................................... 10
Local Trip Length Adjustment Factor ............................................................................ 11
Trip Exchange District Discount Factor ......................................................................... 12
IV. COST COMPONENT .................................................................................................... 16
City Roadway Cost ........................................................................................................ 16
State Roadway Cost ...................................................................................................... 17
Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) .................................................................. 17
Person-Miles of Capacity Added per Lane Mile (Roadways) ........................................ 18
Cost per Person-Mile of Capacity Added (Roadways) .................................................. 19
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Costs ............................................................................ 20
Transit Capital Cost per Person-Mile of Travel ............................................................. 21
V. CREDIT COMPONENT ................................................................................................. 22
Capital Improvement Credit ......................................................................................... 22
Present Worth Variables ............................................................................................... 23
Fuel Efficiency ............................................................................................................... 23
Effective Days per Year ................................................................................................. 24
VI. CALCULATED MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ..................................... 25
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Calculation ................................................... 27
VII. IMPACT FEE REVENUE PROJECTIONS .......................................................................... 28
VIII. IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICTS.................................................................................. 30
373
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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
374
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 the 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 is intended to charge new growth the proportionate share of the
cost of providing additional infrastructure available for use by new growth. This cost is
distributed among land uses based upon the burden placed on services from each land use
(demand). 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
This report includes two sets of impact fee schedules:
375
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
- Scenario #1: Calculations are based on the adopted level of service (LOS) standard,
resulting in a volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.
- Scenario #2: Calculations reflect the congestion levels projected in 2040, resulting in a
V/C ratio of 0.73.
A low V/C ratio suggests less congestion and delay and better average speed/performance.
Tables ES-1 and ES-2 provide a summary of the calculated fees for 1.00 and 0.73 V/C options.
376
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table ES-1
Summary of Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Rates – Scenario #1
Source: Appendix D, Table D-1
ITE LUC Land Use Unit
Net
Impact
Fee
Net IF
w/5%
Admin
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family: 1,400 sf or less du $4,010 $4,211
Single Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du $4,466 $4,689
Single Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du $4,875 $5,119
Single Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du $5,220 $5,481
Single Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du $5,554 $5,832
Single Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du $5,835 $6,127
Single Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du $6,105 $6,410
Single Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du $6,362 $6,680
Single Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du $6,596 $6,926
Single Family: 3,001 sf or more du $6,667 $7,000
Multi-Family: 1,400 sf or less du $2,492 $2,617
Multi-Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du $2,779 $2,918
Multi-Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du $3,025 $3,176
Multi-Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du $3,244 $3,406
Multi-Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du $3,443 $3,615
Multi-Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du $3,621 $3,802
Multi-Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du $3,784 $3,973
Multi-Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du $3,937 $4,134
Multi-Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du $4,092 $4,297
Multi-Family: 3,001 sf or more du $4,133 $4,340
n/a Group Quarters person $1,475 $1,549
254 Assisted Living bed $472 $496
LODGING:
320 Lodging room $916 $962
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School 1,000 sf (gfa) $4,201 $4,411
530 Secondary School 1,000 sf (gfa) $3,031 $3,183
550 University/College student $738 $775
565 Day Care Center student $397 $417
610 Hospital 1,000 sf (gfa) $4,543 $4,770
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) $248 $260
210
220/
221/222
377
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table ES-2
Summary of Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Rates – Scenario #2
Source: Appendix D, Table D-2
ITE LUC Land Use Unit
Net
Impact
Fee
Net IF
w/5%
Admin
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family: 1,400 sf or less du $5,606 $5,886
Single Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du $6,244 $6,556
Single Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du $6,811 $7,152
Single Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du $7,297 $7,662
Single Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du $7,760 $8,148
Single Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du $8,158 $8,566
Single Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du $8,533 $8,960
Single Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du $8,892 $9,337
Single Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du $9,219 $9,680
Single Family: 3,001 sf or more du $9,315 $9,781
Multi-Family: 1,400 sf or less du $3,483 $3,657
Multi-Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du $3,883 $4,077
Multi-Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du $4,225 $4,436
Multi-Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du $4,532 $4,759
Multi-Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du $4,811 $5,052
Multi-Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du $5,061 $5,314
Multi-Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du $5,291 $5,556
Multi-Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du $5,507 $5,782
Multi-Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du $5,718 $6,004
Multi-Family: 3,001 sf or more du $5,775 $6,064
n/a Group Quarters person $2,065 $2,168
254 Assisted Living bed $659 $692
LODGING:
320 Lodging room $1,280 $1,344
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School 1,000 sf (gfa) $5,888 $6,182
530 Secondary School 1,000 sf (gfa) $4,247 $4,459
550 University/College student $1,029 $1,080
565 Day Care Center student $556 $584
610 Hospital 1,000 sf (gfa) $6,350 $6,668
OFFICE:
710 Office 1,000 sf (gfa) $3,302 $3,467
760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf (gfa) $4,972 $5,221
RETAIL:
820 Retail/Restaurant 1,000 sf (gla) $9,630 $10,112
INDUSTRIAL:
110 Light Industrial 1,000 sf (gfa) $1,675 $1,759
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf (gfa) $1,323 $1,389
150 Warehouse 1,000 sf (gfa) $589 $618
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf (gfa) $347 $364
210
220/
221/222
378
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 5 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.
379
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 6 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
380
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 7 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
The impact fees recommended in this report have been developed in compliance with the
Montana Impact Fee Act (Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Section 7-6-1602) by demonstrating,
first that the need for system improvements to be funded with impact fee revenues results from
and reasonably relates to the demands of new development. Second, the impact fee program
has been developed to ensure that the expenditure of impact fee revenues will be reasonably
related to the benefits accruing to new development paying the impact fees.
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. All reference documents are available
through the City offices.
381
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 8 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
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 9 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
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 10 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
384
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 11 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
385
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 12 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.
386
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 13 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
387
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 14 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
388
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 15 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
389
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 16 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 the City
may need to make 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.
390
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 17 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.
391
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 18 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
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 19 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Alternate V/C Scenario
The calculated impact fee rate is based on the adopted LOS standard and allows degradation of
the system to a citywide volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.00. The roadway level of service is
measured in terms speed of travel on a given roadway. V/C ratio reflects the number of vehicles
on the road versus the number of vehicles that the road can handle based on its functional
classification (arterial, collector, freeway, etc.) and design characteristics (number of lanes, signal
spacing, etc.) and associated travel speed. A low V/C ratio suggests less congestion and delay
and better average speed/performance.
When the current conditions are better than adopted standards (current citywide V/C ratio is
approximately 0.53), consumption-based impact fees do not generate sufficient revenues to
maintain a transportation networks existing, achieved LOS. As long as the current achieved V/C
supports it, the City may adopt a policy to calculate fees based on a better V/C ratio than the
adopted standard to limit or slow the degradation of the transportation network. While Scenario
#1 (shown in Table 4) calculates impact fee rates based on the adopted LOS standard and allows
degradation of the system to a citywide V/C ratio of 0.53 to 1.00, Scenario #2 calculates rates for
a corresponding V/C ratio of 0.73. This 0.73 V/C ratio is based on the projected LOS for the City’s
2040 transportation network. Impact fee levels and revenues generated under this scenario still
cannot maintain the current conditions and result in degradation of the system (since the current
V/C is 0.53), but at a slower rate than the fees calculated using the adopted LOS standard (1.00).
For Scenario #2, the V/C adjustment is applied to the average PMC per lane mile figure.
• PMC = 10,270 x 0.73 ≈ 7,500
Subsequent sections of this report include fee rates based on two V/C ratio scenarios:
- Scenario #1 – Cost per VMC/PMC based on the LOS Standard, V/C 1.00.
- Scenario #2 – Cost per VMC/PMC based on the projected 2040 achieved V/C of 0.73.
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 ranges from $319 under Scenario #1 (V/C 1.00) to $437
under Scenario #2 (V/C 0.73).
393
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 20 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
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 to
$437 of transportation capacity is consumed depending on the acceptable congestion levels.
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)
Scenario #1 - V/C Ratio of 1.00
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
Scenario #2 - V/C Ratio of 0.73
City Roads $3,080,000 7,485 $411.49
State Roads $3,520,000 7,495 $469.65
Weighted Average $3,278,000 7,500 $437.07
394
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 21 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 (or $437) 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.
395
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 22 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.
396
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 23 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.
∑ ∑
= ÷
Vehicle Type Roadway Type
Vehicle Type
Roadway Type MPG
VMT
Fuel Efficiency VMT
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
397
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 24 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.
398
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 25 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 multi-modal 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 single family (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
399
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 26 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 single family (1,801-2,000 sq ft) land use
category:
• Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (9.61)
• Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle-miles
(3.52)
• 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 (3.52 + 0.50 = 4.02)
• % 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 = cost per unit of person-miles of capacity consumed per
unit of development ($319.18 or $437.07)
• 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
400
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 27 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 single family (1,801-
2,000 sq ft) land use category:
Scenario #1 (V/C 1.00)
Total Multi-Modal Cost = ([9.61 * 3.52 * 1.0] /2) * (1 – 0.199) * 1.30 * ($319.18) = $5,621
Annual Gas Tax = ([9.61 * 4.02 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.061 /18.74) = $23
Revenue Credit = $23 * 17.4131 = $401
Net Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee = $5,621 - $401 = $5,220
MMTIF with 5% Administrative Fee = $5,220 * (1.05) = $5,481
Scenario #2 (V/C 0.73)
Total Multi-Modal Cost = ([9.61 * 3.52 * 1.0] /2) * (1 – 0.199) * 1.30 * ($437.07) = $7,698
Annual Gas Tax = ([9.61 * 4.02 * 1.0] /2) * 365 * ($0.061 /18.74) = $23
Revenue Credit = $23 * 17.4131 = $401
Net Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee = $7,698 - $401 = $7,297
MMTIF with 5% Administrative Fee = $7,297 * (1.05) = $7,662
401
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 28 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
of impact fee revenues for planning purposes and includes a listing of committed and
recommended roadway expansion improvements with costs estimated at over $180 million as
well as several impact fee eligible bike, pedestrian, and intersection improvements.
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 the following.
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
402
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 29 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Scenario #1 Rates (V/C 1.00)
Average of $3.7 million to $5.3 million per year through 2040, or a total of $86 million to $121
million over the next 23 years. These figures are in 2018 dollars without any indexing or fee
adjustments.
Scenario #2 Rates (V/C 0.73)
Average of $5.2 million to $7.4 million per year through 2040, or a total of $120 million to $170
million over the next 23 years. These figures are in 2018 dollars without any indexing or fee
adjustments.
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.
403
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 30 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.
404
DRAFT
Appendix A
Demand Component
405
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 -
406
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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
principal outside faces of the exterior walls is not enclosed, this floor area is considered
407
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 A-3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
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 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
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 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
Total Size 288.0 3 Average Trip Length: 3.88
Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.52
Note: 2nd study excluded from summary statistics Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 9.61
Land Use 210: Single Family - Detached (Bozeman)
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 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 120.0 2 Average Trip Length: 3.13
Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.10
Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.77
Land Use 220/221/222: Multi-Family; Low-, Mid-, High-Rise (Bozeman)
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 A-4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
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 174 Aug-89 134 106 12.50 7-11a/3-7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Co, FL 114 Oct-89 30 14 7.30 12-7p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale Oliver
Total Size 288 21 164 Average Trip Length: 6.25
Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.26
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3
Land Use 310: Hotel
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
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
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
Land Use 710: General Office Building (Bozeman)
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 A-5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 33 26 - - 6.00 79.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates
Palm Harbor, FL 14.6 Oct-89 104 76 33.98 9a-5p 6.30 73.0 156.27 Tindale Oliver
St. Petersburg, FL - Nov-89 34 30 57.20 9a-4p 1.20 88.0 - Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 58.4 May-96 390 349 28.52 9a-6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tindale Oliver
Hernando Co, FL 28.0 May-96 202 189 49.75 9a-6p 6.06 93.8 282.64 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 11.0 Oct-97 - 186 49.50 9a-5p 4.60 92.1 209.67 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 28.0 Oct-97 - 186 31.00 9a-5p 3.60 81.6 91.04 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 30.4 Oct-97 - 324 39.80 9a-5p 3.30 83.5 109.68 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 38.9 Oct-03 - 168 32.26 8-6p 6.80 97.1 213.03 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 10.0 Nov-03 - 340 40.56 8-630p 6.20 92.4 232.33 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 5.3 Dec-03 - 20 29.36 8-5p 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale Oliver
Orange Co, FL 50.6 2009 - - 26.72 - - - - Orange County
Orange Co, FL 23.5 2010 - - 16.58 - - - - Tindale Oliver
Total Size 298.6 11 763 Average Trip Length: 5.07
ITE 672.0 28 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.55
Blended total 970.6 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.9
Land Use 720: Medical-Dental Office Building
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
Land Use 820: Shopping Center/Retail (Bozeman)
Location Size (1,000 sf) Date Total #
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 527 348 - - - 66.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 170 - - - 1.70 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 354 269 - - - 76.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates
Tampa, FL - Mar-86 144 - - - 2.50 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates
St. Petersburg, FL 1,192.0 Aug-89 384 298 - 11a-7p 3.60 78.0 - Tindale Oliver
St. Petersburg, FL 132.3 Sep-89 400 368 77.00 10a-7p 1.80 92.0 127.51 Tindale Oliver
Largo, FL 425.0 Aug-89 160 120 26.73 10a-6p 2.30 75.0 46.11 Tindale Oliver
Dunedin, FL 80.5 Sep-89 276 210 81.48 9a-5p 1.40 76.0 86.69 Tindale Oliver
Pinellas Park, FL 696.0 Sep-89 485 388 - 9a-6p 3.20 80.0 - Tindale Oliver
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 A-6 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Figure A-1
Retail/Shopping Center (LUC 820) – Florida Curve Trip Length Regression
Source: Regression analysis based on FL Studies data for LUC 820 (50,000 sq ft = 1.87)
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
using available Census and local parcel data on persons and vehicles by number of bedrooms,
average trip ends per bedroom and average unit size per bedroom.
First, the ACS Public-Use Microdata (PUMS) database was utilized to determine the persons,
vehicles, and housing units per bedroom. PUMS data represents a sample of ACS data but is not
available for all of the individual geographies available in the ACS. PUMS data is presented in
Public-Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) that are comprised of at least 100,000 people. Bozeman
falls within PUMA 500 which includes Gallatin County, Sweet Grass County, Stillwater County,
Carbon County, and portions of Park County. PUMS data was utilized to provide the summary of
persons, vehicles, and units by bedroom. This level of detail is not available in other ACS or
Census databases. However, the ACS was utilized to obtain the total persons, vehicles, and
housing units for all of Bozeman, as included in Table A-2.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Trip Length (Miles)
Square Footage
411
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 A-7 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Next, using the PUMS figures, the person-trip ends and vehicle-trip ends were calculated for each
bedroom tier using the line of best fit equation for Single Family from the ITE 10th
Edition
Handbook. The resulting person-trip and vehicle-trip ends were combined to determine the
average trip ends per bedroom tier. Using the housing unit data, the average trip ends per
housing unit for each tier was calculated, as presented in Table A-2.
Since the PUMS data represents a sample including areas outside of Bozeman, the total trip ends
and bedroom tiers per unit data was adjusted based on the 2012-2016 5-year estimates for
Bozeman.
Table A-2 then incorporates the average square footage per bedroom data from the Montana
Department of Revenues parcel database, providing the link between TGR and home size. Using
these four data points a regression curve was created, as presented in Figure A-2. This resulting
regression equation was then utilized to estimate the trip generation rate for each square
footage tier included in the City’s transportation impact fee equation. These trip rates were
calculated using the end-point value of each square footage tier.
As shown in Table A-3, the resulting trip generation rates for single family ranged from 7.07 to
11.72. These rates were subject to one final adjustment to reflect local trip characteristics data
collected within the City of Bozeman. As previous shown in Appendix A, the local studies have
an average trip generation rate of approximately 9.61. Based on the median home size observed
in Bozeman over the past 30 years (≈1,900 sq ft), this value was assigned to the 1,800 to 2,000
sq ft tier of the impact fee schedule. Using the relationship to this tier, all other trip generation
rates were calculated. For multi-family, the same relationship between tiers was utilized to
develop the trip generation rates, as shown in Table A-3.
412
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 A-8 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table A-2
Trip Generation Rate per Bedroom – Single Family
1) Source: Persons, vehicles, and housing units data from PUMS (PUMA 500), American Community Survey 2012-2016 5-year estimates
2) Source: Trip ends calculated using the ITE 10th Edition equation for Single Family (LUC 210), trips per person (Ln (Trip Ends) = 0.89 x Ln (# of residents) + 1.72)
3) Source: Trip ends calculated using the ITE 10th Edition equation for Single Family (LUC 210), trips per vehicle (Ln (Trip Ends) = 0.99 x Ln (# of vehicles) + 1.93)
4) Average of person-trips (Item 2) and vehicle-trips (Item 3)
5) Average trip ends (Item 4) divided by housing units
6) Ratio of the trip ends/housing unit (Item 5) for each bedroom tier to the total
7) Source: Montana Department of Revenue parcel database
8) Ratio for each bedroom tier (Item 6) multiplied by the trip ends/housing unit for City of Bozeman (7.16)
9) Source: Persons, vehicles, and housing unit data from the American Community Survey 2012-2016 5-year estimates for Bozeman
Bedrooms Persons
(1)
Trip Ends
(2)
Vehicles
(1)
Trip Ends
(3) Avg. Trip
Ends
(4)
Housing
Units
(1)
Trip Ends/
Housing
Unit
(5)
Ratio
(6) Avg. Sq Ft
per Unit
(7)
Adjusted
TGR
(8)
0-1 339 1,076 311 2,051 1,564 371 4.22 50.4% 765 3.61
2 1,312 3,590 1,332 8,659 6,125 870 7.04 84.0% 1,198 6.02
3 2,773 6,988 2,686 17,339 12,164 1,329 9.15 109.2% 1,693 7.82
4 1,498 4,039 1,420 9,225 6,632 591 11.22 133.9% 2,008 9.59
Total 5,922 15,693 5,749 37,274 26,485 3,161 8.38 - - -
Bozeman
(9)
41,761 78,088 30,983 195,174 136,631 19,070 7.16 - - -
413
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 A-9 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Figure A-2
Single Family - Square Footage vs. Bedrooms Regression
Source: Regression based on average square feet per unit and adjusted TGR from Table A-2
Table A-3
Trip Generation Rate Tiering – Single Family and Multi-Family Adjustments
1) Source: Calculated TGR for each tier based on the regression line from Figure A-2 (TGR = 5.9498 Ln (sq ft) –
36.03. For each tier, the end point square footage was used
2) Ratio of each tier to the 1,800 to 2,000 sq ft tier. The median square foot per unit for single family units
(1990+) in Bozeman falls within this range (based on Montana Department of Revenue parcel database)
3) Trip generation rate from the local single family studies (9.61) multiplied by the ratio for each tier (Item 2)
4) Trip generation rate from the local multi-family studies (6.77) multiplied by the ratio for each tier (Item 2)
y = 5.9498ln(x) - 36.03
R² = 0.9838
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Land Use TGR
(1) Ratio to 1,800-
2,000 sf
(2)
TGR Adjusted
Single Family
(3)
TGR Adjusted
Multi-Family
(4)
Single Family: 1,400 sf or less 7.07 76.93% 7.39 5.21
Single Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf 7.87 85.64% 8.23 5.80
Single Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf 8.57 93.25% 8.96 6.31
Single Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf 9.19 100.00% 9.61 6.77
Single Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf 9.76 106.20% 10.21 7.19
Single Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf 10.28 111.86% 10.75 7.57
Single Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf 10.75 116.97% 11.24 7.92
Single Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf 11.20 121.87% 11.71 8.25
Single Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf 11.61 126.33% 12.14 8.55
Single Family: 3,001 sf or more 11.72 127.53% 12.26 8.63
414
DRAFT
Appendix B
Cost Component
415
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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.
416
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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.
417
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 Length Existing
Lanes
Future
Lanes
Lanes
Added
Lane
Miles
Added
Cost Cost per Lane
Mile
Committed 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 $6,756,757
CMSN-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 $1,703,922
CMSN-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 $3,029,684
CMSN-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 $2,105,263
CMSN-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 $2,884,615
CMSN-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 $1,108,333
CMSN-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 $10,935,424
CTSM-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-6 City Cottonwood Rd and Babcock St Traffic Signal Installation Intersection - - - - - $1,435,336 -
CTSM-9 State Bozeman Signal Safety Signal upgrades Intersection - - - - - $1,635,776 -
CTSM-10 State Cottonwood Rd & Stucky Rd Roundabout Installation Intersection - - - - - $3,158,260 -
CTSM-11 City Highland Blvd and Main St Intersection Improvement Intersection - - - - - $150,000 -
CTSM-12 City Baxter Ln and Davis St Intersection Improvement Intersection - - - - - $2,500,000 -
CTSM-14 City Kagy Blvd (S. 19th Ave to Wilson Ave) Intersection Improvement Intersection - - - - - $500,000 -
Recommended MSN Improvements
MSN-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 $2,857,143
MSN-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 $3,979,592
MSN-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 $1,098,039
MSN-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 $734,375
MSN-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 $2,659,574
MSN-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 $1,900,000
MSN-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 $2,978,723
MSN-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 $3,846,154
MSN-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 $1,400,000
MSN-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 $1,000,000
MSN-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 $1,656,920
MSN-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 $1,000,000
MSN-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 $1,655,629
MSN-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 $1,666,667
MSN-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 $2,115,385
MSN-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 $1,192,308
MSN-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 $2,916,667
MSN-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 $2,044,990
MSN-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
418
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 Length Existing
Lanes
Future
Lanes
Lanes
Added
Lane
Miles
Added
Cost Cost per Lane
Mile
Recommended MSN Improvements
MSN-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 $3,280,374
MSN-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 $3,000,000
MSN-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 $3,095,238
MSN-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 $2,884,615
MSN-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 $1,428,571
MSN-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 $3,000,000
MSN-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 $1,764,706
MSN-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 $1,388,889
MSN-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 $1,416,667
MSN-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 $466,667
MSN-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 $1,694,915
MSN-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 $5,000,000
TSM-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 -
Total 60.08
City Roads Only Lane Mile Distribution: 55% 32.97 $92,254,120 $2,798,123
State Roads Only Lane Mile Distribution: 45% 27.11 $85,420,792 $3,150,896
419
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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.
420
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 Length Existing
Lanes
Future
Lanes
Lanes
Added
Lane
Miles
Added
Initial
Capacity
Future
Capacity
Added
Capacity
VMC
Added
VMC Added
per Lane
Mile
Table 4.1: Committed 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 15,000 22,500 7,500 5,550 7,500
CMSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 12,500 8,333
CMSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 3,750 7,500
CMSN-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 12,000 18,000 6,000 4,560 6,000
CMSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 3,900 7,500
CMSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 1,800 7,500
CMSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 6,300 7,500
Table 4.2: Recommended MSN Improvements
MSN-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 15,000 30,000 15,000 15,750 7,500
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 3,675 7,500
MSN-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 0 15,000 15,000 7,650 7,500
MSN-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 0 22,500 22,500 7,200 7,500
MSN-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 30,000 40,000 10,000 4,700 5,000
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 11,250 7,500
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 10,575 7,500
MSN-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 15,000 30,000 15,000 15,600 7,500
MSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 12,500 8,333
MSN-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 0 22,500 22,500 22,500 7,500
MSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 42,750 8,333
MSN-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 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 8,000
MSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 37,750 8,333
MSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 12,500 8,333
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 3,900 7,500
MSN-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 0 40,000 40,000 10,400 8,000
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 5,400 7,500
MSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 40,750 8,333
MSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 27,250 8,333
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 8,025 7,500
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 2,400 7,500
MSN-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 12,000 18,000 6,000 3,780 6,000
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 3,900 7,500
MSN-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 0 40,000 40,000 8,400 8,000
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 3,750 7,500
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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
422
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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.
423
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 B-9 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-3
Multi-Modal Cost per Person-Mile of Capacity
Input Local Transit
Source:
Vehicle Capacity
(1)
30 1) Source: City staff
Number 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 margin
Service Span (hours)
(3)
12 3) Source: Assumption based on current Streamline Routes
Cycles/Hour (aka Peak Vehicles)
(4)
1.00 4) Headway time (Item 6) divided by 60
Cycles 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 routes
Speed (mph)
(7)
13 7) Source: Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS). 6-yr average
Round Trip Length (miles)
(8)
8.0 8) Source: Average trip length of current Streamline routes
Cycle Time (minutes)
(9)
37 9) Round trip length (Item 8) divided by speed (Item 7) multiplied by 60
Total 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 mile
Shelters per Mile
(14)
1 14) Source: Model assumes 1 shelter stop per mile
Vehicle Cost
(15)
$200,000 15) Source: City staff
Simple Bus Stop
(16)
$25 16) Source: City staff, includes signage
Sheltered Bus Stop
(17)
$8,000 17) Source: City staff, includes signage, bench, shelter
Transit Person-Miles of Capacity Calculation
Capital Cost Variables
424
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 B-10 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table B-4
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee: Transit Component Model
Roadway Transit Roadway Transit
Source:
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 route
Roadway Segment Cost
(3)
$52,448,000 PMC $52,448,000 PMC 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 PMC
Roadway 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) individually
Adjustment for Bus Blockage
(7)
3.2% - 1.6% - 7) Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Equation 18-9
VMC/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 vehicle
VMC/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 individually
PMC Added (transit addition ONLY)
(10)
1,152 1,152 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 $128,000 1 $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
DRAFT
Appendix C
Credit Component
426
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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
427
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 recognized 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 suggested that road impact fees are the only
revenue source earmarked for capacity enhancements. 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. Given this information, the multi-modal transportation impact fee calculations do
not include a County credit since all available non-impact fee revenue sources are 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
428
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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
429
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 Total
SIF036 Cottonwood (Babcock to Durston) Complete 5-lane expansion $1,278,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,278,000
SIF039 Ferguson & Durston (Intersection) Install roundabout $451,244 $0 $0 $0 $0 $451,244
SIF046 Oak (New Holland to Ferguson) Complete 5-lane expansion $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000
SIF061 Oak & Ferguson (Intersection) Signal Installation $269,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $269,066
SIF062 Durston (Fowler to Ferguson) Complete 3-lane expansion $0 $757,421 $0 $0 $0 $757,421
SIF074 Oak & Davis (Intersection) Install roundabout $352,302 $0 $0 $0 $0 $352,302
SIF076 Fowler Connection (Huffine to Oak) New Road Construction $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $500,000
SIF080 Ferguson (Baxter to Oak) New Road Construction $666,666 $0 $0 $0 $0 $666,666
SIF104 Cottonwood & Babcock (Intersection) Signal Installation $287,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,067
SIF108 S 3rd and Graf Signal Installation $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
SIF109 Oak (Rouse through Cannery District) Add Turn Lane $0 $133,000 $0 $0 $0 $133,000
SIF110 Manley & Griffin (Intersection) Intersection Improvement $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $400,000
SIF112 Highland & Main (Intersection) Intersection Improvement $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000
SIF113 Griffin (7th to Rouse) Intersection Improvement $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000
SIF117 Story Mill (Griffin to Bridger) Lane Addition $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $225,000
SIF118 Babcock (11th Ave to 19th Ave) Lane Addition $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $750,000
SIF121 Baxter & Davis (Intersection) Install roundabout $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $500,000
SIF125 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)
430
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 Amount
03900 04490002000 NORTH 7TH AVENUE & GRIFFIN DRIVE 8/31/2000 $67,220
04900 04319006000 SIGNAL - NORTH 19TH & BAXTER 9/28/2000 $462,392
05603 04179037000 19TH & MAIN 4/5/2004 $2,266,446
16404 05094003000 HIGHLAND - KAGY TO MAIN 4/29/2004 $1,488,080
4952012000 BABCOCK TO KAGY
4918009000 S 19TH & COLLEGE
4713011000 SIGNAL-19TH & KOCH
03B11 7412003000 BAXTER LN - N 7TH TO N 19TH 11/29/2011 $197,994
04614 7426003000 COLLEGE - MAIN TO S 19TH 6/24/2014 $5,780,777
22915 8689036000 DURSTON ROAD SIDEWALK 10/6/2015 $65,875
07616 8688039000 ELEM SCHOOL BIKE PED 6/28/2016 $285,620
$19,201,181
$1,129,481
02708 9/8/2008 $8,586,776
Total (2000-2016)
Average Annual Expenditures (over 17 years)
431
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 mpg
Other Arterial Rural 317,691,000,000 45,164,000,000 362,855,000,000 88% 12%
Other Rural 302,483,000,000 27,939,000,000 330,422,000,000 92% 8%
Other Urban 1,553,636,000,000 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 mpg 2,340,823 miles (millions)
Other Arterial Rural 14,440,500,000 7,056,875,000 21,497,375,000 124,905 gallons (millions)
Other Rural 13,749,227,273 4,365,468,750 18,114,696,023 18.74 mpg
Other Urban 70,619,818,182 14,673,437,500 85,293,255,682
Total 98,809,545,455 26,095,781,250 124,905,326,705
Travel
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) @ Percent VMT
Fuel Consumed Total Mileage and Fuel
432
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 2017 TABLE VM-1
ALL 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 50,430 183,546 60,335 246,716
2016 Other Arterial Rural 226,036 2,633 2,116 91,655 16,371 28,794 317,691 45,164 367,605
2016 Other Rural 212,457 2,856 1,946 90,026 15,563 12,375 302,483 27,939 335,224
2016 All Rural 577,954 6,583 5,802 225,768 41,839 91,599 803,721 133,439 949,545
2016 Interstate Urban 392,838 2,939 2,542 99,523 18,555 41,991 492,361 60,546 558,388
2016 Other Urban 1,220,973 10,923 8,006 332,663 52,944 40,966 1,553,636 93,910 1,666,475
2016 All Urban 1,613,810 13,862 10,548 432,186 71,499 82,958 2,045,997 154,456 2,224,863
2016 Total Rural and Urban(5)
2,191,764 20,445 16,350 657,954 113,338 174,557 2,849,718 287,895 3,174,408
2016 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 vehicle
2016 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 5.9 22.0 6.4 17.9
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
TRUCKS
SUBTOTALS
ALL 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 ITEM
LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES
DRAFT
Appendix D
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee
Schedule
434
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 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 under two scenarios discussed previously:
- Table D-1 – Scenario 1, V/C Ratio 1.00
- Table D-2 – Scenario 2, V/C Ratio 0.73
435
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 D-2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-1
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Schedule – Scenario #1
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: $319.18
Facility Life (Years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 18.74 mpg Person-Trip Factor: 1.30
Interest Rate: 3.00% Effective Days per Year: 365
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length
Trip Length
Source
Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT
(1) Person-Trip
Factor Net PMT
(2) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Cap. Imp.
Credit
Cap. Imp.
Credit
Net
Impact Fee
Net IF
w/5%
Admin(3)
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family: 1,400 sf or less du 7.39
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 10.42 1.30 13.55 $4,323 $18 $313 $4,010 $4,211
Single Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du 8.23
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 11.60 1.30 15.08 $4,814 $20 $348 $4,466 $4,689
Single Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du 8.96
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 12.63 1.30 16.42 $5,241 $21 $366 $4,875 $5,119
Single Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du 9.61
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 13.55 1.30 17.62 $5,621 $23 $401 $5,220 $5,481
Single Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du 10.21
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 14.39 1.30 18.71 $5,972 $24 $418 $5,554 $5,832
Single Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du 10.75
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 D-3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-1 (continued)
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Schedule – Scenario #1
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
4) The percent new trips for schools was estimated at 90 percent, based on Florida Studies for LUC 710, but then adjusted to 80% to provide a conservative fee rate. This adjustment reflects
the nature of the elementary and middle school uses where attendees are unable to drive
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length
Trip Length
Source
Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT
(1) Person-Trip
Factor Net PMT
(2) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Cap. Imp.
Credit
Cap. Imp.
Credit
Net
Impact Fee
Net IF
w/5%
Admin(3)
RESIDENTIAL:
254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 1.63 2.13
Same as LUC 253
(Appendix A) 72%
Same as LUC 253
(Appendix A) 1.22 1.30 1.59 $507 $2 $35 $472 $496
LODGING:
320 Lodging room 3.35 ITE 10th Edition 2.30 2.80 Appendix A: LUC 320 77%
Appendix A:
LUC 320 2.38 1.30 3.09 $986 $4 $70 $916 $962
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School 1,000 sf (gfa) 19.52 ITE 10th Edition 1.76 2.26
50% of LUC 210 based
on Transp. Modeling 80%
Based on LUC 710 (FL)
Adjusted(4)
11.01 1.30 14.31 $4,567 $21 $366 $4,201 $4,411
530 Secondary School 1,000 sf (gfa) 14.07 ITE 10th Edition 1.76 2.26
50% of LUC 210 based
on Transp. Modeling 80%
Based on LUC 710 (FL)
Adjusted(4)
7.93 1.30 10.31 $3,292 $15 $261 $3,031 $3,183
550 University/College student 1.50
ITE Regression
Analysis 3.52 4.02 Same as LUC 210 90%
Based on LUC 710
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 D-4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-2
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Schedule – Scenario #2
Unit Cost per Lane Mile: $3,278,000 Interstate Adjustment Factor: 19.9%
$$ per Gallon to Capital: $0.061 Average VMC per Lane Mile: 7,500 Cost per PMC: $437.07
Facility Life (Years): 25 Fuel Efficiency: 18.74 mpg Person-Trip Factor: 1.30
Interest Rate: 3.00% Effective Days per Year: 365
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length
Trip Length
Source
Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT
(1) Person-Trip
Factor Net PMT
(2) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Cap. Imp.
Credit
Cap. Imp.
Credit
Net
Impact Fee
Net IF
w/5%
Admin(3)
RESIDENTIAL:
Single Family: 1,400 sf or less du 7.39
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 10.42 1.30 13.55 $5,919 $18 $313 $5,606 $5,886
Single Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du 8.23
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 11.60 1.30 15.08 $6,592 $20 $348 $6,244 $6,556
Single Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du 8.96
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 12.63 1.30 16.42 $7,177 $21 $366 $6,811 $7,152
Single Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du 9.61
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 13.55 1.30 17.62 $7,698 $23 $401 $7,297 $7,662
Single Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du 10.21
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 14.39 1.30 18.71 $8,178 $24 $418 $7,760 $8,148
Single Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du 10.75
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
DRAFT
Tindale Oliver City of Bozeman
December 2018 D-5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study
Table D-2 (continued)
Multi-Modal Transportation Impact Fee Schedule – Scenario #2
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
4) The percent new trips for schools was estimated at 90 percent, based on Florida Studies for LUC 710, but then adjusted to 80% to provide a conservative fee rate. This adjustment reflects
the nature of the elementary and middle school uses where attendees are unable to drive
ITE LUC Land Use Unit Trip Rate Trip Rate Source Assessable
Trip Length
Total Trip
Length
Trip Length
Source
Percent
New Trips % New Trips Source Net VMT
(1) Person-Trip
Factor Net PMT
(2) Total
Impact Cost
Annual
Cap. Imp.
Credit
Cap. Imp.
Credit
Net
Impact Fee
Net IF
w/5%
Admin(3)
RESIDENTIAL:
254 Assisted Living bed 2.60 ITE 10th Edition 1.63 2.13
Same as LUC 253
(Appendix A) 72%
Same as LUC 253
(Appendix A) 1.22 1.30 1.59 $694 $2 $35 $659 $692
LODGING:
320 Lodging room 3.35 ITE 10th Edition 2.30 2.80 Appendix A: LUC 320 77%
Appendix A:
LUC 320 2.38 1.30 3.09 $1,350 $4 $70 $1,280 $1,344
INSTITUTIONS:
520 Elementary School 1,000 sf (gfa) 19.52 ITE 10th Edition 1.76 2.26
50% of LUC 210 based
on Transp. Modeling 80%
Based on LUC 710 (FL)
Adjusted(4)
11.01 1.30 14.31 $6,254 $21 $366 $5,888 $6,182
530 Secondary School 1,000 sf (gfa) 14.07 ITE 10th Edition 1.76 2.26
50% of LUC 210 based
on Transp. Modeling 80%
Based on LUC 710 (FL)
Adjusted(4)
7.93 1.30 10.31 $4,508 $15 $261 $4,247 $4,459
550 University/College student 1.50
ITE Regression
Analysis 3.52 4.02 Same as LUC 210 90%
Based on LUC 710
(Florida Studies) 1.90 1.30 2.47 $1,081 $3 $52 $1,029 $1,080
565 Day Care Center student 4.09 ITE 10th Edition 0.87 1.37 FL Studies 73% FL Studies 1.04 1.30 1.35 $591 $2 $35 $556 $584
610 Hospital 1,000 sf (gfa) 10.72 ITE 10th Edition 3.52 4.02 Same as LUC 210 78%
Midpoint of LUC 310 &
LUC 720 11.79 1.30 15.33 $6,698 $20 $348 $6,350 $6,668
OFFICE:
710 Office 1,000 sf (gfa) 9.74 ITE 10th Edition 2.22 2.72
Appendix A:
LUC 710 (Bozeman) 71%
Appendix A:
LUC 710 (Bozeman) 6.15 1.30 8.00 $3,494 $11 $192 $3,302 $3,467
760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf (gfa) 11.26 ITE 10th Edition 2.31 2.81
Same as LUC 770
(Appendix A) 89%
Same as LUC 770
(Appendix A) 9.27 1.30 12.05 $5,268 $17 $296 $4,972 $5,221
RETAIL:
820 Retail/Restaurant 1,000 sf (gla) 37.75 ITE 10th Edition 2.16 2.66
Appendix A:
LUC 820 (Bozeman) 55%
Appendix A:
LUC 820 (Bozeman) 17.96 1.30 23.35 $10,205 $33 $575 $9,630 $10,112
INDUSTRIAL:
110 Light Industrial 1,000 sf (gfa) 4.96 ITE 10th Edition 2.22 2.72 Same as LUC 710 71% Same as LUC 710 3.13 1.30 4.07 $1,779 $6 $104 $1,675 $1,759
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf (gfa) 3.93 ITE 10th Edition 2.22 2.72 Same as LUC 710 71% Same as LUC 710 2.48 1.30 3.22 $1,410 $5 $87 $1,323 $1,389
150 Warehouse 1,000 sf (gfa) 1.74 ITE 10th Edition 2.22 2.72 Same as LUC 710 71% Same as LUC 710 1.10 1.30 1.43 $624 $2 $35 $589 $618
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf (gfa) 1.49 Appendix A: LUC 151 1.51 2.01
Midpoint of LUC 710
& 820 (FL, 50k sq ft) 71% Same as LUC 710 0.64 1.30 0.83 $364 $1 $17 $347 $364
439
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 15.15 1.30 19.70 $8,611 $26 $453 $8,158 $8,566
Single Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du 11.24
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 15.85 1.30 20.61 $9,003 $27 $470 $8,533 $8,960
Single Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du 11.71
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 16.51 1.30 21.46 $9,380 $28 $488 $8,892 $9,337
Single Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du 12.14
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 17.11 1.30 22.24 $9,724 $29 $505 $9,219 $9,680
Single Family: 3,001 sf or more du 12.26
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 17.28 1.30 22.46 $9,820 $29 $505 $9,315 $9,781
Multi-Family: 1,400 sf or less du 5.21
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 6.47 1.30 8.41 $3,675 $11 $192 $3,483 $3,657
Multi-Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du 5.80
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 7.20 1.30 9.36 $4,092 $12 $209 $3,883 $4,077
Multi-Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du 6.31
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 7.83 1.30 10.18 $4,451 $13 $226 $4,225 $4,436
Multi-Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du 6.77
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 8.41 1.30 10.93 $4,776 $14 $244 $4,532 $4,759
Multi-Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du 7.19
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 8.93 1.30 11.61 $5,072 $15 $261 $4,811 $5,052
Multi-Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du 7.57
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 9.40 1.30 12.22 $5,340 $16 $279 $5,061 $5,314
Multi-Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du 7.92
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 9.83 1.30 12.78 $5,587 $17 $296 $5,291 $5,556
Multi-Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du 8.25
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 10.24 1.30 13.31 $5,820 $18 $313 $5,507 $5,782
Multi-Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du 8.55
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 10.62 1.30 13.81 $6,031 $18 $313 $5,718 $6,004
Multi-Family: 3,001 sf or more du 8.63
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 10.71 1.30 13.92 $6,088 $18 $313 $5,775 $6,064
n/a Group Quarters person 3.10 2012 Study 3.10 3.60 Same as LUC 220-222 100% n/a 3.85 1.30 5.01 $2,187 $7 $122 $2,065 $2,168
210
220/
221/222
438
(Florida Studies) 1.90 1.30 2.47 $790 $3 $52 $738 $775
565 Day Care Center student 4.09 ITE 10th Edition 0.87 1.37 FL Studies 73% FL Studies 1.04 1.30 1.35 $432 $2 $35 $397 $417
610 Hospital 1,000 sf (gfa) 10.72 ITE 10th Edition 3.52 4.02 Same as LUC 210 78%
Midpoint of LUC 310 &
LUC 720 11.79 1.30 15.33 $4,891 $20 $348 $4,543 $4,770
OFFICE:
710 Office 1,000 sf (gfa) 9.74 ITE 10th Edition 2.22 2.72
Appendix A:
LUC 710 (Bozeman) 71%
Appendix A:
LUC 710 (Bozeman) 6.15 1.30 8.00 $2,551 $11 $192 $2,359 $2,477
760 Research & Development Center 1,000 sf (gfa) 11.26 ITE 10th Edition 2.31 2.81
Same as LUC 770
(Appendix A) 89%
Same as LUC 770
(Appendix A) 9.27 1.30 12.05 $3,847 $17 $296 $3,551 $3,729
RETAIL:
820 Retail/Restaurant 1,000 sf (gla) 37.75 ITE 10th Edition 2.16 2.66
Appendix A:
LUC 820 (Bozeman) 55%
Appendix A:
LUC 820 (Bozeman) 17.96 1.30 23.35 $7,453 $33 $575 $6,878 $7,222
INDUSTRIAL:
110 Light Industrial 1,000 sf (gfa) 4.96 ITE 10th Edition 2.22 2.72 Same as LUC 710 71% Same as LUC 710 3.13 1.30 4.07 $1,299 $6 $104 $1,195 $1,255
140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf (gfa) 3.93 ITE 10th Edition 2.22 2.72 Same as LUC 710 71% Same as LUC 710 2.48 1.30 3.22 $1,029 $5 $87 $942 $989
150 Warehouse 1,000 sf (gfa) 1.74 ITE 10th Edition 2.22 2.72 Same as LUC 710 71% Same as LUC 710 1.10 1.30 1.43 $456 $2 $35 $421 $442
151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf (gfa) 1.49 Appendix A: LUC 151 1.51 2.01
Midpoint of LUC 710
& 820 (FL, 50k sq ft) 71% Same as LUC 710 0.64 1.30 0.83 $265 $1 $17 $248 $260
437
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 15.15 1.30 19.70 $6,288 $26 $453 $5,835 $6,127
Single Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du 11.24
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 15.85 1.30 20.61 $6,575 $27 $470 $6,105 $6,410
Single Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du 11.71
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 16.51 1.30 21.46 $6,850 $28 $488 $6,362 $6,680
Single Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du 12.14
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 17.11 1.30 22.24 $7,101 $29 $505 $6,596 $6,926
Single Family: 3,001 sf or more du 12.26
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.52 4.02
Appendix A:
LUC 210 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 17.28 1.30 22.46 $7,172 $29 $505 $6,667 $7,000
Multi-Family: 1,400 sf or less du 5.21
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 6.47 1.30 8.41 $2,684 $11 $192 $2,492 $2,617
Multi-Family: 1,401 to 1,600 sf du 5.80
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 7.20 1.30 9.36 $2,988 $12 $209 $2,779 $2,918
Multi-Family: 1,601 to 1,800 sf du 6.31
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 7.83 1.30 10.18 $3,251 $13 $226 $3,025 $3,176
Multi-Family: 1,801 to 2,000 sf du 6.77
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 8.41 1.30 10.93 $3,488 $14 $244 $3,244 $3,406
Multi-Family: 2,001 to 2,200 sf du 7.19
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 8.93 1.30 11.61 $3,704 $15 $261 $3,443 $3,615
Multi-Family: 2,201 to 2,400 sf du 7.57
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 9.40 1.30 12.22 $3,900 $16 $279 $3,621 $3,802
Multi-Family: 2,401 to 2,600 sf du 7.92
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 9.83 1.30 12.78 $4,080 $17 $296 $3,784 $3,973
Multi-Family: 2,601 to 2,800 sf du 8.25
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 10.24 1.30 13.31 $4,250 $18 $313 $3,937 $4,134
Multi-Family: 2,801 to 3,000 sf du 8.55
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 10.62 1.30 13.81 $4,405 $18 $313 $4,092 $4,297
Multi-Family: 3,001 sf or more du 8.63
Local Studies
Tiered, App. A 3.10 3.60
Appendix A:
LUC 220-222 (Bozeman) 100% n/a 10.71 1.30 13.92 $4,446 $18 $313 $4,133 $4,340
n/a Group Quarters person 3.10 2012 Study 3.10 3.60 Same as LUC 220-222 100% n/a 3.85 1.30 5.01 $1,597 $7 $122 $1,475 $1,549
210
220/
221/222
436
SHORT WB(2)
MOTOR-
CYCLES BUSES
LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES
LONG WB(2)
433
(19)
20% 80% 19) Source: Estimate based on mix of Committed and Recommended Master Plan improvements
Weighted 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 additions
2.04% 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:
Item
New Road Construction Lane Addtions
Roadway 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)
425
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 6,375 7,500
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 8,100 7,500
MSN-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 22,500 40,000 17,500 4,725 8,750
MSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 6,250 8,333
MSN-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 15,000 40,000 25,000 44,250 8,333
MSN-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 15,000 22,500 7,500 3,750 7,500
Total 60.08 474,165 7,892
421
Seminole, FL 425.0 Oct-89 674 586 - - - 87.0 - Tindale Oliver
Hillsborough Co, FL 134.0 Jul-91 - - - - 1.30 74.0 - Tindale Oliver
Hillsborough Co, FL 151.0 Jul-91 - - - - 1.30 73.0 - Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL - Aug-91 68 64 - - 3.33 94.1 - Tindale Oliver
Collier Co, FL - Aug-91 208 154 - - 2.64 74.0 - Tindale Oliver
Sarasota/Bradenton, FL 109.0 Sep-92 300 185 - 12a-6p - 61.6 - King Engineering Associates, Inc.
Ocala, FL 133.4 Sep-92 300 192 - 12a-6p - 64.0 - King Engineering Associates, Inc.
Gwinnett Co, GA 99.1 Dec-92 - - 46.00 - 3.20 70.0 103.04 Street Smarts
Gwinnett Co, GA 314.7 Dec-92 - - 27.00 - 8.50 84.0 192.78 Street Smarts
Sarasota Co, FL 110.0 Jun-93 58 58 122.14 - 3.20 - - Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 146.1 Jun-93 65 65 51.53 - 2.80 - - Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 157.5 Jun-93 57 57 79.79 - 3.40 - - Sarasota County
Sarasota Co, FL 191.0 Jun-93 62 62 66.79 - 5.90 - - Sarasota County
Hernando Co, FL 107.8 May-96 608 331 77.60 9a-6p 4.68 54.5 197.85 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 88.0 Oct-97 - - 73.50 9a-5p 1.80 57.1 75.56 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 191.9 Oct-97 - - 72.00 9a-5p 2.40 50.9 87.97 Tindale Oliver
Charlotte Co, FL 51.3 Oct-97 - - 43.00 9a-5p 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 67.8 Apr-01 246 177 102.60 - 3.40 71.2 248.37 Tindale Oliver
Lake Co, FL 72.3 Apr-01 444 376 65.30 - 4.50 59.0 173.37 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 65.6 Apr-02 222 - 145.64 9a-5p 1.46 46.9 99.62 Tindale Oliver
Pasco Co, FL 75.8 Apr-02 134 - 38.23 9a-5p 2.36 58.2 52.52 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 185.0 Oct-03 - 784 55.84 8a-6p 2.40 88.1 118.05 Tindale Oliver
Citrus Co, FL 91.3 Nov-03 - 390 54.50 8a-6p 1.60 88.0 76.77 Tindale Oliver
Land Use 820: Shopping Center
410
Interviews
# Trip Length
Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source
Sarasota Co, FL 14.3 Jun-93 14 14 46.85 - 11.30 - 529.41 Sarasota County
Gwinnett Co, GA 98.0 Dec-92 - - 4.30 - 5.40 - - Street Smarts
Gwinnett Co, GA 180.0 Dec-92 - - 3.60 - 5.90 - - Street Smarts
Pinellas Co, FL 187.0 Oct-89 431 388 18.49 7a-5p 6.30 90.0 104.84 Tindale Oliver
St. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep-89 291 274 - 7a-5p 3.40 94.0 - Tindale Oliver
Total Size 742.1 5 Average Trip Length: 6.46
Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.15
Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length (≈43%): 2.22
Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3
Land Use 710: General Office Building (Florida)
409
408
Weighted Average VMC/PMCAdded per Lane Mile(3) 7,900 1.30 10,270
392
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
383
(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;
382