The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-10-07_Resolution No_ 4082, Transportation Impact Fee Stu_18 Report compiled on December 4, 2007 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Street Impact Fee Study update MEETING DATE: Monday, December 10, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution 4082 with a specified effective date and with direction on policy issues as deemed appropriate by the Commission. If the Commission decides to utilize a phase-in approach as described below in Policy Option C it would be advantageous to have the effective date of Resolution 4082 and Ordinance 1730 be the same. BACKGROUND: The City Commission conducted a public hearing on November 26, 2007 to consider an update to the City’s street impact fee cost of service study. The Commission continued the hearing to December 10, 2007 in order to allow the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) additional time to make a recommendation. The IFAC met on November 27, 2007. As described in the minutes of the meeting the Committee made recommendations to the Commission on the items listed under unresolved issues below. Each item has been edited to show the vote of the Committee in italics. The minutes have full detail. It is anticipated that the Committee will make a verbal report as part of the agenda item on December 10th. The Commission inquired on November 26th as to the effect on previously awarded street impact fee credits if the program were terminated. The street credits could not be transferred to another type of impact fee. The City’s current cash balance for street impact fees would be sufficient to pay out all of the outstanding impact fee credits. If the City did not cash out the remaining credits they would be of no value since there would be no program left to accept them. After the IFAC meeting on the 27th, a representative of SWMBIA discussed with TOA and staff the possibility of a conference call to facilitate consultant to consultant discussion of comments and responses. All parties agreed to the desirability of this approach and calls were scheduled for Wednesday, December 5th at 8 am and 11 am and December 7th at 9 am. As these times are after the deadline for packet submittals the results of the conference calls will be provided independent of the packet. In 1983 the City of Bozeman adopted a master plan for the community which included a policy that new development should pay its own way (see Bozeman Area Master Plan, page 4-3, Public Facility Goal 8). This policy has continued forward in various City documents ever since. The City of Bozeman adopted a street impact fee program which became effective in early 1996. In 2005, the state legislature established certain procedural and documentary requirements for adoption and implementation of an impact fee. The City contracted with Tindale-Oliver Associates (TOA) in 2006 to prepare an update of the fee study which examines demand, cost, and credits and provides a basis for the dollar amount collected. Revisions and updates to an impact fee must comply with the new statutes. A summary of how all the documentation 267 Report compiled on December 4, 2007 Commission Memorandum required has been provided was included with the packet materials for the November 26, 2007 meeting. TOA’s written response to public comment was provided to the Commission with an earlier packet. The consultant presented the report to the Commission and answered questions on November 26th. The draft report is consistent with the methodological approach and practices which were sanctioned by the settlement agreement and judicial order resolving the original impact fee litigation. Earlier information provided to the Commission outlined particular points of difference between the existing study and the update, particular points of similarity between the existing study and the update, listed materials transmitted, and listed materials related to the impact fee which had previously been given to the Commission. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Commission direction is required in several areas related to this action item. Some of the identified options below are mutually exclusive and others could be approved in combination. Depending on which of the policy choices the Commission chooses, some revisions to the new study may be required. These are the same options as shown in the November 26th memo with changes shown in italics. Policy Options: A) Adopt the impact fee study as presented. This option assumes the Commission finds all elements of the study as presented acceptable and it may or may not wish to give specific direction on individual issues identified below. IFAC Recommendation vote 4 in favor, 4 opposed, 1 abstained B) Abandon transportation impact fees. This option would require the City to find other funding to construct major street improvements. Possible options include additional case by case development exactions, property tax increases (approximately 23% increase required to replace street impact fees at the past 5 year average), or expanded use of SIDs. Alternatively, the level of service on the City’s streets could be allowed to decrease. IFAC Recommendation – No recommendation given C) Phase-in changes in costs. If the Commission selects this option it is suggested to use a phase- in process of not more than two steps. A first step of one-half the difference between existing fees and full fees and a second step to bring the fees to full calculated amounts. The first step could take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance 1730 and the second step on July 1st. A phase-in approach would require some text revisions to Section 3.24.050.A in Ordinance 1730, a separate Commission agenda item. A routine inflationary adjustment is required to occur on January 1st if the new fee schedule is not adopted and effective on that date. A complete building permit submitted to the Building Division is subject to the impact fees in place on the date the permit application is made. The application is valid for a period of six months. If the permit is drawn during that six month period the application is shielded from changes in impact fees. This provides an automatic opportunity, or “grace period”, for persons to seek to avoid increases in the impact fee. 268 Report compiled on December 4, 2007 Commission Memorandum It has been suggested that a phase-in approach would also allow the City to obtain the benefit of additional information from the update to the transportation plan now underway before the fee amount collected reached the full calculated amount. The project manager indicates the anticipated time to a complete draft of the transportation plan update is 9-12 months at this time. Additional time will be required after draft distribution for the Commission to consider adoption of the updated transportation plan. IFAC Recommendation – No recommendation given D) Decline to implement the affordable housing option included in the study. The City requested the Consultant to evaluate whether there was an equitable manner in which to consider a reduced fee for affordable housing. As presented in detail in Appendix E, the Consultant has provided information in support of an assertion that an income restricted dwelling has a lesser demand for vehicle miles traveled per day and therefore should pay a lesser fee. It will be necessary for the City to establish administrative procedures to ensure that those claiming the lesser fee are actually providing cost restricted housing. The administrative procedures can be incorporated into the existing administrative framework and procedures. Initial thoughts are that those intending to claim the reduced fee must demonstrate that the housing is subject to tax credit financing, workforce housing restrictions, or other legally binding restriction on price. One option to ensure compliance is for the normal fee to be paid with initial construction and a refund of the difference given when the sale at the cost restricted price is verified. If the Commission is not persuaded that the information presented is adequate to support the differentiated fee then this option should not be adopted. IFAC Recommendation vote 7 in favor, 2 opposed E) Decline to implement the CBD option included in the study. The requirements of state law mandate that the City examine whether more than one transportation benefit district is required. During the analysis of this issue, it was concluded that due to Bozeman’s small size and travel patterns the City is one benefit district. However, it was also concluded that facts exist which support a different demand factor reflective of differences in travel patterns in the Downtown (referred to in the study and this memo as the CBD). This is described in more detail in Appendix K. These demand differences arise from the physical characteristics of the CBD which allow a high degree of shared customers and employees where persons will drive to a destination within the CBD and then often visit more than one business, walking in between stops. This causes there to be less total traveled miles for the same number of customers and employees. Since the impact fee is a measure of total miles traveled, this results is a lesser fee for the CBD even though their customers are initiating their trips from all over Bozeman. As noted in the study text and in Appendix K, the existing CBD is not the only place where such a pattern could possibly be found. If facts were provided establishing that another substantial area of town had similar travel characteristics then the City could equitably allow the CBD travel 269 Report compiled on December 4, 2007 Commission Memorandum demand pattern to be used. Appendix K describes several physical characteristics believed to be indicators of likely opportunity to utilize the CBD calculation. During discussion at the IFAC an alternative term, Trip Exchange District (TED), was identified. Staff recommends replacing the term CBD with TED as a more descriptive term which does not have a rigid a geographic connotation. Staff suggests the addition of two other items to the list of characteristics in Appendix K. First, that the area is the subject of a legally enforceable common plan of development such as an urban renewal plan, detailed planned unit development, or similar document. Second, the area should be at least 50% developed as measured by lot area utilized. The reason for the addition of these items is that they help assure that the development will possess the identified physical characteristics and that there will be adequate density of development to provide the synergy of businesses required. If the Commission is not persuaded that the information presented is adequate to support the differentiated fee then this option should not be adopted. IFAC Recommendation vote 6 in favor, 3 opposed F) The study includes a least cost approach to building center turn lanes with development. This means that when a proposed collector or arterial is to be developed the City should consider paying for the installation of the center turn lane with the initial construction to minimize cost of that capacity. Alternatively, the initial two-lane construction can be offset to one side of the right of way to enable the third lane to be established with minimal removal of existing infrastructure. If the Commission does not wish to enact this policy they may so direct. However, if this policy is not followed then the cost of capacity expansion will increase and the fee amounts will need to be revised upwards. The City currently commonly uses the offset construction approach. IFAC Recommendation vote 9 in favor, 0 opposed G) Impact fees only used on the arterial street network. This would have the effect of reducing the total miles traveled on impact fee eligible streets and therefore lower the fee. However, it would also have the effect of requiring alternative funding for development of substantive City streets such as West Babcock Street, Graf Street, and the Oak Street connector to L Street. Possible sources include increased property taxes, more extensive use of SIDs, or diversion of the City’s annual urban fund allocation from the arterial street system to the collector streets. The urban funds currently reduce the cost for impact fees and diversion to the collector system would necessitate an increase in the transportation impact fee. IFAC Recommendation vote 5 in favor, 4 opposed H) Seek other funding sources to reduce impact fee amounts. Impact fees are one component of the suite of funding sources which construct the City’s transportation system. If other funds can be made available to pay for an increased amount of construction the impact fees can be reduced. Examples are a dedicated fuel tax, a special property tax levy, bonds, or federal earmarks. Of these options only one, bonding, is currently in use. The City voters passed a $5,000,000 bond for transportation improvements in 1995. If the Commission wishes to examine alternative funding options they may, however, in order to reduce the impact fee the additional revenue 270 Report compiled on December 4, 2007 Commission Memorandum must be clearly allocated to expansion of capacity and not to maintenance or correction of existing deficiencies. Most road construction projects will require some partnership funding in addition to impact fees to address items of work which do not expand capacity. The City must also retain adequate alternative funding to address identified projects needed to address maintenance or correction of existing deficiencies. IFAC Recommendation vote 9 in favor, 0 opposed FISCAL EFFECTS: The intended effect is to enable adequate funding to support development of streets equivalent to the demand created by new development. Inadequate streets contribute to increased demands for emergency services due to accidents, discourage commerce and investment in the City area, and create uncertainty in the development of land. These consequently increase expenditures and reduce revenues. Adequate streets enable safe, cost efficient and time efficient use of travel resources, encourage commerce, and help reduce delays and uncertainty during the land development process. These support reduced expenditures and increased revenues. Impact fees and the process of developing them provide a more stable development environment and reduce ad-hoc exactions and corresponding uncertainty during the approval process. The public process enables persons seeking information on impact fee costs to obtain dependable information much earlier in the project planning process. The cost of impact fees is one cost among many which must be incorporated into the funding of individual public and private development projects. If a project is marginal there is a possibility that the overall costs, including land, materials, professional services, and labor, as well as impact fees, may inhibit the project from moving forward. Over the past five years the collection of street impact fees has averaged $2.5 million per year. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 582-2260 if you have questions on this item. APPROVED BY: Chris Kukulski, City Manager Andrew Epple, Planning Director Attachments: Minutes of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee November 27, 2007 meeting 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Street Impact Fee Study update MEETING DATE: Monday, November 26, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution 4082 with an effective date of January 1, 2008 and with direction on policy issues as deemed appropriate by the Commission. BACKGROUND: In 1983 the City of Bozeman adopted a master plan for the community which included a policy that new development should pay its own way (see Bozeman Area Master Plan, page 4-3, Public Facility Goal 8). This policy has continued forward in various City documents ever since. The City of Bozeman adopted a street impact fee program which became effective in early 1996. In 2005, the state legislature adopted Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6- 1604, MCA establishing certain procedural and documentary requirements for adoption and implementation of an impact fee. Revisions and updates to an impact fee must comply with the new statutes. A summary of how all the documentation required has been provided is included with the packet materials. The City contracted with Tindale-Oliver Associates (TOA) in 2006 to prepare an update of the fee study which examines demand, cost, and credits and provides a basis for the dollar amount collected. The study is one part of the documentation required to support an impact fee. Documentation is also provided through the City’s transportation plan, development standards, impact fee ordinance, and capital improvements program. A summary of how all the documentation required has been provided is included with the packet materials. A public hearing on the draft report has been advertised and will be held by the City Commission on November 26th. Due to the extensive materials and policy decisions involved Staff provided the new study and certain related materials a week early. Public comment has been received and TOA has prepared a written response, both of which have been provided to the Commission with this week’s packet. The consultant will be in attendance to present the report to the Commission and answer questions on November 26th. After receiving drafts of the documents through the summer and fall, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee received an in-person formal presentation on the report by the Consultant on November 8th. They have scheduled their action for November 27th. Particular points of difference between the existing study and the update are: An analysis of local traffic characteristics used to correlate local conditions with trip data from a larger source of data (Trip Characteristics Study) An analysis of differences in transportation demand of affordable housing (Appendix E) An analysis of differences in transportation demand in a downtown type environment (Appendix K) 145279 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum Cost data for construction of streets has been updated Particular points of similarity between the existing study and the update are: Both use consumption based methodology, e.g. pay for what you use Both are based upon the most recently adopted transportation plan Both provide an extensive list of uses for which a fee is calculated to increase accuracy in proportionality of demand and cost Both only charge a fee for the cost of offsetting demand generated by new growth Both examine dedicated capacity expansion funding from sources other than impact fees Both recognize the City as a single benefit district The materials being transmitted are: Executive Summary of the report Transportation Impact Fee Update report Trip Characteristics Study (local research incorporated into the report’s travel demand data) A memo noting where each required documentary element has been provided A list of street projects funded in whole or part with street impact fees A copy of Sections 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604 MCA which authorize impact fees Public comment received Responses to public comment by the Consultant Minutes to date from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (no recommendation included at this point in time) Related information which is not being transmitted under this cover but which previously has been, or will be, provided to the Commission: 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update (needs, demand forecast, future projects, standards) Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC (Chapters 18.02, 18.44 and 18.78 especially) City of Bozeman Street Impact Fee Capital Improvements Program (FY 2009-2013 will be presented to the Commission on December 10th [FY2008-2012 is now available through the City Finance webpage]) Chapter 3.24, Impact Fees, BMC – Revisions provided under separate cover and for separate action by the Commission. Recommendation and minutes from the impact fee advisory committee (most recent Consultant presentation was on Nov 8th, action has been set by the Committee for November 27th) UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Commission direction is required in several areas related to this action item. Some of the identified options below are mutually exclusive and others could be approved in combination. Depending on which of the policy choices the Commission chooses, some revisions to the new study may be required. 146280 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum Policy Options: A) Adopt the impact fee study as presented. This option assumes the Commission finds all elements of the study as presented acceptable and it may or may not wish to give specific direction on individual issues identified below. B) Abandon transportation impact fees. This option would require the City to find other funding to construct major street improvements. Possible options include additional case by case development exactions, property tax increases (approximately 23% increase required to replace street impact fees at the past 5 year average), or expanded use of SIDs. Alternatively, the level of service on the City’s streets could be allowed to decrease. C) Phase-in changes in costs. If the Commission selects this option it is suggested to use a phase- in process of not more than two steps. A first step of one-half the difference between existing fees and full fees and a second step to bring the fees to full calculated amounts. The first step could take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance 1730 and the second step on July 1st. A phase-in approach would require some text revisions to Ordinance 1730, a separate Commission agenda item. A routine inflationary adjustment is required to occur on January 1st if the new fee schedule is not adopted and effective prior to that date. Since a resolution, unlike an ordinance, may have an immediate effective date and the street impact fee will adjust on the 1st of January anyway, it seems a logical date for a first step. A complete building permit submitted to the Building Division is subject to the impact fees in place on the date the permit application is made. The application is valid for a period of six months. If the permit is drawn during that six month period the application is shielded from changes in impact fees. This provides an automatic opportunity, or “grace period”, for persons to seek to avoid increases in the impact fee. D) Decline to implement the affordable housing option included in the study. The City requested the Consultant to evaluate whether there was an equitable manner in which to consider a reduced fee for affordable housing. As presented in detail in Appendix E, the Consultant has provided information in support of an assertion that an income restricted dwelling has a lesser demand for vehicle miles traveled per day and therefore should pay a lesser fee. It will be necessary for the City to establish administrative procedures to ensure that those claiming the lesser fee are actually providing cost restricted housing. The administrative procedures can be incorporated into the existing administrative framework and procedures. Initial thoughts are that those intending to claim the reduced fee must demonstrate that the housing is subject to tax credit financing, workforce housing restrictions, or other legally binding restriction on price. One option to ensure compliance is for the normal fee to be paid with initial construction and a refund of the difference given when the sale at the cost restricted price is verified. If the Commission is not persuaded that the information presented is adequate to support the differentiated fee then this option should not be adopted. 147281 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum E) Decline to implement the CBD option included in the study. The requirements of state law mandate that the City examine whether more than one transportation benefit district is required. During the analysis of this issue, it was concluded that due to Bozeman’s small size and travel patterns the City is one benefit district. However, it was also concluded that facts exist which support a different demand factor reflective of differences in travel patterns in the Downtown (referred to in the study and this memo as the CBD). This is described in more detail in Appendix K. These demand differences arise from the physical characteristics of the CBD which allow a high degree of shared customers and employees where persons will drive to a destination within the CBD and then often visit more than one business, walking in between stops. This causes there to be less total traveled miles for the same number of customers and employees. Since the impact fee is a measure of total miles traveled, this results is a lesser fee for the CBD even though their customers are initiating their trips from all over Bozeman. As noted in the study text and in Appendix K, the existing CBD is not the only place where such a pattern could possibly be found. If facts were provided establishing that another substantial area of town had similar travel characteristics then the City could equitably allow the CBD travel demand pattern to be used. Appendix K describes several physical characteristics believed to be indicators of likely opportunity to utilize the CBD calculation. Staff suggests the addition of two other items to the list of characteristics in Appendix K. First, that the area is the subject of a legally enforceable common plan of development such as an urban renewal plan, detailed planned unit development, or similar document. Second, the area should be at least 50% developed as measured by lot area utilized. The reason for the addition of these items is that they help assure that the development will possess the identified physical characteristics and that there will be adequate density of development to provide the synergy of businesses required. If the Commission is not persuaded that the information presented is adequate to support the differentiated fee then this option should not be adopted. F) The study includes a least cost approach to building center turn lanes with development. This means that when a proposed collector or arterial is to be developed the City should consider paying for the installation of the center turn lane with the initial construction to minimize cost of that capacity. Alternatively, the initial two-lane construction can be offset to one side of the right of way to enable the third lane to be established with minimal removal of existing infrastructure. If the Commission does not wish to enact this policy they may so direct. However, if this policy is not followed then the cost of capacity expansion will increase and the fee amounts will need to be revised upwards. The City currently commonly uses the offset construction approach. G) Impact fees only used on the arterial street network. This would have the effect of reducing the total miles traveled on impact fee eligible streets and therefore lower the fee. However, it would also have the effect of requiring alternative funding for development of substantive City streets such as West Babcock Street, Graf Street, and the Oak Street connector to L Street. Possible sources include increased property taxes, more extensive use of SIDs, or diversion of 148282 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum the City’s annual urban fund allocation from the arterial street system to the collector streets. The urban funds currently reduce the cost for impact fees and diversion to the collector system would necessitate an increase in the transportation impact fee. H) Seek other funding sources to reduce impact fee amounts. Impact fees are one component of the suite of funding sources which construct the City’s transportation system. If other funds can be made available to pay for an increased amount of construction the impact fees can be reduced. Examples are a dedicated fuel tax, a special property tax levy, bonds, or federal earmarks. Of these options only one, bonding, is currently in use. The City voters passed a $5,000,000 bond for transportation improvements in 1995. If the Commission wishes to examine alternative funding options they may, however, in order to reduce the impact fee the additional revenue must be clearly allocated to expansion of capacity and not to maintenance or correction of existing deficiencies. Most road construction projects will require some partnership funding in addition to impact fees to address items of work which do not expand capacity. The City must also retain adequate alternative funding to address identified projects needed to address maintenance or correction of existing deficiencies. FISCAL EFFECTS: The intended effect is to enable adequate funding to support development of streets equivalent to the demand created by new development. Inadequate streets contribute to increased demands for emergency services due to accidents, discourage commerce and investment in the City area, and create uncertainty in the development of land. These consequently increase expenditures and reduce revenues. Adequate streets enable safe, cost efficient and time efficient use of travel resources, encourage commerce, and help reduce delays and uncertainty during the land development process. These support reduced expenditures and increased revenues. Impact fees and the process of developing them provide a more stable development environment and reduce ad-hoc exactions and corresponding uncertainty during the approval process. The public process enables persons seeking information on impact fee costs to obtain dependable information much earlier in the project planning process. The cost of impact fees is one cost among many which must be incorporated into the funding of individual public and private development projects. If a project is marginal there is a possibility that the overall costs, including land, materials, professional services, and labor, as well as impact fees, may inhibit the project from moving forward. Over the past five years the collection of street impact fees has averaged $2.5 million per year. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 582-2260 if you have questions on this item. APPROVED BY: Chris Kukulski, City Manager Andrew Epple, Planning Director 149283 Report compiled on November 13, 2007 Commission Memorandum Attachments: Executive Summary of the report Transportation Impact Fee Update report Trip Characteristics Study A memo noting where each required documentary element has been provided A list of street projects funded in whole or part with street impact fees A copy of Sections 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604 MCA which authorize impact fees TOA response to public comment Public comment 150284 COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, ADOPTING THE OCTOBER 31, 2007 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE COST OF SERVICE STUDY UPDATE. WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to addressing the community’s expressed needs and desires for services; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands for services in a fiscally responsible manner; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is committed to meeting those desires and demands for services in a manner which recognizes the fiscal and legal interest of all of the system users now and in the future and not a limited subset of users; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has developed and adopted a transportation facility plan which examined current and future needs and provides a lawful, logical, balanced, operationally sound, and cost effective basis upon which to maintain and develop the City’s transportation system; and WHEREAS, the City Commission has chosen to utilize impact fees as one portion of an integrated approach to provide transportation services; and WHEREAS, Sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604, MCA provide specific authority and guidance about the necessary documentation to establish an impact fee and procedures to adopt and administer an impact fee; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with Tindale-Oliver & Associates to provide professional services in development of an updated transportation impact fee study; WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates reviewed the existing demand and needs for transportation facilities, the existing facilities available to meet that demand, and the method of financing the existing systems and needed new facilities; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates additionally reviewed the contribution made or to be made in the future in cash or by taxes, fees, or assessments by property owners towards the capital costs of transportation facilities; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates reviewed and relied upon the City of Bozeman’s current level of service (LOS) standards and facility cost assumptions in recommending transportation impact fees; and, WHEREAS, Tindale-Oliver & Associates has prepared a transportation impact fee study dated October 31, 2007 (the Fee Study), including the assumptions, population and residential and non-residential development projections, capital infrastructure and impact fee calculations, which study has been submitted to and reviewed by City staff and officials; and, WHEREAS, in addition to the Fee Study, Tindale-Oliver & Associates and the City have prepared, updated, and relied upon other documentation, as required by section 7-6-1602 of the Montana Code 151285 Annotated, in developing the transportation facilities impact fees adopted pursuant to this Ordinance (collectively, the “Impact Fee Data and Analysis”), including but not limited to the following: (1) 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; (2) Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance; BMC; (3) Design and Specifications Manual; (4) Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program; (5) Capital Improvements Program for General Fund, Street Maintenance Fund, and Street Impact Fee Fund; (6) the City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study, Final Report, dated August, 31 2007; (7) the City Budget; and (8) Specified bid tabulations. WHEREAS, the City develops its transportation facility plans, and its capital improvements program in a manner open to the public and accepts and responds to public comment and input; and WHEREAS, the City and Consultant have developed the transportation impact fee study in a manner open to the public and accepted and responded to comment and input; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Impact Fee Advisory Committee has considered and will make a recommendation to the City Commission on the draft document; and WHEREAS, the City Commission or Impact Fee Advisory Committee conducted public meetings on the subject of the transportation impact fee on October 9, 2006, July 26, 2007, October 25, 2007 and November 8, 2007; and WHEREAS, public comment was received and the consultant provided a written response to the comment and, where deemed appropriate, made revisions to the draft of the transportation impact fee study prior to the public hearing on November 26, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Commission conducted a public hearing on November 26, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed and discussed this impact fee study update and accept and agree with the content of the impact fee study update and recognize that updates and modifications will be made to it in the future in accord with the requirements of Chapter 3.24 BMC; and WHEREAS, the City Commission found that all required elements necessary for compliance with standards for development of an impact fee have been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, that the October 31, 2007 draft of the Transportation Impact Fee Study Update, as contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, is hereby adopted. 152286 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the 26th day of November 2007 and specifying that the study shall be implemented on January 1, 2008. __________________________________________ Jeff Krauss, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Stacey Ulmen City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ Paul Luwe City Attorney 153287 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 1 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) Response to City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Review Completed by Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) November 19, 2007 The Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) provided a review of the methodology, calculations, data sources, compliance with the impact fee state statute, and assumptions of the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study completed by TOA for the City of Bozeman. Through a summary of key issues outlined in a letter to Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director, dated November 6, 2007, the SWMBIA suggested several fundamental flaws with the study and purported its non-compliance with the Montana Act. The purpose of this document is to provide response to the various issues raised by SWMBIA and address the scope of the impact fee study relative to compliance with the 2005 Montana Impact Fee State Statute, hereafter referred to as “the statute.”In summary, TOA’s responses will demonstrate that there are no “fundamental flaws with the study” and that every requirement in the statute has been met.TOA’s responses have been formatted to match each corresponding issue. Introduction Based on the review of the overall comments presented by the SWMBIA, it is important to first provide an explanation of the key differences between a consumption-based impact fee study and a needs-based impact fee study. A consumption-based impact fee study charges new development based upon the proportion of lane miles of travel (demand), which is considered to be a reasonable estimate of the vehicle miles of travel, that each unit of new development is expected to consume on the roadway network. In addition, the cost of capacity being consumed used in the impact fee study is consistent with Section 7-6-1602 (3) of the statute, since the actual costs of local roadway improvement projects were used to calculate the cost component and these projects are considered to be typical of future projects. Finally, it is important to note that the consumption-based methodology is the same methodology used in the current City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee that has been in place since 1996. Conversely, a needs-based impact fee study is dependent on a specific set of “necessary” projects (i.e., needs) that are generally based on a fixed projection of future growth (usually including a socio-economic forecast of demand by land use). Hence, this approach attempts to identify with precision a set of future improvements that will be needed to serve future growth. Given the lack of flexibility to account for fluctuations in the rate of growth and the locations of where growth really occurs, this method leads to either over-charging or under-charging new growth. In addition, since the list of needs is a function of the existing roadway conditions, the more improvement needs there are, the higher the impact fees will be. Similarly, the fewer the 154288 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 2 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc improvement needs, the lower the impact fees will be. This approach fails to reasonably satisfy the rational nexus and rough proportionality tests since new development is not paying for the cost of the capacity being consumed, but rather the cost of a set of projects that it may or may not really needed or used to serve growth demands. Further, if the growth is faster than projected, additional projects may be needed to serve growth, indicating that those developments paying the current impact may have been undercharged for the cost of their new growth. If growth is slower than projected, then the projects for which the impact fee is charged may not be needed, and the developments paying the impact fee that were charged the full cost of these projects may actually be paying too high of an impact fee. Comment # 1 – Level of Service Baseline Nowhere in the City's documents do we see the level-of-service standards which constitute the baseline for establishing the City's responsibility for correcting existing deficiencies and future development's responsibility for correcting its deficiencies. Several subsections of 7-6-1602 cite the need to document existing conditions [(1)(a)], establish level-of-service standards [(1)(b)], and define the methodology for excluding correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee [(1)(i) and (5)(c)]. Further, new development must be held to the same level-of service standards as existing users [(5)(d)].The upshot of these requirements is that the City is responsible for correcting existing capacity and safety deficiencies, and future development is not. And as such, development is only responsible for correcting future capacity deficiencies caused by its traffic.The mechanism (level-of-service standards) which the City has utilized to divide these improvement responsibilities, never mind the resulting separate City- responsible and development-responsible capital improvement programs, are not evident in the traffic impact study reports. Response # 1 – Level of Service Baseline The commonly accepted level of service standard ranges from level A through level F. Level F represents significant congestion, e.g., a traffic jam. The City of Bozeman’s adopted level of service standard of “C” is defined in Section 18.44.060.D of the Bozeman Municipal Code. This standard has been consistent during and after the preparation of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. The character of streets is defined in Chapter 11 of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update, which was adopted after extensive opportunity for public comment and participation. In compliance with subsection 7-6-1602(1)(a) of the statute, the capacities used to develop the proposed impact fees are consistent with those presented in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update (Table 4-1). The capacities represent a conservative level of service 155289 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 3 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc standard since they are, at a minimum, consistent with the roadway level of service that is being provided to existing users of the roadway network. Chapter 2 of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update examines existing deficiencies at the time of the preparation of the plan. It notes few deficiencies (see Figure 2-4) and those noted have been or will be resolved with non-impact fee money, such as the state funded improvements to the intersection of Main Street and 19th Avenue. Projected deficiencies shown in Figure 4-1 are the result of the increased traffic from new development as discussed in Chapter 3 of the plan. As mentioned previously in the introduction, the proposed impact fee study is a consumption- based impact fee meaning that new growth is charged based on the amount of capacity consumed. By definition of this method, new growth is not charged to correct existing deficiencies since impact fee revenues are dedicated to capacity-adding projects along corridors that are not deficient (over-capacity). It should be noted that during the annual update cycle of the Streets Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), hereafter referred to as the “CIP,” the City evaluates each recommended improvement to make sure that funds are not spent to correct existing deficiencies. A detailed review is conducted of actual project bid tabulations to assign expenditures for portions that are associated with growth (impact fees) and non-growth (gas taxes and special improvement district funds). Comment # 2 – Improvement Identification The Code requires specific identification of capacity improvements necessary to address capacity needs occasioned by future development. These improvements would form the cost basis of the impact fees to be assessed against future development. While the proposed impact fees are based upon generic replacement of capacity consumed by each unit of development, we found no documentation in the impact fee study of the specific required capital improvement program occasioned by future development traffic, separated from the City's capital improvement program to correct existing safety and capacity deficiencies. We recognize that the impact fee studies propose fees based upon typical trip generation characteristics and trip lengths of the various land uses, and typical costs of improving (increasing the capacity of) roadways. But, no separate estimates of future development (intensity and types of land uses) for a specific time period have been made, and these future development estimates translated into estimated future traffic demands on the roadway network. And finally, no specific improvements required to remedy these development-created capacity deficiencies have been proposed in the impact fee study report.We found no specific correlation of development impact fees to specific capital improvements required by development for a specific time period, never mind separation of development responsibility from the City's (or other public entities') 156290 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 4 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc responsibility to correct existing deficiencies during that same time period.Section 7-6- 1602(1)(h) of the 2005 Code is specific in requiring the time period which the impact fees will cover needed development improvements. Response # 2 – Improvement Identification TOA acknowledges (as discussed previously in the introductory response) that compliance with the statute (Section 7-6-1602 (3)) requires that the impact fee “be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or improvements or reasonable estimates of the costs to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of development.” As documented in Appendix B in the technical report, actual typical capacity expansion project costs for completed projects in the City of Bozeman (Babcock Road and Durston Road) were used to develop the impact fee costs. It should be noted that the standard quantities and unit prices were confirmed not only with City staff, but also with MDOT staff to ensure that the current replacement value of typical roadway improvements were reflected in the study. In response to the comment made regarding the time period of the impact fee study and the lack of “separate estimate of future development,” it should be noted that the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update defined future roadway needs through the year 2020. This plan was based on an extensive demographic and socio-economic forecasting analysis and the use of a travel demand model to project the future transportation system needs to support future growth. This is well documented in the plan. The City’s CIP further establishes priorities and funding sources for projects to be built during the five-year planning period of the CIP. The CIP is reviewed annually to ensure compliance with the Impact Fee Ordinance and the Montana Impact Fee Statute (Section 7-6-1602 (1) (k)). As documented previously, the City’s Streets Impact Fee CIP reflects only the capacity-adding expenditures associated with programmed improvements that do not correct existing deficiencies. This ensures that impact fee revenues are not spent to correct existing deficiencies. With the presence of these supporting documents, it is not necessary for the impact fee study report to replicate such information. It is sufficient to ensure coordination and correspondence among the plans, which the impact fee study effort has carefully and specifically done in terms of planned future roadway capacity improvements and the costing of these projects. Comment # 3 – No Funding Correlation in CIP The Street Impact Fee Fund (SIFF) FY09-13 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) defines specific future capital improvements and the projected sources of funding, including street impact fees, general and specific city funds, state urban funds, and other sources.However, the TIFF-CIP 157291 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 5 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc does not correlate funding sources (e.g., street impact fees and non-impact fee sources) to specific improvements required by future development alone (i.e., street impact fees), nor does it correlate to specific improvements required to mitigate existing safety and capacity deficiencies (other funding sources).That lack of correlation makes it impossible to determine whether both the City and future development are contributing their proportionate "fair share" of these improvements. What clouds that determination further are several project descriptions in the TIFF-CIP, which suggest that development (impact fees) may, or will, be paying more than development's fair share of these projects. Examples include the following: i)Public Works – PW02.This project budgets $990,000 of street impact fees to construction of a City Shops Complex Facility. This is a future municipal project, not a future private development. It is unclear how development traffic would create a future capacity deficiency for this public works facility. ii)Street Impact Fees – SIF01.One hundred percent of street impact fees are budgeted for future undefined right-of-way acquisition, with no specific projects attached to these right-of-wayneeds, and with no distinction whether future right-of- way will be required to correct existing safety and capacity deficiencies or future development capacity deficiencies. iii)Existing Deficiencies, and Safety, Bicycle, Pedestrian Improvements Projects.Several project descriptions cite improved capacity and safety, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Several of these projects are proposed to be funded through 100 percent street impact fees, without differentiating existing versus development capacity deficiencies, and without recognizing that correction of safety deficiencies is not the responsibility of future development, but the city, county, or state's responsibility. Some project descriptions, in fact, contain statements like "This section has already exceeded the volume of traffic projected . . . " and "backups at peak hours are already significant", which in our opinion identifies that the capacity problems are existing, yet 60 to 100 percent of funding is proposed through street impact fees. Further, it is our interpretation that bicycle and pedestrian facilities do not fall under the "transportation facility" definition of the 2005 Montana Code, in the sense of providing service capacity to a roadway. If they do, then we submit that these improvements too must be development capacity driven. In summary, the absence of a capital improvement program, with costs, which is well defined, covers a specific time period, and clearly separates future development's responsibilities to correct its deficiencies from the City's responsibilities to correct existing deficiencies, is our concern relative to conformance with Montana Code.Section 7-6-1602(5), subsections (a) through (e), make clear the "fair-share" approach to allocating the 158292 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 6 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc costs of future capital improvements between future development and the City (and implicitly, state and county, depending upon roadway ownership). Response # 3 – No Funding Correlation in CIP It is important to note that the current CIP is not part of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report that is being adopted. The City of Bozeman Five Year CIP is reviewed annually and updated to address the changing transportation needs of the community, appropriate funding sources, and other related transportation issues. More specifically, in response to Item (i), prior to the expenditure of impact fee funds, a determination was made that a portion of this improvement was associated with new growth. Further, as indicate above, if there are concerns about any specific project, there are opportunities to address issues at advertised City Commission meetings as well as, meetings of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. In response to Item (ii), street impact fees can be used to fund right-of-way acquisition since these acquisitions of land are along corridors where future lane widening projects are expected to occur. This expenditure is associated with capacity expansion projects and is preserving the corridor for future expansion of the road. The acquisition of this ROW minimizes the future cost of acquisition in areas with rapid growth and increasing land values. As noted previously, the expenditure of impact fee revenues will not occur to correct existing deficiencies. In response to item (iii), sidewalks are typically the responsibility of the adjacent development as set forth in Chapter 18.44 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities reduce potential conflicts between users of each mode (vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian) and create a defined space for their respective travel needs. In addition, safety improvements enhance the capacity of the roadway by reducing the number of accidents (usually caused by vehicles trying to fit into inadequate spacing) and, therefore, increase the flow of through traffic and allow better utilization of the roadway capacity-expanding project. Finally, from an engineering design perspective, bicycle and pedestrian improvements improve safety and capacity by separating the vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of travel and are commonly included in capacity expansion projects. This component of the project (bicycle and pedestrian facilities) can be funded with either impact fee revenues or non-impact fee revenues. They are a small percentage of the total cost of these projects. The term “transportation facility” as mentioned in the statute (Section 7-6-1601 (7) (c)) is interpreted to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and a definition will be added to the Impact Fee Ordinance to clarify this. However, expenditure of a stand-alone bicycle and/or pedestrian project would not be considered an impact fee-eligible project. 159293 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 7 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc The last paragraph of the SWMBIA comments refers to the need for specific time period for future growth. This timeframe, as indicated in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update, is 2020. As indicated previously, the projected growth to the year 2020 and the needed improvements are well documented in the 2020 Plan. As referenced in the comment, Section 7- 6-1602(5), the “fair-share” approach to allocating costs in a consumption based impact fee is clearly documented in the impact fee study and is carried out through the City’s annual update to the Five Year CIP, which ensures that future development pays only for the costs associated with growth-generated improvements and not for correcting existing deficiencies. Comment # 4 – CBD Justification While the traffic impact fee study establishes two service areas: (1) non-CBD and (2) CBD, we have concern whether the size of the non-CBD service area satisfies the "rational nexus" standard of Section 7-6-1602(1)(g). This standard requires correlation of impact fees with benefits, and specifically, implies that development impact fees be applied to capital improvements required by development in the area proximate to the development, where development's impacts would be greatest. The size of the City's present incorporated limits, and with a CBD in the center, (approximately one square mile), suggest that impact fees collected from a development in one corner of the 12-mile approximate non-CBD service area could be spent on capital improvements in that same service area on "the other side of town", with no rational nexus, or correlation between the impact fees paid and the benefits gained from those improvements, both to the development itself and the street system surrounding that development. This non-CBD service area is expected to grow, as Appendix H-1 of the City's impact fee study final report states that "the rate of growth of building permits is projected to increase through 2025, as the City continues annex(ing) urbanized areas in its geographic proximity." In line with our review of the City's FY09-13 CIP (Comment 3 above) we also point out that the FY09-13 program does not break out the improvements by the separate non-CBD and CBD service areas. Further, it should be recognized that future traffic growth encompasses both traffic attributable to new development in each service area of the City and pass-through traffic, with neither origin or destination in each service area of the City. While the City's impact fee study recognized this regional and pass-through traffic component on the interstate system for the City as a whole, it did not recognize it on other state highways or county and city/local roads within each service area. Response # 4 – CBD Justification 160294 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 8 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc The proposed impact fee technical report identifies one service area (City of Bozeman) with two different impact fee schedules to account for a differential in demand for roadway consumption. The City of Bozeman is considered the only service area where impact fees will be collected and expended. The definition of the service area was based on the City being characterized as a compact area with the same roadway network used by all residents. In compliance with Section 7-6-1602(5)(a) of the statute, “The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development’s share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development.” The differentiation of service demand in both areas (Central Business District and Non-Central Business District) satisfies this requirement of the statute, as well as the dual rational nexus test, since the presence of linked trips in the CBD requires an adjustment to the percent of new trips generated by certain non-residential land uses. As such, new development in the CBD pays for the vehicle miles of travel consumed on the roadway network in the CBD. The discussion on page 7 and Appendix K of the technical report dated October 31, 2007, documents the adjustments to the percent new trips for travel in the CBD. The last paragraph of this comment states, “While the City’s impact fee study recognized this regional and pass-through traffic component on the interstate system for the City as a whole, it did not recognize it on other state highways or county and city/local roads within each service area.” In response, as indicated in the report documentation, the impact fee study methodology incorporates into the fee calculation the generation of travel demand specific to the level for each land use included in the fee schedule. Hence, the fee calculated for each land use, whether residential or non-residential, is based on the amount of vehicle miles of travel each use generates because of its particular demand characteristics, and not on the general nature of the traffic on the nearby roadways. Therefore, the consideration of pass-through traffic in the vehicle stream on “other state highways or county and city/local roads” is immaterial to the study’s methodology. Conversely, in the case of the interstate system, since the service area being defined in the technical report is the City of Bozeman, there was a need to include only a single adjustment factor to account for interstate travel. As noted, while the study charges for travel on all city, county, and state roadways, travel on interstate facilities is excluded since the City has not previously and does not intend in the future to expend impact fee revenues on the interstate system. This adjustment factor excludes external-to-external trips since these trips go through the City of Bozeman, but do not stop in the city. Comment # 5 – Transportation Plan Inadequacies 161295 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 9 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc The City's separate 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan report recommends capital improvements to remedy existing deficiencies and future long- term deficiencies. But, like the City's FY09-13 TIFF-CIP, there appears to be no correlation between the City's transportation plan document and the traffic impact fee documents in assigning responsibilities for specific capital improvement projects, and their costs, to future development, and certainly not by service area(s). Response # 5 – Transportation Plan Inadequacies Again, the 2005 Montana Impact Fee Statute does not require the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update, the City’s FY 2009-2013 CIP, and Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report to be in the same document. Each document serves a different purpose in complying with the statute. Deficiencies are documented in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update and through the studies that support the development of the projects included in the CIP. Since new development is charged for consumption of capacity, the impact fee revenues collected are spent by the City based on priorities identified in the CIP. The annual evaluation of the CIP projects by the City addresses the new growth versus existing deficiency portions of improvements and assigns the appropriate revenue source for funding projects. Again, impact fee revenues collected from new growth are not spent to correct existing deficiencies. Comment # 6 – General Lack of Data and Analysis The 2005 Montana Code has altered the "ground rules" for continued application of impact fees. Now, because of the new state code, more detail is required in defining impact fees imposed on future development, to correct its capacity deficiencies, and defining the like responsibilities of cities for correcting existing deficiencies.The present impact fee study appears to fall short on these specifics of the 2005 code, including the provision of level-of-service standards, service areas, definition of existing versus future development deficiencies, and definition of a specific capital improvements program separating responsibility for correcting existing and future deficiencies between the City and future development over a specific time period.Therefore, the "fair share" assignment of improvement responsibility is not clear.While the analysis process on which the updated traffic impact fees is based is quite rigorous, analytically, it leaves too broad the City's ability to collect and utilize development impact fees for an indefinite period without correlating the collected fees to specific scheduled improvements required by development traffic.The City's 2001 Transportation Plan update has a 2020 planning horizon, the City has a FY09-13 Street Impact Fee Fund Capital Improvements Plan, and an 162296 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 10 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc appendix to the City's traffic impact study report references a traffic impact fee revenue projection to 2025, all of which are different with regard to the time periods, origins, and uses of projected development traffic impact fees. Response # 6 – General Lack of Data and Analysis As a general note, to help clarify the apparent confusion with the statute, existing City documents, and the information included in the updated Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, a Memorandum from Chris Saunders dated October 31, 2007, and entitled “Compliance with MCA Requirements for Street Impact Fee Development” is attached to this response. In the case of level of service standards, the City has already established level of service standards in Section 18.44.060D of the City’s Municipal Code. This was further carried forth by using the capacities identified in Table 4-1 of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update for calculating the cost per vehicle mile of capacity. The provision of the level of service standard is met from a consistency standpoint to ensure that new development is not held to a higher level of service than existing users (per Section 7-6-1602 (5)(d) of the 2005 Montana Impact Fee Statute). Further, as noted in the response under #1 previously, the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update identified deficiencies existing at that time and other funds were used to correct those. This practice continues through the annual updates of the City’s Five Year CIP. With regard to the issue of time periods, as mentioned previously, the horizon of the CIP is over a 5-year period with identified priorities based on needs in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update, which has a 2020 horizon. Although these plans have different length horizons, they are directly correlated nonetheless. Appendix H of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report provides an estimate of anticipated revenues through 2025. As discussed in that appendix, these revenues serve only as planning level guide of anticipated revenues based on the projected population growth in the 2007 Sewer Facility Plan. As such, these population projections reflect the most recent and localized data available at the time of the study. Transportation impact fee revenues will be used to offset the growth in vehicle miles of travel and will be budgeted accordingly to support projects in the CIP. The revenue projections assist with planning efforts to prioritize future improvements in the CIP consistent with long term improvements in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. Comment # 7 – Use of Daily Trips vs. Peak Hour We have significant concern that one primary basis of the calculated impact fees is daily trips, and not peak hour trips. Section 7-6-1601 of the 2005 code states that impact fees are charged 163297 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 11 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc to "fund the additional service capacity required by development". It is atypical to base transportation impact fee calculations on daily trips, rather than peak hour trips. The City's Comp Plan Update, like most transportation plans, itself bases its recommended improvements on weekday morning and afternoon peak hour trips, not daily trips. It is during these peak hour periods that the roadway network's capacity is taxed by traffic demands from all sources, capacity deficiencies are identified, and roadway improvements are proposed, scheduled, funded, and implemented. Therefore, examining roadway capacity on a daily basis is tenuous as best. For example, churches with Saturday or Sunday services, seldom tax the capacity of roadway systems, because their activities (travel demands) typically occur during off-peak (non- commute-to-work) travel periods. The methodology utilized, combined with no specific defined future land use projections, could lead to over-designed roadways attributable to development traffic. While the Montana Code does not specify the time period to be examined for determination of travel demands, deficiencies, and improvement needs, a peak period, such as the weekday afternoon commuter period, is more appropriate and reasonable to assess the impacts of both existing and future traffic on roadway capacity than a 24-hour (daily) period. Such is the case in other states. Then all land uses, relatively, would be compared to impacts for the same typical congested peak period baseline. Response # 7 – Use of Daily Trips vs. Peak Hour It is simply opinion that basing “transportation impact fee calculations on daily trips, rather than peak hour trips,” is atypical; this contention is not based on fact. The Consultant has completed numerous transportation impact fee and land use trip characteristics studies in Florida and elsewhere in the U.S. and all have been based on the use of average daily trip generation. Note that other studies in Montana, such as those for Gallatin County, the City of Belgrade, and the City of Missoula, all use daily trips in the calculation of the trip generation rate. As such, it does not appear to be atypical even in the State of Montana to rely on daily trips from data sources such as ITE to develop this demand component input variable. There is no legal requirement to use daily, a.m. or p.m. peak hour standards and capacity in the impact fee calculation. This is further supported by Section 7-6-1601 of the statute, which does not include any stipulation that “peak-hour values” should be used to develop the vehicle miles of travel consumed by new development. The concept of peak hour capacity also is brought up in the SWMBIA’s comment; however, it is important to note that development does not just consume capacity during the p.m. peak hour. Development consumes capacity on a daily basis, and the nexus of proportionality and equity between specific land uses is better served using daily information. Further, since the daily trip generation data are utilized only to help develop the appropriate transportation impact fees for 164298 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 12 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc each comparative land use in the fee schedule, it is not likely that this methodology is “going to lead to over-designed roadways attributable to development traffic.” It is important to recognize that the relationship between the average daily and peak hour measures can differ significantly depending on land use, geography, and time of day of the peak hour, among other factors. Using the same church example as the SWMBIA comment, while a church with weekend services may not have the same impact on the capacity of the roadway system as another land use because of the off-peak travel, it is still the case that a new church will generate demand for consumption of the adjacent roadway network, regardless of when that consumption may occur. Again, the concept behind the consumption-based fee is that land uses pay for what they consume on a daily basis, not just during peak periods. This helps ensure that there is equity and fairness between the rates charged for the various land uses contained in the transportation impact fee schedule. For these reasons, and because the majority of trip characteristic data is based on daily values, the analyses included in the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report utilize average daily measures and, in our professional opinion, this use of average daily values versus average peak hour values is justified. Comment # 8 – Lack of Pass-Through Analysis While regional (pass-through) trips for interstate roadways were excluded from the development impact fee calculations, no such allowances were made for state, county, and city roads within Bozeman. While we agree that the pass-through percentages may be lower on these roads than on interstate routes, they are not zero; some such trip making will occur. We point out also, that even with just two service areas, CBD, and non-CBD, development trips in one service area may be pass-through trips in the adjacent service area (e.g., a non-CBD to non- CBD trip that passes through the CBD). This latter example would take on greater importance if the non-CBD service area was further broken down into several service areas, for rational nexus reasons. Response # 8 – Lack of Pass-Through Analysis This issue also was brought up as part of the SWMBIA’s Comment #3, and a brief response was provided thereto. However, for purposes of completeness, this issue is again addressed in more detail herein. Since the City is considered one service area there is no need to consider pass- through traffic between the non-CBD and CBD. Given the typical person’s aversion to travel delay, it is unlikely that a significant quantity of traffic would choose to pass through the City without having some destination within the City. The exclusion of the external-to-external trips on the interstate system is directly related to excluding travel on the interstate system. As noted before, the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report explains that the study is consumption- 165299 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 13 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc based, charging for travel on city, county, and state roads. Therefore, the demand per unit of development accounts for the average number of daily trips, the lengths of these trips, and the proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is estimated to have been on the defined road system (city, county, and state roads). The study further accounts for travel on local roadways (subdivision roads) by adding a half mile to the total trip length assessed for the gas tax revenue credit. This provides a more conservative gas tax credit since the logic is that gas tax revenues are being generated by this travel. Comment # 9 – Need for New Plan Data (and Costs) The manner in which the costs are presented does not define what the cost is for each trip today. In summary, "a weighting was assigned based on project types in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan for all city roadway improvements." The weighting assumes 16% for new construction of two travel lanes and a continuous left turn lane (three lane section): 54% for addition of a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway (three lane section) and 30% of the addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five lane section). In other words, the weighted composite cost assumes a combination of the different types of improvements noted above (lane capacity expansion and related costs). Significantly, the Study notes that "the City of Bozeman is currently updating the Greater Bozeman. This is problematic given that the weighting is based on a previous study which is slated to be updated, and therefore will presumably alter these weighting factors. Another problem is that the State construction costs are part of the overall cost per lane mile. A blended cost analysis is used. The Study notes: "The weighted average cost per lane mile includes city and state projects and is based on weighting by the distribution of city and state lane miles of roadway being constructed in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan."2 Again, since the plan will be updated, the assumptions regarding improvements to State roads will also likely be modified. Accordingly, City costs are based on only two recent projects, are blended together with State costs to derive a cost per lane mile based on (1) the percentage of money spent by impact fee payers on state versus city roads and (2) the percentage allocation of the three types of road improvement projects forecasted in 2001 in the City's Transportation Plan. The Study notes that these figures will change once the update to the transportation plan is finished. So why not wait until accurate data is available before changing the fee levels? Response # 9 – Need for New Plan Data (and Costs) As mentioned previously, each unit of development is charged based on consumption of capacity using the cost per vehicle mile of capacity developed in the study. The Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report is based on an assessment that is a snapshot in time. It is the City’s 166300 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 14 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc prerogative to determine when this particular snapshot occurs; hence, the current study was completed on a schedule determined by the City and makes use of the most current information available during that time period. As such, the study utilizes the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update to develop the weighted costs since it represents the most recent and localized information available at the time of the study. City and MDOT staff confirmed that the mix of improvements included in this plan is consistent with recently completed city and state projects that provided the cost data used in the study. Projects designed to solve some of the identified needs in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update that have been built in the past two to three years are considered typical projects and it is not likely that the weighting used in the study will be significantly different than what would be reflected in the updated transportation plan now being developed. As noted previously, the sample of available project data was the best available during the time of the study. When the updated Transportation Plan is completed in the next 1 to 2 years, the Transportation Impact Fee could be revisited, if necessary. Given that the current Transportation Impact Fee is based on cost data that are more than 12 years old, waiting any longer to update the fee will only make the likely increase even greater than what is being proposed. Comment #10- Residential vs. Nonresidential Forecasts The Study does not include any type of independent forecast of demand for roads from new residential and nonresidential growth in Bozeman. The only reference to a specific data source for increased demand data is population (first noted on page 1), which is based on the 2007 City of Bozeman Sewer Facility Plan. This information appears to be used only in Appendix H to forecast gross revenues based on new population, residents per dwelling unit of 2.26 and an assumed residential mix of new housing of 37% single family, 53% multi- family and 2% mobile homes. The only discussion of nonresidential growth is in a footnote stating, "non-residential revenues are assumed to be 39% of total collections." No further breakdown or discussion is provided. To truly know what the likely demand from growth is for additional road miles, a forecast of growth for both residential and nonresidential land uses is needed. From this forecast, the capital projects for which impact fees would be utilized as well as the amount of impact fee revenues could be ascertained. Response #10 - Residential vs. Nonresidential Forecasts The 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update (see Chapter 3, Travel Demand Modeling) and the 2020 Bozeman Community Plan (see Chapter 5, Housing) include detailed demographic and socio-economic forecasts that are used as inputs to the travel demand model. The model provides a list of future needs that serve as a basis for accommodating anticipated 167301 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 15 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc growth. This is important since these plans help meet the statutory requirements of the Montana Code with regard to long range forecast needs and that then assist in the identification of capital improvements to meet them. The consumption-based approach allows the City the flexibility of selecting projects that best serve the demand for capacity to serve new growth. Further, the consumption-based fee enables a more responsive scheduling and location of capacity expanding projects that provides a greater correlation of fees paid and benefits received. As noted in a previous response, the impact fee revenue projections presented in Appendix H of the study serve only as a guide in terms of revenue generation based on population growth. Comment # 11 – Inadequate Local Demand Information The Study states, "There are 12 input variables used in the impact fee demand component equation."3 Of the 12, only three pertain to the demand component—number of trips generated, length of those trips and proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already on the road system. Since the Study does not forecast total new travel or all existing travel, information on the third component is not provided. Instead of calculating the trip length by using lane capacity (assuming a current level of service such as D) and existing trips in the City system (based on existing land uses), the Study's approach is to take a survey of only two or three local sites for only four of the land use categories and then use findings from these four categories to adjust Florida surveys of other land uses completed by the contractor. Local interviews were conducted at three single family, two condominium/townhouse, two office and three shopping center locations. Using only two or three sites is not adequate to provide meaningful data. As an example, one single family site had a trip length of 1.59 while a second had a trip length of 4.53, about three times longer than the other site. The third location was 3.23. For the two residential condominium/townhouse projects one trip length was over a third greater than the other. The three office samples range from 1.64 to 2.83, a 72% variation. The derivation of trip length is even more problematic for the shopping center category. The table indicates that the average weighted trip length for the sample of 35 sites is 3 miles. However, 32 of the 35 sites are in Florida, with most of them in unincorporated county areas. If one used the three Bozeman shopping center sites, the same figure is about 2 miles, a significant difference. This difference further indicates the problem of not relying on local, defensible data. In addition, the comprehensiveness of interviewing those using each site varies significantly. The first office site had a survey for every 316 square feet (153 for 48,344 square feet) while 168302 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 16 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc the third site had a survey of every 227 square feet (269 for 61,199 square feet), significantly more comprehensive in getting a full analysis of that particular site. A similar problem exists with the shopping center category. A total of 329 surveys were taken for a 35,888 square foot center while only 502 were taken for a 159,852 square foot center. To maintain the same ratio, 1,466 surveys should have been taken at the second site. Response #11 – Inadequate Local Demand Information The impact fee technical report does outline the 12 input variables used to develop the impact fee equation, including the demand, cost, and credit components. The three variables associated with the calculation of demand per unit of development are trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips. All three variables are indeed used to develop the total vehicle miles of travel per unit of development. Based on the SWMBIA comment, it is apparent that there is some confusion regarding the third demand variable, percent new trips. This variable refers to those trips to a particular land use that would not have been on the road otherwise if not for the need to access that use. This is what is meant by “new travel,” rather than travel that is already on the road system. A trip to a particular use that is classified as “travel that is already on the road” references the occurrence of trip capture, or pass-by trips, where a trip is already occurring for another purpose and a stop is made at that use because it is convenient to do so (e.g., it is “on the way” to the original destination). As a result, the information included in the study related to percent new trips (or, new travel) is correct and has no relation to the “forecast [of] total new travel or all existing travel” mentioned in the comment. Regarding the issue of trip length, trip length by land use was estimated using the relationship between the origin-destination survey data collected in the City of Bozeman for both residential and non-residential land uses and data collected previously in the Consultant’s Trip Characteristics Database (TCS). A detailed description of the information in the TCS database is presented in Appendix A, page A-1. A discussion of the data collected from local sites is included on pages 4 and 5 of the technical report and the raw data is summarized in the City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study, Final Report. While it is recognized that the ideal situation from a local data standpoint would be for the City to have available extensive trip characteristic study information for all of the specific land uses contained in its transportation impact fee schedule, this is an occurrence that the Consultant has not encountered previously. It is not the case in Bozeman, either. As a result, it was necessary to develop a method for estimating local trip characteristics in a manner that would meet the City’s schedule and budgetary requirements, while also providing the best estimates of the local 169303 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 17 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc condition—a method that has been utilized successfully elsewhere. As such, the local data produced for the City were used to the extent possible to estimate the average trip lengths for land uses that were not studied as part of the trip characteristics study, but are included in the TCS. As noted in the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, the Consultant’s TCS is a compilation of data collected for all three aforementioned demand variables (i.e., trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips). It is our professional opinion that this process (the use of data collected for the specific purpose of estimating the average length of trips to and from land uses) results in better trip length estimates for all uses than would the use of lane capacity, as suggested by the SWMBIA. In the impact fee methodology used, trip length is not directly tied to lane capacity since lane capacity is incorporated into the cost per vehicle mile of capacity variable to estimate the total impact cost (see pg. 23 of the technical report) by land use. Finally, regarding the specific trip length results of the local trip characteristics studies, it is important to note that travel characteristic variability is always going to be present among different sites of a particular land use. The SWMBIA’s comment discusses the differences in trip lengths for the three single family residential use sites. Because of the respective sites’ locations and socio-economic characteristics of their residents, the noted variability in trip length is not unexpected or unusual. This is why the data is combined with information from the other site studies to help mitigate the impact of the variability issue. In addition, it is important to note that the collection of local data for the non-residential sites, specifically the origin-destination surveys used to develop both the trip length and percent new trips variables, was driven by the number of trips to and from each site that the surveyors experienced and not the comparative square footages of the sites. Since the number of surveys completed at the sites met minimum statistical standards for sample size, there is no need or requirement for attempting to maintain some arbitrary surveys-per-square-foot ratio. Comment # 12 – Inadequate Local Trip Length Data Another problem with the calculation of the trip length is how the other land use category trip lengths are derived. Except for the four land uses noted above, all the other impact fee land use categories are using data solely from Florida. This includes the apartment category where the sample is 11 apartment complexes in four Florida counties. The consultant assumes that all the data in Florida is applicable to Bozeman except for the trip length. The consultant looks at the Bozeman trip length for single family and compares it to the Florida single family findings. For example, if the difference is 55%, it is assumed that other related categories from the Florida survey should be reduced by that amount. This is assumed even though Bozeman is a City, in a different climate and has different characteristics than the Florida 170304 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 18 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc counties. The consultant applies the following trip reduction factors! 55% of the single family trip lengths found in Bozeman to lodging and recreation land uses; a residential condominium trip length reduction of 55% to mobile home park; an office trip length reduction of 43% to institutions, medical office and industry land uses; and a retail trip length reduction of 62% to all retail land uses other than shopping centers. (As shown above, the retail shopping center category used as a base is overstated.) The consultant notes that a "review of 2000 Census Data specifically demographic and journey-to-work characteristics ... was conducted to establish a relationship between the studies in the Trip Characteristics Database and the City of Bozeman for land uses that were not studied locally. This review shows that the adjustment factor discussed previously for residential and non-residential trip lengths are justified."4 Further discussion on this analysis and conclusion is needed. Response # 12 – Inadequate Local Trip Length Data As noted in a previous response to a similar issue, the ideal situation is to have available all local data for every one of the specific elements needed to calculate a transportation impact fee for each land use pertaining to the City of Bozeman’s desired impact fee schedule. Since this is not the case, the impact fee study used local data where possible in the development of the demand component variables (trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips). As noted in the study, the trip generation rates primarily rely on data from ITE’s Trip Generation document, which is a national data source that is widely referenced and used in impact fee and other studies. Trip length and percent new trips data were developed based on the local studies conducted and data collected previously in the TCS database. Although most of the data included in the TCS database are from Florida, the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report provides additional support documentation that indicates that demographic (median age, age by sex, average household size, vacancy status, housing units), journey-to-work (travel time, mode share, vehicle occupancy), and socio-economic (median household income, income distribution) data were used to establish a comparative relationship between the City of Bozeman and communities in Florida in terms of travel characteristics. This analysis, along with the locally- collected trip characteristics data, provides a logical basis to account for the differences in travel demand using the trip length adjustment factors for residential and non-residential land uses noted in the study, given the present dearth of more specific local trip characteristic information for the City. It also should be noted, as documented on pages 4 and 5 of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, that the adjustment factors were applied uniformly to land use categories. 171305 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 19 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc Comment # 13 - Failure to Apply Existing Data It is interesting to note that although the consultant uses local data on four land uses to justify deriving local trip lengths for all land uses, the Study also states (in the same paragraph) "the trip generation rate data recommended in the fee schedule is primarily based on the ITE Trip Generation reference report (7th edition) which is a national source."5 This is a common approach. What is significant is that the local surveys and Florida surveys also have trip generation data, which have not been used. Given the problems with the trip length data, the consultant should have used a local city wide calculation process to derive more defensible and accurate trip length data. Response # 13 - Failure to Apply Existing Data It is the case that information from ITE’s Trip Generation report was used for the trip generation rates for most land uses. This was done specifically due to the number of data samples collected in that particular resource for many of the land uses. As mentioned previously for trip length, a larger number of samples is always more desirable to help mitigate data variability between site studies. Additionally, though, it is important to note that the local data collected is consistent with the recommended ITE trip generation rates for the respective uses. Furthermore, it should be noted that the ITE reference does not have available any trip length or percent new trips data that may have been collected in conjunction with the trip generation information; thus, it is not possible to estimate total vehicle miles of travel for any land use using just this document. Since the local trip characteristics information that was collected provides a sampling of local travel demand, the use of TCS data for the calculation of the trip length and percent new trips variables served two purposes. First, the unique travel demand in the City of Bozeman, collected by studying local sites, was incorporated into the recommended trip lengths and percent new trips calculations; and Second, since only four land use categories were studied out of a total of 34 land uses in the fee schedule, the local data were utilized to derive adjustment factors for the land uses where local data were not collected, but data were available for Florida-based sites. As suggested previously, the use of local data for the actual land uses studied and as a basis for adjusting the trip lengths for the studies of other land uses provides the most accurate measure of the lengths of trips (if complete local information is not available). Other impact fee studies in Montana have used National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) person travel data by trip purpose to make adjustments to trip purpose-specific trip 172306 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 20 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc lengths generated by the MDOT Urban Travel Demand Model. This method attempts to generate local specific land use trip characteristics information for impact fee calculation purposes by using national-level data to adjust Montana travel demand model data that do not include the specific land uses contained in an impact fee rate schedule. It is our professional opinion that using land use-specific impact fee origin-destination surveys provides a more accurate estimate of the travel demand by land use than the method described above. Comment # 14 – Justification of CBD Discounts The City's consultant includes a 15% discount for nonresidential that will be built in the Central Business District (CBD). The consultant cites a 1998 City of Tampa study, 1973 Downtown Portland study and a 2004 Montana study. The first two studies are quite old and reflect downtowns that are much denser than Bozeman and have high parking fees. The third study, "Montana Three City Parking Generation/Land Use Pattern Correlation Study," issued in September 2004, notes that a central business district is more parking efficient, but does not discuss percentage differences. Therefore, further discussion is needed in the Study to explain the 15% reduction. Response # 14 – Justification of CBD Discounts The comment refers to a “15% discount for non-residential that will be built in the Central Business District.” This reference was not discussed or presented in this manner anywhere in the impact fee study with respect to a CBD adjustment factor. The only reference for a “15% discount” would be the interstate adjustment factor; this is applied to the gross vehicle miles of travel calculated for each respective unit of development by land use to account for not charging for travel on the interstate system. With regard to the citation of the indicated studies, these were referenced in the discussion of the specific discounts applied to the percent new trips variable for certain non-residential land uses, as presented in Appendix K of the technical report. As discussed in the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report on page 7, these discounts are applied to account for the high level of captured trips in the downtown area. The Montana Parking Study provided confirmation that there are more linked trips in the CBD since there are parking efficiencies that arise from a business being located in the CBD. In addition, the study illustrated that, regardless of the density of the CBD (Tampa, Portland, Bozeman), there is a need to adjust the percent new trips (i.e., 1 minus the percentage of captured trips) factor to account for the linked trips. The adjustment in percent new trips for certain land uses in the CBD is recommended because the travel demand in the CBD for these land uses is lower than the same land uses located 173307 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 21 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc outside of the CBD. As mentioned previously, this is in compliance with Section 7-6-1602(5)(a) of the statute which states that, “The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the development’s share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development.” Comment # 15 – Home Size Differential Unjustified The impact fee differential by single family detached units is derived incorrectly. Although it is unlikely that new detached houses will be less than 1,500 square feet, the methodology affects the two remaining categories of 1,500 – 2,499 square feet and 2,500 square feet or larger. As reflected in Appendix E-1, "Analysis of the Travel Behavior of Low-Income Households," no local data is used. In addition, the national data that is used is based on different years. Data from 2001 was used for average national annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The year 2005 was used to compare median annual family/household national incomes with housing unit size. The year 2007 was used for Gallatin County definitions of low and very low income households. As part of the calculations, an "average size single family (detached) housing unit size of 1,500 – 2,499 square feet" is used.6 As indicated, this statistic is a national statistic upon which the local fee is calculated. Response # 15 – Home Size Differential Unjustified The main purpose in developing a tiered approach for the single family detached residential transportation impact fee is to provide a fee that is more proportional to the consumption of roadway capacity. In general, smaller homes have less people and cars and consume less capacity. Whether to implement the tiered fee for the single family detached land use is a policy decision for the City Commission. The effect of not implementing the tiered concept is to increase the impact fee for affordable housing. The Consultant has developed a methodology for tiering the single family detached residential transportation impact fee that uses a comparative relationship between housing unit size and household travel behavior to determine appropriate relative fees for each size tier. One concept related to residential tiering that must be highlighted is that this is a supplementary analysis that is used to provide specific tiers for the single family detached residential fee in order to support local efforts to consider affordable housing and low-income families in the determination of appropriate impact fees. Additionally, the single family tiering analysis is based on the best available data for completing such an analysis. Specifically, for purposes of tiering two primary data sources are used: the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the American Housing Survey (AHS). At the 174308 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 22 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc time of the Bozeman study, the most recent databases available to examine the housing size- travel relationship were 2005 for the AHS and 2001 for the NHTS. While local data would be preferable, the level of detailed information required to establish a relationship between home size and vehicle miles of travel is not available. In terms of the local data that were used, it was necessary to utilize the 2007 Average Median Income (AMI) and local definitions for the “very low income” (50 percent of the AMI) and “low income” (80 percent of the AMI) thresholds established by the Gallatin County “Road to Home” Down Payment Assistance Program (which relies on information from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development). This income information was used to help derive the vehicle miles of travel for these two low-income land use categories. This effort is consistent with the City’s process of evaluating workforce and affordable housing options in the planning process. Finally, it should be recognized that the specific housing size ranges for each of the tiers are based on the overall assessment of travel in the U.S. by housing unit size and represent break-points where comparatively significant changes in travel behavior are noted to occur—they do not necessarily reflect local experience in the size of housing that has been or will be constructed. Comment # 16 – Failure to Account for Non-Growth Costs Some of the road costs entail adding a third lane to a two lane road; however, the cost estimates indicate that the existing two lanes are being reconstructed when the third lane is added. This appears to be a concern as we have been unable to identify a "methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee" as required by Montana Code Annotated 7-6- 1601.1.i. As the reconstruction of two existing lanes may serve to offset maintenance costs or correct existing deficiencies rather than provide new capacity for new development, these costs should not be included in the impact fees. Response # 16 – Failure to Account for Non-Growth Costs As mentioned previously, the City reviews every bid tabulation for roadway improvements and assigns the growth and non-growth-related components to appropriate funding sources. In the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, Appendix B, Table B-3 presents a detailed breakdown of the two scenarios relating to the construction of a three-lane section (full reconstruct and offset). As shown in that table, the cost associated with full reconstruction is the cost to prepare capacity for use by new growth and is not an operational or maintenance cost. In addition, based on a review of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update and discussion with City Engineering staff, the weighting calculation shows that most of the future 175309 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 23 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc improvements will be offset construction and a lower cost per lane mile was used for improvements where offset construction was planned. As noted previously, corridors where these improvements are made, as well as future planned CIP projects, are reviewed individually to ensure that no impact fees are used to pay for deficiencies, operational improvements, or maintenance. Comment # 17 – Double Counting Insufficient detail appears in the improvement descriptions of the improvements utilized in the Final Report to determine whether the construction costs included in the "construction" line of Table 2 include design, engineering, and inspection costs as well as the costs of materials and installation of the roadway improvements. It is recommended that in order to ensure that design costs, engineering costs, and inspection costs are not being double counted in the impact fee methodology, that additional information and support be provided relative to the construction costs estimates employed in the Final Report. Response # 17 – Double Counting As documented in the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report, Table 2 and Appendix B, Table B-6 provide full supporting documentation showing that there is no duplication of cost in the calculation of the total cost per lane mile. The design and construction engineering inspection costs (see page 8 of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report) are percentages of the total construction costs (8.5 percent each) based on discussion with City Engineering staff and a review of recently completed projects. It should be noted that the calculation of the construction cost is presented in Appendix B, Table B-3 and B-4 of the Transportation Impact Fee Technical Report in great detail. It is, therefore, the opinion of the Consultant that additional documentation is not needed to verify that there was no double counting of the construction costs. Comment # 18 – Additional Cost Data Necessary The tables in Appendix B appear to indicate that most of the lane mile costs are derived from the State roadway project of 19th Avenue between Babcock St. and Kagy Blvd. One must question whether a single roadway project can be representative of all future roadway projects within the City of Bozeman. Moreover, to the extent that this improvement exceeds the standards of other roadways located within the City, such reliance on the costs of a single roadway improvement represents a potential increase in the level of service standards to which new development will be held. As a result, it is recommended that cost estimates of additional roadway improvements be provided as support for the per lane-mile construction costs utilized in the report to provide a 176310 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman November 19, 2007 24 Impact Fee Study – SWMBIA Response I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Docs\SWMBA Response\TOA SWMBIA Response 11-19-07.doc reasonable estimate of different roadway improvements and to ensure that the typical roadway level of service standards of the City of Bozeman are perpetuated to new development. Response # 18 – Additional Cost Data Necessary As previously discussed in Response #9, the Consultant did not base the construction costs for city and state roadway projects on one project. At the time of the study, the City had recently bid two capacity expansion improvements (Babcock Road and Durston Road) and MDOT had an engineer’s estimate for the South 19th Avenue lane widening project. The Consultant considered this availability of data to be promising since it provided a firm basis for evaluating the detailed bid tabulations that were provided by staff and ensuring that current market prices and standard quantities would be reflected in the impact fee cost estimates. The Consultant made additional inquiries to MDOT staff regarding other recent bid tabulations for lane widening projects within geographic proximity to Bozeman. These inquiries affirmed the fact that the State had not recently bid any of these projects and that the South 19th Avenue engineer’s estimate represented a typical improvement with respect to the addition of travel lanes. Based on discussion with City staff, city roads are constructed up to state standards so the weighted cost calculation employed the project costs for the South 19th Avenue project. The South 19th Avenue project is typical of an expansion within a less-constrained urban condition. In contrast is the possible future expansion of Rouse, where segments of the corridor are very constrained by existing development. The City has a long standing policy to acquire as much necessary right of way as possible for a planned street improvement and, therefore, South 19th Avenue is a reasonable approximation of future five-lane projects such as West Kagy Boulevard, West Oak Street, or Cottonwood Road. 177311 178312 179313 180314 181315 182316 183317 184318 185319 186320 187321 188322 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman August 2007 1 Impact Fee Study City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Study Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Response to 7/25 Draft Report Comments The following are responses to comments provided to the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. 1. The draft report at Table C-3 lists the predicated City of Bozeman expansion projects. However, it includes Project No. 4306 concerning adding lanes and reconstruction from Four-Corners North. Please explain why is this would be considered a city project rather than a county project? As shown in Table C-3, this project was financed by the Montana Department of Transportation; as such it was funded using a combination of federal gas tax revenues and state matching gas tax revenues. In an effort to provide a conservative revenue credit, all capacity expansion projects in Gallatin County were considered to estimate the equivalent pennies of dedicated to capacity expansion. 2. Table C-3, includes numerous “intersection upgrades/signal” projects. Further explanation of how this is growth-related projects is necessary, particularly where it states “city-wide signals”. Why isn’t cost sharing with existing residents necessary for replacing signals? The intersection upgrade/signal is specifically for projects that added new signals to the roadway system. As such, these new signals are considered to be capacity adding and are used in the estimation of the average annual state expenditures dedicated to capacity expansion projects for purposes of the revenue credit. 3. Project No. 4952 lists lane reconstruction for Babcock to Kagy, but does not clarify which street it actually is, is it Wilson or Church? As shown in the final report, this project is on South 19th Avenue. This project is growth related since it adds travel lanes thereby adding capacity to the roadway network. 4. After reviewing Table F-1, concerning the changes to the impact fee schedule, it is disconcerting as to why Tindale-Oliver states that a percentage change is “N/A” for the various residential fee levels. Is this because they breakdown the fees based on square footage of the homes, and whether it is low income housing? Regardless, it appears the bulk of residential (i.e. 1,500 square feet and above) will increase almost $4,000 per unit. This comment has been addressed in the final report where the proposed fee schedule has been tiered and the current single family fee is comparable to all the tiered ranges. 5. Further explanation is necessary of why Tindale-Oliver utilizes the costs of the improvements on Durston and Babcock Roads to set the standard of per mile charge for future projects. Without knowing which specific projects will be upgraded (in fact they don’t even refer to the transportation plan or CIP to list various projects in their report), it is difficult to know if the Durston/Babcock costs are similar. As shown in pages 8 through 10 of the final report and Appendix B, the city costs were developed based on a detailed review of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan projects. Specific project types by improvement type (new road construction of two lanes, three lane sections, and 189323 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman August 2007 2 Impact Fee Study five lane sections) were reviewed and used to develop the weighted cost per lane mile. The calculation of the weighted cost per lane mile is directly related to programmed improvements in the plan, the Durston and Babcock Road bid tabulations were used since they reflect recent unit prices and quantities that reflect the cost to construction a lane mile of improvement. 190324 Southwest Montana Building Industry Association 1716 West Main Ste 8-G Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 585-8181 FAX (406) 585-7530 Wednesday, November 21, 2007 July 25, 2007 Impact Fee Advisory Committee PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Transportation Impact Fee Study Dear Committee Members, As you know, the proposed transportation study is technical and requires substantial time for thorough review. Given the limited timeframe, I would ask the committee to consider providing the building industry with additional time to thoroughly review the transportation study. Our past efforts with the water and wastewater studies were positive and resulted in a net change to the fees. As the Impact Fee Advisory Committee begins to review the proposed study, the following questions are submitted for your review: 1. The draft report at Table C-3 lists the predicted City of Bozeman expansion projects. However, it includes Project No. 4306 concerning adding lanes and reconstruction from Four Corners-North. Please explain why is this would be considered a city project rather than a county project? 2. Table C-3 includes numerous “intersection upgrades/signal” projects. Further explanation of how this is growth related projects is necessary, particularly where it states “city-wide signals”. Why isn’t cost sharing with existing residents necessary for replacing signals? 3. Project No. 4952 lists lane reconstruction for Babcock to Kagy, but does not clarify which street it actually is; is it Wilson or Church? Also, further explanation of why this is entirely growth related is necessary. 4. After reviewing Table F-1 concerning the changes to the impact fee schedule, it is disconcerting as to why Tindale-Oliver states that a percentage change is “N/A” for the various residential fee levels. Is this because they break down the fees 191325 Southwest Montana Building Industry Association 1716 West Main Ste 8-G Bozeman, MT 59771 (406) 585-8181 FAX (406) 585-7530 Wednesday, November 21, 2007 based on square footage of the homes, and whether it is low income housing? Regardless, it appears the bulk of residential (i.e., 1500 square feet and above) will increase almost $4,000.00 per unit. 5. Further explanation is necessary of why Tindale-Oliver utilizes the costs of the improvements on Durston and Babcock Roads to set the standard of per mile charge for future projects. Without knowing which specific projects will be upgraded (in fact they don’t even refer to the transportation plan or CIP to list the various projects in their report), it is difficult to know if the Durston/Babcock costs are similar. Transportation is a critical component to the overall impact fee schedule and its imperative this study receive adequate review. I would appreciate Tindale-Oliver addressing these initial questions and concerns. The first hearing before the City Commission is scheduled for September 10th; which does not provide adequate time. While these questions are obviously from the laymen perspective, SWMBIA is in the process of retaining a consultant and will have additional questions and concerns. It would be in the public interest to keep this at the advisory level so these questions can be adequately addressed prior to forwarding onto the Commission. I encourage the IFAC to slow down this process and ensure the study receives the necessary review. Sincerely, Shawn Cote, Government Affairs Director Southwest Montana Building Industry Association 192326 Tim Dean Chair, Impact fee advisory committee City of Bozeman November 13, 2007 Mayor Jeff Krauss and members of the City Commission. P. O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Mt. 59771 Re: Committee vote on Transportation Impact Fee Study Mayor Krauss and members of the City Commission, This letter is simply a request from the Impact Fee Advisory committee asking for the City commission to table or delay your vote on the proposed Tindale-Oliver transportation impact fee at your meeting and public hearing on November 26, 2007. Our committee was presented with the preliminary study by Bob Wallace, of Tindale-Oliver on the July 26, 2007 meeting. Unfortunately at that meeting only 5 of the 9 members of the committee were able to attend. Regardless, we noted numerous methodology flaws in the study and ask for a number of revisions and explanations before proceeding to in-depth study of the all important issue. On October 11, 2007 the committee reviewed the 2009-2013 Capital Improvements Program. On October 19, 2007 the committee received the first revision of the Tindale- Oliver study report. Mr. Wallace did not attend our October 25 meeting to explain the revisions. On October 25, 2007 we voted on the 2009-2013 CIP. On November 1, 2007 the committee received the 2nt revision to Tindale-Oliver study report. Tindale-Oliver concluded that this was their final recommendation to the advisory committee. We were presented the 2nt revision, by Mr. Wallace on our previously scheduled November 8, 2007 meeting…….only 7 days after receiving the 2nt revision. At this same meeting we were asked for approve the CIP on water and also on waste water. After numerous lengthy and controversial discussions and 3 hours later, I asked for a delay or continuation of the very important vote. The committee for the most part agreed to continue the discussion until Tuesday, November 27…….a day after the City Commission meeting. 193327 I ask for the delay simply because of one main reason. # 1) The Tindale-Oliver study has been revised twice because of conflicting methodology contained in the original report. With that in mind, our committee must have more than 7 days to thoroughly evaluate the final report. Because of a possible lack of quorum we could not meet on November 15. With the following week Thanksgiving we picked the next available day that most of the committee could attend, Nov. 27. If Tindale-Oliver can take from July 26 to October 19 to revise the report we certainly should receive a few more weeks so we can do our job correctly and rest assured that we are putting our best foot forward in advising the city commission. I am available most times at 595-6000 or 586-2723. Please feel free to call or we could discuss electronically at tdconst@attglobal.net. Thank you for your consideration. Tim Dean CC: Chris Saunders, Assistant City Planning Director Members of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee 194328 planning · zoning · subdivision review · annexation · historic preservation · housing · grant administration · neighborhood coordination CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM ____________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Impact Fee Advisory Committee FROM: Chris Saunders DATE: October 31, 2007 RE: Compliance with MCA Requirements for Street Impact Fee Development ____________________________________________________________________________________ Section 7-6-1602 MCA establishes the requirements in state law for documentation for the development of an impact fee. The statute leaves to the judgment of each community where each piece of information is organized. The table below lists each element and shows where in the City of Bozeman documentation of facility planning and fee calculation the required item is provided. The listed section(s) is a primary, but not exclusive, location where the subject is discussed. Collectively the facility plan, design standards and specifications policy, fee study, capital improvement program, unified development ordinance, and impact fee ordinance satisfy the required documentation. All referenced documents are available through the City offices. Documentation Item Document(s) Page or Section describes existing conditions of the facility 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC Chapter 2 Existing Conditions, Chapters 18.44 (Transportation Facilities and Access) and 18.78 (trip study) establishes level of service standards 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC, Design and Specifications Manual Chapter 11 (Recommended Major Street network and Street Standards), Chapter 18.44 (Transportation Facilities and Access) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Street Impact Fee Study Chapter 3 and 4; Chapter 2 identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service (please note the plan calls for improvements when demand requires, not on a fixed time frame) 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC Chapters 4, 6, 9, 10, 11; Chapter 18.78 (trip study) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update; Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, BMC Chapters 4, 9-11; Chapter 18.78 (trip study) 195329 Page 2 Documentation Item Document(s) Page or Section makes 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 Street Impact Fee Study Chapter 2, Appendix K makes 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 Street Impact Fee Study Chapter 2, Appendix K establishes 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 Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, Appendices B-D establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update & Street Impact Fee Study, Street Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program Chapters 4, 9-11, 13; Chapter 2, Appendices C&D; Street CIP; individual project design establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand Street Impact Fee Study Chapters 2 and 3, Appendix B has 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 2 years Capital Improvements Program for General Fund, Street Maintenance Fund and Street Impact Fee Fund Section for each fund when applicable to an individual funding source The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the public upon request 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update & Street Impact Fee Study, Unified Development Ordinance, Design and Specification Manual, City Budget, bid tabulations, impact fee ordinance All documents are available at City offices, many are also available on-line The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the documentation required under subsection (1) Chapter 3.24, BMC Section 3.24.110, 196330 planning · zoning · subdivision review · annexation · historic preservation · housing · grant administration · neighborhood coordination CITY OF BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230 phone 406-582-2260 fax 406-582-2263 planning@bozeman.net www.bozeman.net MEMORANDUM ____________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Bozeman City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders DATE: November 20, 2007 RE: Street Impact Fee Funded Projects List ____________________________________________________________________________________ The City’s impact fee program became effective on March 26, 1996. Since that time the City has used impact fee revenues to construct various capacity expanding projects. A list of projects is presented below. The majority of these projects were constructed with funding in addition to impact fees. Lane Additions N 19th Avenue – Oak Street to Baxter Lane, included 2 signal installations N 19th Avenue – Baxter Lane to Valley Center Valley Center – N 19th Avenue to N 27th Avenue Baxter Lane – N 19th Avenue to the east Durston Road – N 19th Avenue to Fowler Avenue Durston Road – N 7th Avenue to N 19th Avenue Babcock Street – Main Street to Meagher Avenue Signal Installation or Upgrade N 19th Avenue/ Durston Road S 19th Avenue/ Kagy Boulevard Main Street / Cottonwood Road Main Street/ Ferguson Avenue Durston Road/ N 15th Avenue Rouse Avenue/Griffin Drive* Rouse Avenue/Oak Street 197331 CITY OF BOZEMAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY October 31, 2007 Prepared for: CITY OF BOZEMAN 20 E. Olive Street. Bozeman, Montana 59715 Prepared by: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100 Tampa, Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106 497001-00.06 198332 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 ES-1 Impact Fee Update Study City of Bozeman Impact Fee Update Study Executive Summary Introduction To address recent cost increases along with new infrastructure required to support continuing growth, the City of Bozeman has retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates (TOA) to update the impact fee schedule for the transportation impact fee program. The transportation impact fee program was last updated by the City of Bozeman in 1996. Based on 2000 Census Data, between 1980 and 1990, the city’s population increased by 5 percent and between 1990 and 2000 by 21 percent. The 2007 City of Bozeman Sewer Facility Plan projects that the city’s population is expected to increase by approximately another 147 percent over the next 18 years. This growth results in a need for an increase in roadway capacity. As such the revenue projections presented in this impact fee study are based on the most recent population projections available. An impact fee is a one-time capital charge levied against new development and is designed to cover the cost of the capital infrastructure consumed by new development. The increased impact fees presented in this report are a direct result of input cost increases, such as concrete, asphalt, fuel, and steel. Specifically, in the last two years global demand for these inputs with growth in other sectors, such as housing, has inflated the unit prices in the roadway construction industry. To accurately reflect the cost to provide roadway capacity, this study used recently bid roadway improvements to develop the input variables used herein. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is: (Demand x Cost) - Credit = Fee The net impact fee is calculated as the total capital cost of providing the necessary infrastructure, less any additional revenue generated by new development that also will be used to pay for the additional infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The impact fee updates utilize a consumption-driven impact fee methodology based on the current level of service being achieved. New development is charged based on the value of the current infrastructure or roadway system that they will consume per unit of development (e.g., dwelling unit, 1,000 square feet, etc.) less any applicable revenue credits. Under the consumption-driven approach, new development is not charged for capital expansion to the system for reasons other than those necessitated by new growth and does not pay to improve the level of service above the existing achieved standards, which would improve 199333 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 ES-2 Impact Fee Update Study existing deficiencies. The purpose of an impact fee is to assist in maintaining the current level of service standard for the transportation impact fee program area established by the City, by providing funding for the implementation of projects that have been or will be identified in the City of Bozeman’s Five-Year Capital Improvements Program and the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan. The impact fees recommended in the technical report entitled Transportation Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 31, 2007, referred to hereafter as the Technical Report, must satisfy the requirements of the 2005 Montana impact fee law (Senate Bill 185, sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604). The purpose of the Technical Report is to create a legally defensible and technically supportable set of impact fees for the transportation impact fee program. Demand, Cost and Credit Components The following sections provide a comparison of the demand, cost and credit components used to develop the City of Bozeman’s current transportation impact fee schedule to the variables used in the proposed transportation impact presented in the Technical Report (where applicable). It should be noted that due to some methodology differences certain input variables from the 1996 Study could not be compared to the 2007 Study. It should also be noted that as a part of the 2007 Study, a total of 11 sites from four land use categories listed below were studied. • single family residential; • residential condominium/townhouse; • office; and • shopping center Data resulting from the trip characteristics study were used in the development of the demand component of the transportation impact fee for the four land uses. The data was also used to develop trip length adjustment factors for residential and non-residential land uses in the fee schedule, in order to provide a conservative estimate of the differences observed between the Trip Characteristics Database and studies conducted in the City of Bozeman. In addition, adjustment factors were calculated for the percent new trips for non- residential land uses to account for the travel characteristics unique to the central business district of the City of Bozeman. Typically, the adjustments reduced the percent new trips variable since people tend to link trips in the CBD. The Montana Three City Parking Generation/Land Use Pattern Correlation Study, 2004 confirmed that the travel 200334 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 ES-3 Impact Fee Update Study characteristics in the CBD has not changed over time and regardless of the size of the CBD, the travel patterns in the downtown area warrant adjustments to the percent new trips variable since the capture rate (1 minus the percent new trips) is higher in the downtown area with trips being linked among land uses. Appendix K in the Technical Report provides specific criteria for areas that exhibit travel characteristics similar to the CBD area. The demand for travel placed on the transportation system (daily trip generation rate times the trip length times the percent of new trips) is expressed in units of vehicle miles of travel for each land use contained in the impact fee schedule. It should be noted that trip generation is expressed in average daily rates since new development produces and consumes trips on a daily basis. The cost of building new capacity is typically expressed in units of dollars per vehicle mile or lane mile of roadway capacity. The credit is an estimate of the non-impact fee revenues generated by a unit of each land use of new development that are allocated to roadway construction or transportation system capacity expansion. Thus, the impact fee is an "up front" payment for a portion of the cost of building a lane mile of capacity directly related to the amount of capacity consumed by each unit of land use contained in the impact fee schedule. Further, a comparison of the current transportation impact fee schedule for six key land uses also is presented in this section. Impact Fee Variable Comparison Table ES-1 presents a comparison of the demand component used to develop the current transportation impact fee schedule versus the demand component of the proposed impact fee, as presented in Appendix F, Tables F-1 and F-2 of the Technical Report. As presented in the following table, the total vehicle miles of travel being charged for all of the 6 land uses shown has been reduced when comparing the existing VMT to that of the proposed CBD figures. For example, a comparison of the existing vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the adopted 1996 City of Bozeman Streets Impact Fee Ordinance (Bozeman Municipal Code, Chapter 3.24.050 – Street Impact Fees) to the Non-CBD figures shows that all land uses except for the single family and bank with drive-in have been reduced. These changes are primarily due to the incorporation of the local trip characteristics studies data into the recommended trip lengths and percent new trips variables for all land uses. In addition, the trip generation rates have primarily been based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (7th edition) rates or local trip characteristics data where possible. 201335 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 ES-4 Impact Fee Update Study Table ES-1 Transportation Impact Fee Variable Comparison – Demand Component TGR TL PNTNet VMT(3)TGR TL PNTNet VMT(4)TGR TL PNTNet VMT(4)Residential: Single Family Detached (1,500 - 2,499 sf) du 9.57 3.19 100% 15.25 9.57 3.52 100%14.32 94% 9.57 3.52 100% 14.32 94%Non-residential: General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 3.19100% 11.13 6.97 2.21 92% 6.02 54% 6.97 2.21 92% 6.02 54% Office (50,000 sf) 1,000 sf 16.62 3.19 100% 26.51 15.65 2.22 57% 8.42 32% 15.65 2.22 71% 10.48 40% Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf 96.52 2.00 62% 59.84 91.10 1.95 21% 15.85 26% 91.10 1.95 77% 58.13 97% Retail (100,000 sf) 1,000 sf 54.50 2.82 55%42.26 58.93 1.57 35% 13.76 33% 58.93 1.57 63% 24.77 59% Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf 265.22 2.00 25%66.31 281.55 1.53 35% 64.0897% 281.55 1.53 46% 84.22 127%City of Bozeman Proposed (Non-CBD)(2)Percent Increase/Decrease(6)City of Bozeman County Existing(1)City of Bozeman Proposed (CBD)(2)Land Use unitPercent Increase/Decrease(5) (1) Source: City of Bozeman Streets Impact Fee Technical Report, 1996 (2) Source: Technical Report, Appendix F, Table F-1 for Non-CBD and Table F-2 for CBD (3) Net VMT calculated based on the following formula ((TGR/2)* TL *PNT)). (4) Net VMT calculated based on the following formula ((TGR* TL *PNT)/2). It should be noted that an interstate adjustment factor of 15 percent to remove travel on I-90 was applied to the net VMT calculations in the impact fee schedule presented in Appendix F, Table F-1 and F-2 of the technical report. (5) Percent increase/decrease in 1996 City of Bozeman Streets Impact Fee Study VMT by land use compared to proposed 2007 CBD VMT by land use. This is calculated as follows 2007 City of Bozeman CBD VMT by land use divided by 1996 City of Bozeman VMT by land use. (6) Percent increase/decrease in 1996 City of Bozeman Streets Impact Fee Study VMT by land use compared to proposed 2007 Non-CBD VMT by land use. This is calculated as follows 2007 City of Bozeman Non-CBDVMT by land use divided by 1996 City of Bozeman VMT by land use.202336 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 ES-5 Impact Fee Update Study Table ES-2 presents a comparison of the cost component used to develop the adopted transportation impact fee schedule versus the cost component of the proposed impact fee presented in the Technical Report. As presented in this table, the weighted cost per lane mile increased by approximately 237 percent primarily due to the increase in construction costs and land values. Since the 1996 study, the capacity per lane mile increased by 144 percent, in effect causing the cost per vehicle mile of capacity (VMC) to increase to $425. It is important to note that the increased impact fees can be attributed primarily to cost increases, although the capacity added per lane mile in the 2007 Study has been updated to reflect future conditions. Specifically, the weighted average capacity per lane mile was estimated using the planning level capacities and weighted by the lane distribution of future roadway improvements by jurisdiction in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Plan Update. The detailed calculation is presented in Appendix B, Table B-7 of the Technical Report. Table ES-2 Transportation Impact Fee Variable Comparison – Cost Component Cost Component Weighted Cost per Lane Mile $1,549,795 $3,678,551 237% Capacity Added per Lane Mile 6,000 8,658 144% Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity $258 $425 164% 1996 Study(1) 2007 Study(2) Percent Increase(3)Description (1) Source: City of Bozeman Impact Fee Technical Report, 1996 (2) Source: Technical Report, Table 4 for cost per lane mile. Table 6 capacity added per lane mile cost per VMC is weighted cost per lane mile divided by capacity added per lane mile (3) Percent increase is calculated as the 2007 study cost component item divided by the 1996 study cost component item Impact Fee Schedule Comparison Table ES-3 shows the proposed transportation impact fee schedule for the single family land use of 1,500 to 2,499 square feet, as well as several example nonresidential land uses. It is important to note that the primary reason for the impact fee rate increase is that the cost of constructing a road has greatly increased since the last study was completed. The other input variables primarily remained relatively constant as explained previously and in the Technical Report. 203337 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 ES-6 Impact Fee Update Study Table ES-3 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison Total Impact CostGas Tax CreditAd-Valorem CreditNet Impact FeeTotal Impact CostGas Tax CreditAd-Valorem CreditNet Impact FeeResidential: Single Family Detached (1,500 - 2,499 sf) du$2,241$6,083 $587 $100$5,396241% $6,083 $587 $100$5,396241%Non-residential: General Light Industrial 1,000 sf$1,635$2,559 $264 $5$2,290140% $2,559 $264 $5$2,290140% Office (50,000 sf) 1,000 sf$3,895$3,576 $382 $7$3,18782% $4,454 $470 $7$3,977102% Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf$8,897$6,736 $719 $8$6,00968% $24,700 $2,656 $8$22,036248% Retail (100,000 sf) 1,000 sf$6,283$5,847 $660 $5$5,18282% $10,525 $1,189 $5$9,331149% Bank/Savings Drive-In 1,000 sf$9,859$27,225 $3,082 $10$24,133245% $35,781 $4,065 $10$31,706322%Percent Increase/Decrease (Non-CBD)Percent Increase/Decrease (CBD)Land Use unitCity of Bozeman Proposed (CBD)(2)City of Bozeman Proposed (Non-CBD)(3)City of Bozeman Existing Net Impact Fee(1) (1) Source: City of Bozeman Roadway Impact Fee Technical Report, 1996 (2) Source: Technical Report, Appendix F, Table F-2 (3) Source: Technical Report, Appendix F, Table F-1 204338 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Planning and Engineering 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 Phone: (407) 657-9210 Fax: (407) 657-9106 October 31,2007 Mr. Chris Saunders, AICP Assistant Director Department of Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman 20 East Olive Street P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, Montana 59771 RE:City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Update Study –Final Report October 31, 2007 Dear Mr. Saunders: Based on discussions with City staff, we have reviewed the transportation impact fee cost component, and more specifically the City and state road costs. As a result of this review, attached you will find a revised City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Final Report dated October 31, 2007. In summary, the revised report reflects a reduction in the maximum transportation impact fees that could be charged per unit of land use for new growth. This reduction is approximately 11 percent across all land uses. For example, the Single Family Land Use for the 1,500 to 2,499 square feet category went from $6,084 to $5,396 per dwelling unit. Below I have summarized the key changes to the Report: Appendix B, Table B-3 Weighted Construction Cost -2 to 3 Lane Improvements. This table was revised to reflect only full reconstruction and offset improvement costs. It previously included a category called “New Construction with Added Turn Lane” that is the City cost of building the third lane of a new three lane roadway. This category has been moved to Table B-3 since it is not a 2 to 3 lane improvement. The cost per lane mile figures were updated based on an additional review of the West Babcock Street and Durston Road projects. Further, the percentage weighting of these projects was updated based on information contained in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan and discussions with City of Bozeman staff. The result of these changes is that the cost per lane mile increased from $2,803,699 to $4,314,000. Appendix B, Table B-4 Weighted Average Construction Cost City and State Roads (in 2006 Dollars). This table was revised to reflect 1) an updated cost per lane mile of building a new 3 lane roadway, 2) the addition of a new 2 to 3 lane category reflecting only the City cost of building the third lane of a new three lane roadway, and 3) the updated 2 to 3 lane improvement cost from Table B-3 used for both City and State roadway costs. The result of these changes is that the weighted cost per mile of the city and state roads was reduced from $3,189,545 and $3,510,764 to $2,781,869 and $3,431,005, respectively. Appendix B, Table B-6 Weighted Average Cost Per Lane Mile (in 2006 Dollars). This table was revised based on the changes to Tables B-3 and B-4. The result of these changes is a reduction in the weighted cost per lane mile from $4,094,532 to $3,678,552. 205339 Planning and Engineering Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Mr. Chris Saunders, AICP October 31, 2007 Page 2 of 2 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792  Phone: (407) 657-9210  Fax: (407) 657-9106 The effect of the above changes to Appendix B resulted in changes to the report narrative in Section 2.2 Cost Component of Transportation Capacity, including Tables 2, 3 and 4;Section 2.5 Cost Per Vehicle Mile of Capacity, including Table 7;and Section 3.0 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule, including Tables 9 and 10. Additionally, the changes to Appendix B caused a ripple effect and changes were also made to appendixes E, F, G, H and L. The Executive Summary has also been updated to reflect the changes discussed above. No changes were made to the demand and credit component sections. If you should have any questions concerning these final deliverables, please do not hesitate to contact me or Nilgün Kamp.I look forward to assisting the City in the implementation of the updated Transportation Impact Fee. Sincerely, Tindale-Oliver &Associates Robert P. Wallace, P.E., AICP Vice President Enclosure I:\497001-00.06-Bozeman TIF Update\Correspondence\Cover Ltr for Final IF Report 10-31-07.doc 206340 CITY OF BOZEMAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY FINAL REPORT October 31, 2007 Prepared for: CITY OF BOZEMAN 20 E. Olive Street. Bozeman, Montana 59715 Prepared by: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100 Tampa, Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106 497001-00.06 207341 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 i Impact Fee Study CITY OF BOZEMAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CALCULATION....................... 2 2.1 Demand Component.............................................................................. 2 2.1.1 Individual Land Use Trip Characteristics.............................. 3 2.2 Cost Component of Transportation Capacity........................................ 8 2.2.1 City Costs............................................................................... 8 2.2.2 State Costs.............................................................................. 11 2.2.3 Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) ......................... 13 2.3 Credit Component ................................................................................. 14 2.3.1 Gasoline Tax Credit (Equivalent).......................................... 14 2.3.2 Facility Life............................................................................ 16 2.3.3 Interest Rate........................................................................... 16 2.3.4 Fuel Efficiency....................................................................... 16 2.3.5 Effective Days per Year......................................................... 17 2.4 Capacity per Lane Mile ........................................................................ 17 2.5 Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity ....................................................... 18 2.6 Interstate Adjustment Factor ................................................................ 19 2.7 Ad Valorem Tax Credit......................................................................... 20 3.0 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEE SCHEDULE......................... 21 3.1 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule...................................... 21 3.2 Indexing................................................................................................. 28 3.3 Revenue Projections............................................................................... 28 APPENDICES Appendix A– Trip Characteristics Database Appendix B– Cost Component Calculation Appendix C– Credit Component Calculation Appendix D– Ad Valorem Credit Calculation Appendix E– Analysis of Travel Behavior of Low-Income Households Appendix F– Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Appendix G– Indexing Appendix H– Revenue Projections 208342 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 ii Impact Fee Study Appendix I– Evaluation of Funding Sources Appendix J– Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions Appendix K– Central Business District (CBD) Definition Characteristics Appendix L– Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 209343 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 1 Impact Fee Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Bozeman’s Street Impact Fee Ordinance (Bozeman Municipal Code, 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 ensure public safety, specifically in the event of an emergency such as providing a means of mobility for fire and ambulance response vehicles. In addition, the roadway system provides the transportation capacity needed to serve new development. Based on 2000 Census Data, between 1980 and 1990, the city’s population increased by 5 percent and between 1990 and 2000 by 21 percent. The 2007 City of Bozeman Sewer Facility Plan projects that the city’s population is expected to increase by approximately another 147 percent over the next 18 years. This growth results in a need for an increase in roadway capacity. Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) has been retained to conduct the City’s 2007 Transportation Impact Fee Study. This summary report, which acts as a technical support document to the Ordinance, presents the results of this study. Included in this document is an updated fee schedule, as well as the necessary support material utilized in its calculation. To accurately reflect the cost to provide roadway capacity, this study used recently bid roadway improvements to develop the input variables used herein. The increased impact fees presented in this report are a direct result of input cost increases such as concrete, asphalt, fuel, and steel. Specifically, in the last two years global demand for these inputs, with growth in other sectors, such as housing, has inflated the unit prices in the roadway construction industry. In addition, this report includes an evaluation of alternative funding sources to pay for capacity expansion and maintenance projects. New innovative financing sources for future roadway capacity expansion projects is necessary since current estimates project that the Highway Trust Fund balance (that provides a majority of funding for improvements on the state roadway system) will approach zero in 2009 or 2010. The general equation used to compute the transportation impact fee for a given land use is: Demand x Cost - Credits = Fee 210344 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 2 Impact Fee Study The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is usually expressed in units of vehicle miles or lane miles of roadway capacity consumed per unit of development. The cost of building capacity is typically expressed in units of dollars per vehicle-mile or lane- mile of roadway capacity. The credits are an estimate of non-impact fee revenues generated by a unit of each land use of new development that are allocated to roadway capacity expansion construction projects. Thus, the fee represents an "up front" payment for a portion of the cost to replace the transportation facilities consumed by each unit of new development. This study is based on a standards driven approach (consumption- based). In the case of a standards driven impact fee, roadway capacity is estimated to be consumed on all roads (state, county and local collector roads and above) by new development whether these roads are improved or not. This review and update recommends changes to the input variables used in the existing impact fee schedule. Additional information relevant to transportation impact fees was reviewed and used in the update process. The general topics considered for the update process are as follows: • Demand Component o Individual land use trip characteristics (local data collection) • Cost Component o City roadway improvement cost estimates o State roadway improvement cost estimates • Credit Component o Gasoline tax distributions and allocations o Other funds • Other variables used in the impact fee formula These items are all discussed in subsequent sections of this document, with the result being an updated transportation impact fee rate schedule. 2.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CALCULATION 2.1 Demand Component There are 12 input variables used in the impact fee demand component equation: • Number of daily trips generated 211345 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 3 Impact Fee Study • Length of those trips • Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already traveling on the road system • Cost per Lane Mile • Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies) • Facility life • Interest rate • Fuel efficiency • Effective days per year • Capacity per lane mile • Interstate adjustment factor • Ad valorem tax credit A review of these variables and corresponding recommendations are presented in the following sections. 2.1.1 Individual Land Use Trip Characteristics The amount of road system capacity consumed by a new land development is calculated using the following units of measure: • Number of daily trips generated; • Length of those trips; and • Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is estimated to have already been on the road system. For the purpose of this study, the trip characteristics variables have been obtained primarily from two sources: previous similar trip characteristics studies, including those conducted in the City of Bozeman, and from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (7th edition). The trip characteristics studies that were conducted as part of this current study are presented in the City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study report. These studies include a survey and review of travel characteristics for the following land uses: • single family residential; • residential condominium/townhouse; 212346 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 4 Impact Fee Study • office; and • shopping center Local Trip Characteristics The analysis of trip characteristics data (trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips) is used to estimate the lane miles of capacity consumed by specific types of land uses. In order to better understand trip characteristics in the City of Bozeman, a total of 11 sites from the four identified land use categories were studied. This includes the review of three single-family residential sites, two residential condominium/townhouse sites, three office sites, and three shopping center sites. As previously mentioned, the details of these site surveys can be found in the document titled, City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study. Data resulting from the trip characteristics surveys are summarized in Table 1 and are used in the development of the demand component of the transportation impact fee for the four land uses. Table 1 provides a summary of the data collected for the three variables (trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips) and the resulting vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for each land use category that was calculated. Land use-based survey/study results that were incorporated into the Trip Characteristics Database are included in Appendix A. This database was used to document the trip length, percent new trips, and trip rate for the land uses contained in the impact fee schedule. An analysis of the trip characteristics of lower income households is presented in Appendix E. The trip characteristics variables used in the calculation of the impact fee for each land use included in the proposed fee schedule are presented in Appendix F. Local Trip Characteristics Adjustment Factor The local trip characteristics data collected for the City of Bozeman land use sites were compared to data contained in the Trip Characteristics Database. Based on this review, trip length reduction factors were applied to both residential and non-residential land uses not studied as part of the local trip characteristics process. The specific adjustment factors presented below were applied to the trip lengths obtained from data in the Trip Characteristics Database for land uses not studied in the City of Bozeman. Appendix A presents the trip lengths for all land uses in the Trip Characteristics Database as well as the 213347 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 5 Impact Fee Study adjusted City of Bozeman trip lengths based on the application of the following reduction factors. 1. Single family trip length reduction factor (55%) was applied to the following land uses: • lodging land uses (hotel, motel) • recreation land uses (golf course, city park, movie theaters) 2. Residential condominium trip length reduction factor (55%) was applied to the following land uses: • mobile home park 3. Office trip length reduction factor (43%) was applied to the following land uses: • institutions land uses (hospital, nursing home, elementary school, high school, university, church/synagogue, and day care center) • medical office • industry land uses (general light industrial, manufacturing, warehouse, and mini-warehouse) 4. Retail trip length reduction factor (62%) was applied to the following land uses: • retail land uses (all retail tiers, building material/lumber, discount superstore, nursery/garden center, convenience store, quality restaurant, fast-food restaurant with drive-through, new/used auto sales, furniture store, bank/savings with drive-thru) 214348 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 6 Impact Fee Study Table 1 Summary of Bozeman Trip Characteristic Studies (1) Development TypeTrip Generation RateTrip LengthPercent New TripsVMTImpact Fee VMT(2)SINGLE FAMILY Site 1 Residential 142 dwelling unit 9.69 3.23 100% 31.30 15.65Site 2(3)Residential 105 dwelling unit N/A 1.59 100% N/A N/ASite 3 Residential 41 dwelling unit 9.32 4.53 100% 42.22 21.11RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE Site 4 Residential 63 dwelling unit 7.70 2.67 100% 20.56 10.28Site 5 Residential 57 dwelling unit 5.74 3.58 100% 20.55 10.27OFFICE Site 6 Non-Residential 48,3441,000 sf 21.37 2.83 69% 41.73 20.86Site 7(4)Non-Residential 39,027 1,000 sf N/A 1.64 77% N/A N/ASite 8 Non-Residential 61,1991,000 sf 28.92 1.74 72% 36.23 18.12SHOPPING CENTER Site 9 Non-Residential 35,8881,000 sf 69.30 1.39 74% 71.28 35.64Site 10 Non-Residential 104,257 1,000 sf 46.96 3.35 49% 77.08 38.54Site 11 Non-Residential 159,852 1,000 sf 56.49 1.56 54% 47.59 23.79Net Size (1) Source: City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc., 2007 (2) VMT is divided by two to avoid over-charging a land use since ITE trips are trips to and from two land uses. (3) Trip generation was not calculated due to the presence of cut-through traffic from construction on adjacent street. (4) Trip generation was not calculated due to the presence of cut-through traffic from construction on adjacent street. 215349 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 7 Impact Fee Study In addition, it should be noted that a review of 2000 Census Data specifically demographic (median age, age distribution, population, household size), economic (income distribution), and journey-to-work characteristics (travel time, travel mode, vehicle ownership) was conducted to establish a relationship between the studies in the Trip Characteristics Database and the City of Bozeman for land uses that were not studied locally. This review shows that the adjustment factor discussed previously for residential and non-residential trip lengths are justified. In addition, the trip generation rate data recommended in the fee schedule is primarily based on the (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (7th edition) which is a national source. Central Business District (CBD) Trip Characteristics In addition, adjustment factors were calculated for the percent new trips for non-residential land uses to account for the travel characteristics unique to the central business district of the City of Bozeman. These adjustments were made to the lodging, recreation, office, retail, restaurant, and bank land uses. Typically, the adjustments reduced the percent new trips variable since in the central business district people link trips. The adjustment factors were calculated based on the City of Tampa Transportation Impact Fee Study, 1988 using the relationship between trip purpose and person trips. The City of Tampa study utilized ITE trip generation rates and the results of a Downtown Portland Circulation Study conducted by DeLeuw, Cather, and Company, 1973 that documented the reasons for individuals entering a building by their main purpose for coming downtown. The data facilitated the calculation of trip generation factors (percent new trips) that reflected the high level of captured trips in the downtown area. In addition, this data presented the mode of travel to the downtown buildings. A local study in Montana has also recently confirmed the unique characteristics of the CBD. The Montana Three City Parking Generation/Land Use Pattern Correlation Study, 2004 collected survey data in the cities of Bozeman, Billings, and Great Falls to examine the relationship between trip purpose, number of stores visited, and duration of stay in the CBD and other areas of the cities. The results indicate there are more linked trips in the CBD (more places are visited). In addition, the study recommends that parking requirements be reduced for businesses that locate in the CBD due to parking efficiencies that arise from the linked trips. The results of this study confirm that the travel characteristics in the CBD has not changed over time and regardless of the size of the CBD (Portland, Tampa, Bozeman), and that the travel patterns in the downtown area warrant 216350 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 8 Impact Fee Study adjustments to the percent new trips variable since the capture rate (1 minus the percent new trips) is higher in the downtown area with trips being linked among land uses. 2.2 Cost Component of Transportation Capacity Cost Overview The cost of providing transportation system capacity has increased in recent years. Certain phases of lane widening projects have seen significant cost increases recently. For example, construction costs have increased significantly in the past two years. Appreciation in land values has resulted in higher right-of-way costs over the last several years. Information from the City of Bozeman and the Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) was used to develop a unit cost for all phases involved in the addition of one lane mile of roadway capacity. It should be noted that Gallatin County does not construct any lane mile addition projects in the City of Bozeman. The following sub-sections detail the analyses that were undertaken to review the different costs associated with the construction of city and state roads. Appendix B provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses. The cost is separated into four phases: design, right-of-way (ROW), construction, and construction engineering/inspection (CEI) costs. Each of these cost components are further discussed for city and state roads below. 2.2.1 City Costs This section examines the construction costs of transportation capacity improvements associated with city roads in the City of Bozeman. For this purpose, recent bids and final project costs of two projects that were recently constructed were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for roadway improvements. Specifically, these two projects include the West Babcock Street project and the West Durston Road project. It should be noted that these improvements were built to be consistent with MDOT design standards. Based on discussion with City staff, design costs were estimated at 8.5 percent of construction costs. This percentage is based on recent construction project cost estimates and recently completed City projects. 217351 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 9 Impact Fee Study The ROW cost was developed based on a review of property acquisitions for the West Babcock Street (22) and West Durston Road (10) projects. Most of the ROW for construction of both projects was obtained in advance of the lane additions. Temporary easements were provided by property owners along the corridor at no cost to the city. City staff confirmed that the ROW acquisition for these two projects is typical of future roadway construction for improvements that will add left-turn storage along a two-lane undivided roadway segment. The weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is presented in Appendix B, Table B-1. As shown in the table, the weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is approximately $0.28 million for city roads. As previously mentioned, the construction cost per lane mile was developed based on a review of recent bid prices for the West Babcock Street improvement and the West Durston Road projects in the City of Bozeman. City staff confirmed that the projects used to develop the construction cost are typical of the type of roadway project that the City intends to construct in the future. During discussion with City staff, it was noted that based on prior experience, the following three factors contribute to higher construction costs in the City of Bozeman (relative to other areas in the state of Montana): • Labor market conditions - wage rates in Bozeman are comparatively higher than the rest of Gallatin County and other parts of Montana. • Lack of construction companies bidding on roadway projects. This lack of competition also leads to an increase in overall roadway construction costs. Based on discussion with City staff, the cost to build city collector roadways is fairly consistent with the state arterial roadway projects due to this competition. • Based on discussion with City staff, it was noted the city and state roads are built with the similar design specifications. Based on this analysis, the construction cost of $3.1 million per lane mile to build state roads that add two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided section (a total of five lanes) was used as a proxy for city roadways of similar type. Since the construction cost per lane mile is intended to reflect the observed cost of future capacity, a weighting was assigned based on project types in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan for all city roadway improvements (specifically for programmed projects). The percentages used by improvement type are listed below: 218352 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 10 Impact Fee Study • New construction of two travel lanes and a continuous left turn lane (three-lane section) (16 percent). • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway where the city only pays for the addition of the third lane (three-lane section) (28 percent). • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway that is either a reconstruction of the existing lanes or an offset (three-lane section) (26 percent). • The addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five lane section) (30 percent). As shown in Appendix B, Table B-4, the resulting city construction cost per lane mile is approximately $2.8 million. The two projects (West Babcock Street and West Durston Road) are being constructed as an urban cross-section and are consistent with MDOT and City design standards. City staff also indicated that it is anticipated that all future city roadway projects will be built utilizing urban cross-section design. It should be noted that the City of Bozeman is currently updating the Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan. Upon completion of this update, it is recommended that the City evaluate the mix of planned future roadway improvements in the updated Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan to determine if adjustments in the mix of project types being used to estimate the construction cost per lane mile in the impact fee calculation need to be made. The mix (addition of travel lanes and continuous left turn lanes to existing two-lane undivided roadways) of future improvements is a policy decision based on the assessment of future growth needs. Further, as a policy decision and consistent with City Code, the City requires new development to construct the first two lanes of a new road project. If the City determines that it is in its best interests to construct a new three-lane roadway section, the City contributes the cost for the third lane. For projects where only two lanes are initially built, the City pays for the cost to improve the two-lane undivided segment to a three-lane section with the addition of the continuous left turn lane. It should be noted that the impact fee network that provides the basis for the consumption-based impact fee approach includes only two lane undivided roadways and above given this requirement for new developments. The calculations used to develop the city construction costs are shown in Appendix B, Tables B-3 and B-4. 219353 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 11 Impact Fee Study Based on an analysis of the project cost information for city roadway capacity-adding projects, the total cost per lane mile is estimated at approximately $3.5 million. Table 2 presents the breakdown of the estimated average cost for each phase of a typical roadway capacity-expansion project in the City of Bozeman. Table 2 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile by City Project Phase (in 2006 Dollars) Cost Phase Cost Per Lane Mile Design(1)$236,459 Right-of-Way(2)$276,316 Construction(3)$2,781,869 CEI(4)$236,459 Total Cost $3,531,103 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6 for City Design (2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6 for City ROW (3) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6 for City Construction (4) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6 for City CEI 2.2.2 State Costs A similar review also was completed for state roadway projects in order to estimate the typical phase and total costs for capacity-adding projects. A total of four state projects were identified that were either completed (2) or the full project cost was programmed (2) in the FY 2006-2008 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Of the four projects, the two completed projects provided a basis with which to estimate construction costs for state projects in the City of Bozeman because they were found to be representative of future state projects in the City of Bozeman. The two projects with fully programmed costs from the STIP were used to develop a cost for urban-design state roadways in the City of Bozeman. The construction cost per lane mile was calculated based on weighting project types in the 2001 Greater Bozeman 220354 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 12 Impact Fee Study Transportation Plan for all city roadway improvements. The percentage used by improvement type is listed below: • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway (three-lane section) (26 percent). • The addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five-lane section) (74 percent). The detailed calculations used to develop the state construction cost by section design are presented in Appendix B, Table B-4. As shown in that table, the resulting state construction cost per lane mile for an urban design arterial roadway is approximately $3.4 million. Based on discussion with MDOT staff, it was confirmed that the project used to develop the state costs, South 19th Avenue (Babcock Street to Kagy Boulevard), is typical of future roadway improvements. The South 19th Avenue project is typical of two travel lanes being added to a two-lane divided roadway. In addition, the bid tabulation for the South 19th Avenue project was used to develop standard quantities and current unit prices for estimating cost of adding a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway. The detailed analysis used to develop this construction cost is presented in Appendix B, Table B-3. The construction costs for the Rouse Avenue project were not used since the project scope includes additional features that have a financial impact on the overall project cost that are considered to be atypical when compared to future improvements of this type. Based on discussions with City and MDOT staff, this construction cost was not used in developing the weighted average construction cost per lane mile. It should be noted that other recently bid projects in the state of Montana were also reviewed to ensure the consistency of unit prices and quantities with the projects used in this analysis. ROW cost data for the two roadway projects discussed above were used to estimate the ROW cost per lane mile. The ROW acquisitions associated with these improvements were confirmed to be typical of future improvements. Specifically, the ROW plans for the South 19th Avenue project were evaluated for acquisitions associated with the cross section width and easements. It should be noted that unlike the construction cost for the Rouse Avenue project, the ROW cost was considered typical of future improvements where a continuous left-turn lane is added to a two-lane undivided roadway. As shown in Appendix B, Table B-2, the weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is approximately $0.3 million. 221355 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 13 Impact Fee Study Table 3 summarizes the estimated average cost per lane mile for state roads. As shown in the table, the total average cost per lane mile for state roads (including all phases) is approximately $4.5 million. It should be noted that the mix of improvements (2 to 3 lane sections and 3 to 5 lane sections) explains the construction cost per lane mile differential between the city and the state. Based on the revised list of 2001 Greater Bozeman Plan projects, the state is constructing a higher percentage five lane sections (74 percent), than that of the city (30 percent). As noted previously, state projects included in the analysis are presented in Appendix B, Table B-2. Table 3 Estimated Total Cost per Lane Mile by State Project Phase (in 2006 Dollars) Cost Phase Cost Per Lane Mile Design(1)$343,101 Right-of-Way(2)$335,446 Construction(3)$3,431,005 CEI(4)$343,101 Total Cost $4,452,653 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6 for State Design (2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6 for State ROW (3) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6 for State Construction (4) Source: Appendix B, Table B-6 for State CEI 2.2.3 Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) The weighted average cost per lane mile for city and state roads is calculated and presented in Table 4. The resulting weighted average cost of approximately $3.7 million per lane mile will be utilized as the cost input in the calculation of the impact fee schedule. This weighted average cost per lane mile includes city and state projects and is based on weighting by the distribution of city and state lane miles of roadway being constructed in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan (Appendix B, Table B-5). As noted previously, the project information and methodology used in these calculations is included in Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-6. 222356 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 14 Impact Fee Study Table 4 City of Bozeman City & State Roadway Capital Projects Estimated Adjusted Total Cost per Lane Mile (in 2006 Dollars) Cost Type City Roads(1)State Roads(2) City and State Roads(3) Design $236,459 $343,101 $253,522 Construction $2,781,869 $3,431,005 $2,885,731 Right-of-Way $276,316 $335,446 $285,777 CEI $236,459 $343,101 $253,522 Total $3,531,103 $4,452,653 $3,678,552 (1) Source: Table 2 (2) Source: Table 3 (3) Source: Table B-6 for blend of city and state roads 2.3 Credit Component 2.3.1 Gasoline Tax Credit (Equivalent) The present value of gasoline taxes generated by a new development over a 25-year period is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. This is because travel from new development generates gasoline tax revenues, a portion of which is typically allocated to expansion of the transportation system. City A review of the city roadway financing program shows that a combination of impact fees and General Obligation (GO) Bonds are being used to fund capacity expansion projects. The City allocates the local allocation of gas tax revenues provided annually by MDOT based on MCA Section 15-70-10 to fund maintenance-related projects such as roadway re- paving, traffic signal maintenance and drainage improvements. It should be noted as described below that the federal transfer of gas tax revenues known as “urban funds” are expended on capacity expansion projects and a credit is given under the state gas tax discussion. Since the City is not spending any of the locally allocated gas tax revenues on capacity expansion projects, no gas tax credit is given. The portion of the GO Bond that is 223357 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 15 Impact Fee Study allocated to capacity expansion projects and being backed by ad valorem funds will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. County It should be noted that, based on a review of the Gallatin County roadway financing program, it was determined that Gallatin County has not programmed any funds to be spent on capacity expansion projects in the City of Bozeman. As such, no credit is given for gas tax revenues received by the County and spent in the City. State In addition, State expenditures in Gallatin County were reviewed and a credit for the capacity expansion portion attributable to state projects was provided. It should be noted that these revenues known as “urban funds” originate from federal gas tax revenues requiring a match provided by MDOT using state gas tax revenues and are expended on state roadways projects identified as local priorities on state routes. It should be noted that the state credit includes this federal funding on projects identified as capacity expansion improvements on state routes. The equivalent number of pennies allocated to fund state projects was determined using information for a 9-year period of the MDOT Work Program (FY 2000 through FY 2008). A list of capacity-adding roadway projects was developed, including lane additions, new road construction, intersection improvements, traffic signal projects, and other capacity-addition projects. This review (which is summarized in Appendix C, Table C-4) indicates that MDOT spending generates an equivalent gas tax credit of 10.2 pennies of gas tax revenue annually. It should be noted that the historical work program for FY 2000 through FY 2006 included preliminary engineering for several capacity expansion projects discussed previously. As such, the variance in the annual revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects between this period and FY 2007 through FY 2008 is explained by the fact that the ROW and construction phases are programmed in this phase of the MDOT Work Program. Table 5 provides a summary of the results of the gas tax credit analysis. The summary shows an equivalent gas tax credit of 10.2 pennies per gallon of gas consumed will be used in the impact fee calculation. 224358 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 16 Impact Fee Study Table 5 Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies (in 2006 Dollars) Credit Equivalent Pennies per Gallon State Gas Tax Credit(1) $0.102 Total $0.102 (1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-4 2.3.2 Facility Life The facility life used in the proposed fee is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of the roadway. 2.3.3 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 4.6 percent is determined based on discussions with representatives from the City’s Finance Department and reflects the rate at which the City is likely to borrow in the future. 2.3.4 Fuel Efficiency In order to calculate future gas tax revenues, it is necessary to estimate the future consumption of gas. 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 each unique land use. Appendix C documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value (Table C-5), based on the following equation, where “VMT” is vehicle miles of travel and “MPG” is fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon. ∑∑⎟⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜ ⎝ ⎛÷= TypeRoadwayTypeVehicle TypeVehicle TypeRoadway MPG VMTVMTEfficiencyFuel 225359 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 17 Impact Fee Study The methodology utilizes 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 utilized 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 Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics 2005.1 Based on the calculation completed in Table C-5 of Appendix C, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 17.70 miles per gallon. 2.3.5 Effective Days per Year An effective 365 days per year of operation was estimated for all land uses in the proposed fee. While not all land uses operate 365 days per year (e.g., office buildings and seasonal land uses such as schools), the use of 365 days per year provides a "conservative" estimate of the amount of gas consumed annually, ensuring that gasoline taxes are adequately credited against the fee. 2.4 Capacity per Lane Mile An additional component of the impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane mile of roadway constructed. Based on discussion with City staff, the weighted average capacity added per lane mile was calculated using Table 4-1 of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update (specifically for programmed projects). The plan was used because it reflects the most reasonable source of the type of roads and their associated capacity that are planned to be built in the future on which impact fee funds may be spent. City staff indicated that the capacity associated with ideal management conditions should be used in the calculation of the impact fee since current policies are in place to actively pursue improved access control and optimal signal timing. The capacities in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update represent trigger volumes and are 1 The data used in Table C-5 in Appendix C was compiled from Table VM-1 (Section V) of the document, Highway Statistics 2005, Office of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C (see Table C-6). The document can be accessed on-line at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/re.htm. 226360 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 18 Impact Fee Study conservative for impact fee purposes. Upon completion of the 2007 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update, the impact fee capacity figures should be reviewed and updated, if appropriate. The weighted average capacity per lane mile was estimated using the planning level capacities and weighted by the lane distribution of future roadway improvements by jurisdiction in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Plan Update. As mentioned previously, the mix of future projects is strictly a policy decision based on the assessment of future growth needs. Appendix B, Table B-7 provides the detailed calculation used to develop the weighted average capacity added per lane mile. As shown in Table 6, the resulting weighted average capacity added per lane mile is 8,658. Table 6 Weighted Average Capacity per Lane Mile Jurisdiction Weighted Capacity Added per Lane Mile(1) Greater Bozeman Plan Lane Miles Jurisdiction Weight(2) Weighted Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile City Roads 8,438 84% 7,088 State Roads 9,813 16% 1,570 Total Weighted Average Capacity Added(3)8,658 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-7 for city and state roads respectively (2) Source: Appendix B, Table B-5 (3) Item (1) for city and state roads weighted by Item (2) 2.5 Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity The impact fee cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle mile of capacity. As shown in Tables 2, 3, and 6, the cost and capacity for city and state roads have been calculated based on typical roadway improvements. In order to estimate the weighted average cost per vehicle mile of capacity, the cost per vehicle mile of capacity for city and state roads was weighted by the lane distribution of future roadway improvements by jurisdiction in the 2001 Greater Bozeman Plan Update. As shown in Table 7, the cost per vehicle mile of capacity for travel on all roads within the City of Bozeman is $424.87. This weighted average cost per vehicle mile of capacity figure is used on the impact fee calculation to determine the total impact cost per unit of development based on the vehicle miles of travel consumed. 227361 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 19 Impact Fee Study Table 7 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity City and State Roadways in Bozeman Source Greater Bozeman Plan Lane Miles Jurisdiction Weight(1) Cost per Lane Mile(2) Average Capacity Added Per Lane Mile(3) Cost per VMC(4) City Roads 84% $3,531,103 8,438 $418.48 State Roads 16%$4,452,653 9,813 $453.75 Total 100% Weighted Average(5)$3,678,551 8,658 $424.87 (1) Source: Appendix B, Table B-5 (2) Source: Table 2 for city roads and Table 3 for state roads (3) Source: Table 6 for Item (1) for city and state roads (4) Cost per lane mile (Item 2) divided by average capacity added per lane mile (Item 3) for city roads and state roads respectively (5) Cost per lane mile and average capacity added per lane mile weighted by Greater Bozeman Plan lane miles distribution in Item (1). Cost per VMC is based on weighted average cost per lane mile, Item (2) divided by weighted average capacity added per lane mile (Item 3). 2.6 Interstate Adjustment Factor This variable is used to recognize that interstate highway improvements are funded by the State using earmarked state and federal funds. Typically, impact fees are not used to pay for these improvements and the portion of vehicle miles traveled on the Interstate System is therefore eliminated from the total travel for each use. Based on centerline street maintenance data obtained from the City of Bozeman Planning Department and the Montana Department of Transportation’s Urban Travel Demand Model, an interstate adjustment factor of 15 percent is incorporated into the impact fee calculations. It should be noted that the Interstate Adjustment Factor calculation excludes external-to-external trips, which represent traffic that goes through the City of Bozeman using the interstate, but does not stop in the city. This traffic is excluded from the calculations since it does not travel on the local road system for which impact fees are allocated. Table 8 shows the calculation of the interstate adjustment factor. This factor is used to reduce the vehicle miles of travel that the impact fee charges for each land use. 228362 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 20 Impact Fee Study Table 8 Interstate Adjustment Factor (1) Roadway 2007 (vehicle miles of travel) 2007 Distribution I-90 70,265 15.0% State Roads 244,438 53.0% County Roads 1,341 0.0% City Roads 147,227 32.0% All Roads 463,271 100.0% (1) Source: City of Bozeman Planning Department, Centerline Street Maintenance GIS Layer and MDOT Urban Travel Demand Model 2.7 Ad Valorem Taxes Based on a review of historical expenditures, the City of Bozeman has been using a portion of ad valorem revenues to fund capacity expansion projects. Of the ad valorem revenues available, approximately $271,417 is projected to be dedicated to transportation capacity expansion projects annually. The value per 1-mil from the general fund calculated based on the FY 2006/2007 City Budget is $63,251. Therefore the ad valorem revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects translate into 4.29 mills ($217,417 divided by $63,251). Thus, the general fund millage used toward capacity expansion annually is approximately 4 percent (4.29 mills divided by 110.57 mills). Because the City does not have a dedicated percentage of the ad valorem taxes being applied to transportation capital expansion projects, the total ad valorem revenues used toward transportation capacity projects is estimated to be fixed at $271,417 per year. As such, as the tax base increases, the percent of total ad valorem revenues used for capacity projects will decrease. Since the City has historically used ad valorem revenues to retire the debt associated with the 1995 GO Bond that funds capacity expansion projects, a credit is given. Credit due to ad valorem tax revenues for residential uses is calculated based on a review of recent sale prices and taxable values of single family homes in the City of Bozeman, and discussions with the City’s Finance Division. The ad valorem tax credit for non-residential land uses is based on the taxable value of office and commercial properties within the City and 229363 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 21 Impact Fee Study estimated unit values from the Consultant’s experience in other jurisdictions and industry knowledge. An explanation of the methodology used to estimate ad valorem tax credit figures is included in Appendix D. 3.0 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE 3.1 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use are included in Appendix F. This Appendix includes the major land use categories and the impact fees for the individual land uses contained in each of the major categories. For each land use, this Appendix illustrates the impact fee demand component variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent of new trips), the total impact fee cost, the annual gas tax credit and present value of the gas tax credit, the net impact fee, the current City of Bozeman impact fee, and the percent difference between the potential impact fee and the current impact fee. It should be noted that the net impact fee rates included in Appendix F represent the maximum reasonable defensible transportation impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in the City of Bozeman. The methodology used herein to calculate these fees is commonly accepted as one that results in an impact fee rate that satisfies the proportionality concept of the dual rational nexus test. It should be noted that this methodology is consistent with the 2005 Montana impact fee law (Senate Bill 185, sections 7-6-1601 through 7-6-1604). As a result, development is charged based upon the proportion of vehicle miles of capacity it is expected to consume on the city roadway network. For clarification purposes, it may be useful to walk through the calculation of an impact fee for one of the land use categories. In the following example, the net impact fee is calculated for the single-family detached residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category (ITE LUC 210). This example calculation uses information from the proposed impact fee schedule included in Appendix F, Table F-1 (Non-CBD Impact Fee Schedule). For each land use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee: Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost – Gas Tax Credit – Ad Valorem Credit Where: 230364 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 22 Impact Fee Study Total Impact Cost = ((Trip Rate × Assessable Trip Length × % New Trips) / 2) × (1 - Interstate Adj. Factor) × (Cost per Lane Mile / Avg. Capacity Added per Lane Mile) Total Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax Credit), given 4.6% interest rate & 25-year facility life Annual Gas Tax Credit = (((Trip Rate × Total Trip Length × % New Trips) / 2) × Effective Days per Year × $/Gallon to Capital) / Fuel Efficiency Each of the inputs have been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided below, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the single-family detached residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category: • Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle-trips/day (9.57) • 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 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 trips that are already on the roadway (100%). • Divide by 2 = The total daily miles of travel generated by a particular category (i.e., rate X length X % 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. • Interstate Adjustment Factor = adjustment factor to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways (15.0%) • Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $/lane- mile ($3,678,552) • Average Capacity Added per Lane Mile = represents the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day (8,658) • Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity = unit cost to construct to provide a vehicle mile of capacity ($424.87) • 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, 231365 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 23 Impact Fee Study “n;” for 4.6% interest and a 25-year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 14.6768 • 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 ($0.102) • Fuel Efficiency = average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle-miles/gallon (17.70) Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single-family residential (1,500 to 2,499 square feet) land use category as follows. Total Impact Cost = ((9.57 * 3.52 * 1.0) /2) * (1–.015) * ($3,678,552/8,658) = $6,083 Annual Gas Tax = (((9.57 * 4.02 * 1.0) /2) * 365 * $0.102) / 17.70 = $40 Gas Tax Credit = $40 * 14.6768 = $587 Ad Valorem Tax Credit = $100 (see Appendix E, Table E-1 for details of this calculation) Net Impact Fee = $6,083-$587-$100 = $5,396 Table 9 below presents the net impact fee for all land uses included in the proposed impact fee schedule in Appendix F, Table F-1. These fees will be charged for all areas not designated as the Central Business District (CBD) or that otherwise do not reflect travel characteristics of the CBD area. Table 9 below presents the net impact fee for all land uses in the proposed fee schedule in Appendix F, Table F-2. These fees will be charged in areas designated as the CBD or that other areas that exhibit characteristics as defined in Appendix K. Table 9 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Non-CBD) (1) Net ITE Impact LUC Unit Fee RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(2)du $2,171 Less than 1,500 sf and low income(3)du $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf du $3,968 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $5,396 2,500 sf or larger du $6,082 Land Use 232366 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 24 Impact Fee Study Table 9 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Non-CBD) (continued) (1) Net ITE Impact LUC Unit Fee RESIDENTIAL: 220 Apartments du $3,339 230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du $2,946 240 Mobile Home Park du $1,593 LODGING: 310 Hotel room $3,063 320 Motel room $1,678 RECREATION: 430 Golf Course hole $12,295 411 City Park acre $546 444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf $6,463 INSTITUTIONS: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf $6,023 620 Nursing Home bed $381 520 Elementary School student $315 530 High School student $477 540 University (7,500 or fewer students)(4)student $609 550 University (more than 7,500 students)(4)student $529 560 Church/ Synagogue 1,000 sf $2,428 565 Day Care 1,000 sf $7,433 OFFICE: 710 50,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $3,977 710 50,001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $3,623 710 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $3,084 710 greater than 200,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,460 Land Use 233367 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 25 Impact Fee Study Table 9 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Non-CBD) (continued) (1) Net ITE Impact LUC Unit Fee OFFICE: 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $9,584 RETAIL: 820 under 50,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,378 820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,587 820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $9,331 820 200,000-299,000 sf 1,000 sf $8,567 820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $8,144 812 Building Material/ Lumber 1,000 sf $21,209 813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf $26,996 817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $18,903 851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf $44,607 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $22,036 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $61,225 841 New/Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $12,033 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $1,684 912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $31,706 INDUSTRY: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $2,290 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $1,250 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,627 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $810 Land Use (1) Source: Appendix F, Table F-1 (2) Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. 234368 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 26 Impact Fee Study Table 10 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (CBD) (1) Net ITE Impact LUC Unit Fee RESIDENTIAL: 210 Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(2)du $2,171 Less than 1,500 sf and low income(3)du $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf du $3,968 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $5,396 2,500 sf or larger du $6,082 220 Apartments du $3,339 230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du $2,946 240 Mobile Home Park du $1,593 LODGING: 310 Hotel room $2,835 320 Motel room $1,333 RECREATION: 430 Golf Course hole $4,333 411 City Park acre $182 444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf $2,333 INSTITUTIONS: 610 Hospital 1,000 sf $6,023 620 Nursing Home bed $381 520 Elementary School student $315 530 High School student $477 540 University (7,500 or fewer students)(4)student $609 550 University (more than 7,500 students)(4)student $529 560 Church/Synagogue 1,000 sf $2,428 565 Day Care 1,000 sf $7,433 Land Use 235369 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 27 Impact Fee Study Table 10 Proposed Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (CBD) (continued) (1) Net ITE Impact LUC Unit Fee OFFICE: 710 50,000 sf or less 1,000 sf $3,187 710 50,001-100,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,911 710 100,001-200,000 sf 1,000 sf $2,475 710 greater than 200,000 sf 1,000 sf $1,974 720 Medical Office 1,000 sf $9,584 RETAIL: 820 under 50,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,284 820 50,000-99,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,452 820 100,000-199,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,182 820 200,000-299,000 sf 1,000 sf $5,115 820 greater than 300,000 sf 1,000 sf $4,999 812 Building Material/Lumber 1,000 sf $21,209 813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf $26,996 817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf $18,903 851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf $44,607 931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $6,009 934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf $22,164 841 New/ Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf $12,033 890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $1,684 912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf $24,133 INDUSTRY: 110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $2,290 140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $1,250 150 Warehouse 1,000 sf $1,627 151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf $810 Land Use (1) Source: Appendix F, Table F-2 (2) Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. 236370 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 28 Impact Fee Study 3.2 Indexing Currently, the City of Bozeman indexes its transportation impact fees on an annual basis based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This section presents a method that calculates a combined index based on the cost variables included in the impact fee calculation. This method helps moderate annual fluctuations from one year to another. The cost variables being recommended for annual adjustment are design, construction, CEI, and ROW costs. First, the design, construction, and CEI costs should be indexed a fixed amount each year based on the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index to account for general increases in the cost for construction materials. Similarly, the land value component of ROW costs should be indexed based on the five-year historical trend in total market values for all property as updated annually by the Gallatin County Property Appraiser. It should be noted that since total market values for all property were not available, the five-year historical trend for total taxable values was used. In addition, the source used to index the construction cost (Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index) may be under-estimating the recent increase in construction costs. As such, it is recommended that the City consider conducting an independent evaluation of local construction cost increases on an annual basis for the next few years until the recent increases subside. If, however, the City chooses not to conduct such a study, the index included in this study will provide a conservative level of indexing. The method for developing an indexed transportation impact fee is further discussed in Appendix G. 3.3 Revenue Projections Based on the proposed impact fee schedule presented in Table 9, revenue estimates were developed for the City of Bozeman. The proposed impact fees have been calculated based on a standards driven approach (consumption-based), as such new development will be charged based on capacity consumed. 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. If the growth rates remain high, the City will have more impact fee revenues to fund growth-related 237371 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 29 Impact Fee Study projects sooner rather than later. If the growth rate slows down, less revenue will be generated, and the timing and need for future infrastructure improvements will be later rather than sooner. Appendix H presents revenue projections based on the proposed impact fees. 238372 APPENDIX A Trip Characteristics Database 239373 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 A-1 Impact Fee Study Trip Characteristics Database The Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non-residential land uses collected over the last 18 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 Florida and the U.S. 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. Similarly, 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. Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) - Bozeman Trip Characteristics Studies Bozeman, MT 41 Dec-06 180 180 9.32 - 4.53 N/A 42.22 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Bozeman, MT 105 Dec-06 249 249 N/A - 1.59 N/A N/A Tindale-Oliver & Associates Bozeman, MT 142 Dec-06 819 819 9.69 - 3.23 N/A 31.30 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 183 Average Trip Length: 3.88 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.52 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: N/A ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 9.57 Average VMT:55.33 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 35.58 Total # Interviews Size / Units Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length # Trip Length Interviews SourceVMTPercent New TripsLocation Date 240374 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 A-2 Impact Fee Study Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) - Florida Trip Characteristics Studies Gwinnett Co., GA - 12/13-18/92 - - 5.80 - 5.40 N/A 31.32 Street Smarts Gwinnett Co., GA - 12/13-18/92 - - 5.40 - 6.10 N/A 32.94 Street Smarts Lake Co, FL 42 Dec-06 122 11.26 5.56 62.61 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 49 Apr-02 170 6.70 7a-6p 10.20 N/A 68.34 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 51 Dec-06 346 18.22 9.46 172.36 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 52 Apr-02 212 10.00 7a-6p 7.60 N/A 76.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 55 Apr-02 133 6.80 8a-6p 8.12 N/A 55.22 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 59 Dec-06 144 12.07 10.79 130.24 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, FL 60 Apr-02 106 7.73 8a-6p 8.75 N/A 67.64 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, FL 70 Apr-02 188 7.80 8a-6p 6.03 N/A 47.03 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, FL 74 Apr-02 188 8.18 8a-6p 5.95 N/A 48.67 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co., FL 76 May-96 148 148 10.01 9a-6p 4.85 N/A 48.55 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 76 Jun-93 70 70 10.03 - 6.00 N/A 60.18 Sarasota County Sarasota Co, FL 79 Jun-93 86 86 9.77 - 4.40 N/A 42.99 Sarasota County Collier Co, FL 90 Dec-99 91 12.80 8a-6p 11.40 N/A 145.92 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 90 Dec-06 194 9.12 5.78 52.71 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 97 Jun-93 33 33 13.20 - 3.00 N/A 39.60 Sarasota CountyMarion Co, FL 102 Apr-02 167 8.02 7a-6p 5.10 N/A 40.90 Kimley-Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 105 Apr-02 169 7.23 7a-6p 7.22 N/A 52.20 Kimley-Horn & Associates Citrus Co, FL 111 Oct-03 273 8.66 7a-6p 7.70 N/A 66.68 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marion Co, FL 124 Apr-02 170 6.04 7a-6p 7.29 N/A 44.03 Kimley-Horn & Associates Lake Co, FL 126 Apr-02 217 8.50 7a-6p 8.30 N/A 70.55 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co., FL 128 May-96 205 205 8.17 9a-6p 6.03 N/A 49.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 132 Apr-02 171 7.87 7a-6p 7.00 N/A 55.09 Kimley-Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 133 Apr-02 209 8.04 7a-6p 4.92 N/A 39.56 Kimley-Horn & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 135 Jun-93 75 75 8.05 - 5.90 N/A 47.50 Sarasota County Charlotte Co, FL 135 Oct-97 230 5.30 9a-5p 7.90 N/A 41.87 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 142 Oct-97 245 5.20 9a-5p 4.10 N/A 21.32 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 150 Oct-97 160 5.00 9a-5p 10.80 N/A 54.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 152 Jun-93 63 63 8.55 - 7.30 N/A 62.42 Sarasota County Pasco Co, FL 189 Apr-02 261 7.46 8a-6p 8.99 N/A 67.07 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 193 Jun-93 123 123 6.85 - 4.60 N/A 31.51 Sarasota County Charlotte Co, FL 215 Oct-97 158 7.60 9a-5p 4.60 N/A 34.96 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Citrus Co, FL 231 Oct-03 155 5.71 7a-6p 4.82 N/A 27.52 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co., FL 232 May-96 182 182 7.24 9a-6p 5.04 N/A 36.49 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 239 Dec-06 385 7.58 8.93 67.69 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 257 Oct-97 225 7.60 9a-5p 7.40 N/A 56.24 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 282 Jun-93 146 146 6.61 - 8.40 N/A 55.52 Sarasota County Hernando Co., FL 301 May-96 264 264 8.93 9a-6p 3.28 N/A 29.29 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 306 Oct-03 146 8.40 7a-6p 3.94 N/A 33.10 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 345 Oct-97 161 7.00 9a-5p 6.60 N/A 46.20 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 364 Oct-03 345 7.20 7a-6p 9.14 N/A 65.81 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 368 Oct-97 152 6.60 9a-5p 5.70 N/A 37.62 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Citrus Co, FL 374 Oct-03 248 12.30 7a-6p 6.88 N/A 84.62 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 383 Oct-97 516 8.40 9a-5p 5.00 N/A 42.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 393 Jun-93 207 207 7.76 - 5.40 N/A 41.90 Sarasota CountyCollier Co, FL 400 Dec-99 389 7.80 8a-6p 6.40 N/A 49.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCharlotte Co, FL 441 Oct-97 195 8.20 9a-5p 4.70 N/A 38.54 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Collier Co, FL 770 Dec-99 175 4.32 8a-6p 4.96 N/A 21.41 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 1,169 Oct-97 348 6.10 9a-5p 8.00 N/A 48.80 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 10,147 Average Trip Length: 6.67 Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.43 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 7.53 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 9.57 Average VMT:55.83 Note: Georgia studies are not included in summary statistics. Location Date SourceVMTPercent New Trips# Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip LengthTotal # InterviewsSize / Units Lake Co, FL 157 Dec-06 265 265 13.97 N/A 0.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesLake Co, FL 169 Dec-06 212 8.09 N/A 0.00 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 212 Jun-93 42 42 5.78 - N/A - 0.00 Sarasota County Marion Co, FL 214 Apr-02 175 175 6.84 N/A 0.00 Kimley-Horn & Associates Lake Co, FL 226 Dec-06 301 6.74 N/A 0.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 240 Apr-02 174 174 6.96 N/A 0.00 Kimley-Horn & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 243 Jun-93 36 36 5.84 - N/A - 0.00 Sarasota County Lake Co, FL 250 Dec-06 135 135 6.71 N/A 0.00 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 288 Apr-02 175 175 5.66 N/A 0.00 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 480 Apr-02 175 175 5.73 N/A 0.00 Kimley-Horn & Associates Marion Co, FL 500 Apr-02 170 170 5.46 N/A 0.00 Kimley-Horn & Associates Total Size 2,979 Average Trip Length: N/A ITE 1,696 Weighted Average Trip Length: N/A Blended total 4,675 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.60 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.72 Blend of FL Studies and ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.64 Apartment (ITE LUC 220) Size / UnitsLocation Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Residential Condominium/Townhouse (ITE LUC 230) - Bozeman Trip Characteristics Studies Bozeman, MT 57 Jan-07 95 95 5.74 - 3.58 N/A 20.55 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Bozeman, MT 63 Dec-06 200 200 7.70 - 2.67 N/A 20.56 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 120 Average Trip Length: 3.13 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.10 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 6.77 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.86 Average VMT: 29.62 Size / Units Trip Length Percent New Trips Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time PeriodLocation Date SourceVMT 241375 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 A-3 Impact Fee Study Residential Condominium/Townhouse (ITE LUC 230) - Florida Trip Characteristics Studies Hernando Co., FL 31 May-96 31 31 6.12 9a-6p 4.98 N/A 30.5 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co., FL 128 May-96 198 198 6.47 9a-6p 5.18 N/A 33.5 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, FL 229 Apr-02 198 198 4.77 9a-6p 12.09 N/A 57.7 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, FL 248 Apr-02 353 353 4.24 9a-6p 3.53 N/A 15.0 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 636 Average Trip Length: 6.45 Weighted Average Trip Length: 7.01 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.97 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.86 Average VMT: 34.16 Location Date SourceVMTTotal # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips Size / Units Mobile Home Park (ITE LUC 240) Marion County, FL 67 Jul-91 22 22 5.40 48hrs. 2.29 N/A 12.37 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marion County, FL 82 Jul-91 58 58 10.80 24hr. 3.72 N/A 40.18 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marion County, FL 137 Jul-91 22 22 3.10 24hr. 4.88 N/A 15.13 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 188 Apr-02 147 - 3.51 24hr. 5.48 N/A 19.23 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion Co, FL 227 Apr-02 173 - 2.76 24hr. 8.80 N/A 24.29 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesSarasota Co, FL 235 Jun-93 100 100 3.51 - 5.10 N/A 17.90 Sarasota County Marion Co, FL 297 Apr-02 175 - 4.78 24hr. 4.76 N/A 22.75 Kimley-Horn & Associates Sarasota Co, FL 996 Jun-93 181 181 4.19 - 4.40 N/A 18.44 Sarasota County Hernando Co., FL 1892 May-96 425 425 4.13 9a-6p 4.13 N/A 17.06 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 4,121 Average Trip Length: 4.84 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 2.02 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.17 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 4.99 Average VMT: 20.82 Trip Length Percent New Trips Size / Units Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time PeriodLocation Date SourceVMT Pinellas Co.,FL 114 Oct-89 30 14 7.30 12-7:30p 6.20 47.0 21.27 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pinellas Co.,FL 174 Aug-89 134 106 12.50 7-11a/3-7p 6.30 79.0 62.21 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 288.0 Average Trip Length: 6.25 ITE 4760.0 Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.26 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 3.44 Blended total 5048.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 66.3 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 10.44 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 8.17 Blend of ITE & FL Studies - Average Trip Generation Rate: 8.30 Average VMT: 41.74 Hotel (ITE LUC 310) SourceSize (Rooms)Location Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Motel (ITE LUC 320) Pinellas Co.,FL 48 Oct-89 46 24 - 10a-2:20p 2.80 65.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co.,FL 54 Oct-89 32 22 - 12p-7p 3.80 69.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co.,FL 120 Oct-89 26 22 - 2p-7p 5.20 84.6 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 222 Average Trip Length: 3.93 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.34Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 2.39Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.6 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: - ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.63 Average VMT: - Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time PeriodLocation Date Size (Rooms) Movie Theater with Matinee (ITE LUC 444) Pinellas Co.,FL 8 Oct-89 151 116 113.10 2p-8p 2.70 77.0 235.13 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pinellas Co.,FL 12 Sep-89 122 116 63.40 2p-8p 1.90 95.0 114.44 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 20 Average Trip Length: 2.30 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.22 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 1.22 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 87.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 83.28 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate (per 1,000 sf): 38.00Average VMT: 174.79 Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time PeriodSize (Screens)Location Date Pinellas Co. 5.6 Aug-89 94 66 67.00 7a-6p 1.90 70.0 89.11 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co. 10.0 Sep-89 179 134 67.00 7a-6p 2.10 75.0 105.53 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar-86 28 25 - - 2.60 89.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates Total Size 15.6 Average Trip Length: 2.20 ITE 30.0 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.03 Blended total 45.6 Bozeman AdjustedTrip Length: 0.87 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 73.2 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:66.99 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 79.26 Blend of ITE & FL Studies - Average Trip Generation Rate: 75.07 Average VMT: 97.32 VMT Source Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Day Care Center (ITE LUC 565) Trip Length Percent New Trips Size (1,000 sf)Location Date 242376 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 A-4 Impact Fee Study Lakeland, FL 120 Mar-90 74 66 2.86 11a-4p 2.59 89.0 6.59 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 120 Average Trip Length: 2.59 ITE 415 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.59 ITE Blended total 535.0 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 1.11 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 89.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:2.86 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 2.37Blend of ITE & FL Studies - Average Trip Generation Rate:2.48 Average VMT: 6.59 Nursing Home (ITE LUC 620) SourceTime Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMTSize (Beds)Location Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate General Office Building (ITE LUC 710) - Bozeman Trip Characteristics Studies Bozeman, MT 39.0 Dec-06 107 107 N/A - 1.64 77.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Bozeman, MT 48.3 Dec-06 153 153 21.37 - 2.83 69.0 41.73 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Bozeman, MT 61.2 Dec-06 268 268 28.92 - 1.74 72.0 36.23 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 109.5 Average Trip Length: 2.07 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.22 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 71.0 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:25.59ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 11.01Average VMT: 38.98 Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time PeriodLocation Date Size (1,000 sf) General Office Building (ITE LUC 710) - Trip Characteristics Studies Sarasota Co, FL 14.3 Jun-93 14 14 46.85 - 11.30 - 529.41 Sarasota County Gwinnett Co., GA 98.0 12/13-18/92 - - 4.30 - 5.40 - - Street Smarts Gwinnett Co., GA 180.0 12/13-18/92 - - 3.60 - 5.90 - - Street Smarts Pinellas Co. 187.0 Oct-89 431 388 18.49 7a-5p 6.30 90.0 104.84 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSt. Petersburg, FL 262.8 Sep-89 291 274 - 7a-5p 3.40 94.0 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 742.1 Average Trip Length: 6.46 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.15Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 92.3 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:10.84 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 11.01 Average VMT: 317.12 Size (1,000 sf)Location Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Citrus Co, FL 5.3 Dec-03 20 29.36 8-5p 5.25 95.2 146.78 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Citrus Co, FL 10.0 Nov-03 340 40.56 8-630p 6.20 92.4 232.33 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 11.0 Oct-97 186 49.50 9a-5p 4.60 92.1 209.67 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Palm Harbor, FL 14.6 Oct-89 104 76 33.98 9a-5p 6.30 73.0 156.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co., FL 28.0 May-96 202 189 49.75 9a-6p 6.06 93.8 282.64 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 28.0 Oct-97 186 31.00 9a-5p 3.60 81.6 91.04 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 30.4 Oct-97 324 39.80 9a-5p 3.30 83.5 109.68 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesCitrus Co, FL 38.9 Oct-03 168 32.26 8-6p 6.80 97.1 213.03 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co., FL 58.4 May-96 390 349 28.52 9a-6p 6.47 89.5 165.09 Tindale-Oliver & Associates St. Petersburg, FL - Nov-89 34 30 57.20 9a-4p 1.20 88.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar-86 33 26 - - 6.00 79.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates Total Size 224.5 Average Trip Length: 5.07 ITE 450.0 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.55 Blended total 674.5 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 2.39 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 88.9 Bozeman Adjusted Percent New Trip Average(1):69.0 Average Trip Generation Rate:35.59 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 36.13Blend of ITE & FL Studies - Average Trip Generation Rate: 35.95 Average VMT: 178.51 Medical-Dental Office Building (ITE LUC 720) Size (1,000 sf)Location Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length (1) The percent new trips variable has been adjusted based on the relationship observed between the office land use studies conducted in Bozeman (71%) and those previously collected in the TCS Database (92%). Percent New Trips VMT Source Building Materials and Lumber Store (ITE LUC 812) Tampa, FL 86.9 Jun-93 40 - - 7a-430p 6.58 73.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Tampa, FL 98.5 Jun-93 40 - - 7a-430p 6.00 - - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Tampa, FL - Jun-93 40 - - 7a-430p 5.87 75.7 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 185.4 Average Trip Length: 6.15 Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.27 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 3.89 .74.4 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:-ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 45.16Average VMT: - VMT Source Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New TripsSize (1,000 sf)Location Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Free-Standing Discount Superstore (ITE LUC 813) Citrus Co, FL 203.6 Nov-03 236 55.01 8a-6p 5.91 91.8 298.55 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 203.6 Average Trip Length: 5.91 Weighted Average Trip Length: 5.91 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 3.66 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 91.8 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:55.01ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 49.21Average VMT: 298.55 Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT SourceLocation Date Size (1,000 sf) 243377 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 A-5 Impact Fee Study Shopping Center (ITE LUC 820) 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 & Associates Largo, FL 425.0 Aug-89 160 120 26.73 10a-6p 2.30 75.0 46.11 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Dunedin, FL 80.5 Sep-89 276 210 81.48 9a-5p 1.40 76.0 86.69 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pinellas Park, FL 696.0 Sep-89 485 388 - 9a-6p 3.20 80.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Seminole, FL 425.0 Oct-89 674 586 - - - 87.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Hillsborough Co, FL 134.0 Jul-91 - - - - 1.30 74.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Hillsborough Co, FL 151.0 Jul-91 - - - - 1.30 73.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Collier Co, FL - Aug-91 68 64 - - 3.33 94.1 0.00 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Collier Co, FL - Aug-91 208 154 - - 2.64 74.0 0.00 Tindale-Oliver & Associates St.Petersburgh,FL 132.3 Sep-92 400 368 77.00 10a-7p 1.80 92.0 127.51 Tindale-Oliver & Associates 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 & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 88.0 Oct-97 - - 73.50 9a-5p 1.80 57.1 75.56 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 191.9 Oct-97 - - 72.00 9a-5p 2.40 50.9 87.97 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Charlotte Co, FL 51.3 Oct-97 - - 43.00 9a-5p 2.70 51.8 60.08 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 67.8 Apr-01 246 177 102.60 - 3.40 71.2 248.37 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 72.3 Apr-01 444 376 65.30 - 4.50 59.0 173.37 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, FL 65.6 Apr-02 222 - 145.64 9a-5p 1.46 46.9 99.62 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, FL 75.8 Apr-02 134 - 38.23 9a-5p 2.36 58.2 52.52 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Citrus Co, FL 185.0 Oct-03 - 784 55.84 8a-6p 2.40 88.1 118.05 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Citrus Co, FL 91.3 Nov-03 - 390 54.50 8a-6p 1.60 88.0 76.77 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Bozeman, MT 104.3 Dec-06 359 359 46.96 - 3.35 49.0 77.08 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Bozeman, MT 159.9 Dec-06 502 502 56.49 - 1.56 54.0 47.59 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Bozeman, MT 35.9 Dec-06 329 329 69.30 - 1.39 74.0 71.28 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 5,757.5 Average Trip Length: 2.66 32.2 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.00 169.3 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 75.68 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:59.46ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 42.94Note: Georgia study with trip length of 8.50 is an outlier and has been excluded from weighted average trip length calculation.Average VMT: 98.47 Location Date Size (1,000 sf) Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source St.Petersburg, FL 43.0 Oct-89 152 120 - 9am-5pm 4.70 79.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Clearwater, FL 43.0 Oct-89 136 106 29.40 9am-5pm 4.50 78.0 103.19 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTotal Size 43.0 Average Trip Length: 4.60 ITE 374.0 Weighted Average Trip Length: 4.60 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 2.85 Blended total 417.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 78.5Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 29.40ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 33.34 Blend of ITE & FL Studies - Average Trip Generation Rate: 32.93 Average VMT: 103.19 New Car Sales (ITE LUC 841) Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Size (1,000 sf)Location Date Convenience Market-24hrs. (ITE LUC 851) Clearwater 2.1 Nov-89 143 50 635.24 24hr. 1.60 35.0 355.73 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion County, FL 2.5 Jun-91 94 43 787.20 48hrs. 1.52 46.2 552.80 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marion County, FL 2.5 Jun-91 74 20 714.00 48hrs. 0.75 27.0 144.59 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Largo, FL 2.5 8/15,25/89 171 116 634.80 - 1.20 68.0 518.00 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Clearwater, FL 2.5 Aug-89 237 64 690.80 - 1.60 27.0 298.43 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesGwinnett Co., GA 2.9 12/13-18/92 - - - - 2.30 48.0 - Street SmartsGwinnett Co., GA 3.2 12/13-18/92 - - - - - 37.0 - Street SmartsCollier County, FL - Aug-91 146 36 - - 2.53 24.7 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Collier County, FL - Aug-91 148 38 - - 1.08 25.7 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar-86 80 - - - 1.10 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates Total Size 18.2 Average Trip Length: 1.52 Weighted Average Trip Length: 1.52 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 0.94 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 41.3 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 694.30ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 737.99 Average VMT: 373.91 VMT Source Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New TripsLocation Date Size (1,000 sf) Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Furniture Store (ITE LUC 890) Largo, FL 15.0 7/28-30/92 64 34 - - 4.63 52.5 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTampa, FL 16.9 Jul-92 68 39 - - 7.38 55.7 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 31.9 Average Trip Length: 6.01Weighted Average Trip Length: 6.09Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 3.78Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 54.2 Average Trip Generation Rate: -ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 5.06 Average VMT: - Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time PeriodLocation Date Size (per 1,000 sf) 244378 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 A-6 Impact Fee Study Clearwater, FL 0.4 Aug-89 113 52 - 9am-6pm 5.20 46.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Largo, FL 2.0 Sep-89 129 94 192.50 - 1.60 73.0 224.84 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marion County, FL 2.3 Jun-91 69 29 680.00 24hr. 1.33 42.0 379.85 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marion County, FL 2.4 Apr-02 70 - 642.00 24hr. 3.55 54.6 1245.31 Kimley-Horn & AssociatesMarion County, FL 2.5 Jul-91 57 26 386.00 48hrs. 2.70 45.6 475.24 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Marion County, FL 2.7 May-02 50 - 246.66 24hr. 2.66 40.5 265.44 Kimley-Horn & Associates Marion County, FL 3.1 Jun-91 47 32 580.80 24hr. 1.75 68.1 692.17 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesSeminole, FL 4.5 Oct-89 - - 201.78 - - - - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Hernando Co., FL 5.4 May-96 164 41 364.72 9a-6p 2.77 24.7 249.54 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar-86 77 - - - 2.40 - - Kimley-Horn & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar-86 211 - - - - 54.0 - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesCollier County, FL - Aug-91 162 96 - 24hr. 0.88 59.3 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Collier County, FL - Aug-91 116 54 - - 1.58 46.6 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Collier County, FL - Aug-91 142 68 - - 2.08 47.9 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Total Size 25.2 Average Trip Length: 2.38 ITE 76.0 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.46 Blended total 101.2 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 1.53 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 46.2 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 393.10ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 246.49Blend of ITE & FL Studies - Average Trip Generation Rate: 281.55 Average VMT: 504.63 # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Drive-In Bank (ITE LUC 912) Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Total # Interviews Size (1,000 sf)Location Date St. Petersburg, FL 7.5 Oct-89 177 154 - 30-230/430-83 3.50 87.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Clearwater, FL 8.0 Oct-89 60 40 110.60 10-230/5-830 2.80 67.0 207.49 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Tampa, FL - Mar-86 76 62 - - 2.10 82.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates Total Size 8.0 15.5 Average Trip Length: 2.80 ITE 135.0 135.0 Weighted Average Trip Length: 3.14 Blended total 143.0 150.5 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 1.95 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 76.7 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate:110.63ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 89.95Blend of ITE & FL Studies - Average Trip Generation Rate: 91.10 Average VMT: 207.49 Quality Restaurant (ITE LUC 931) SourceTime Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMTSize (1,000 sf)Location Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Marion County, FL 1.6 Jun-91 60 32 962.50 48hrs. 0.91 53.3 466.84 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPinellas Co. 2.2 Aug-89 81 48 502.80 11am-2pm 1.70 59.0 504.31 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 2.2 Apr-01 376 252 934.30 2.50 74.6 1742.47 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, Fl 2.7 Apr-02 100 46 283.12 9a-6p 5.10 46.0 664.20 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesPasco Co, Fl 3.0 Apr-02 486 164 515.32 9a-6p 2.72 33.7 472.92 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesHernando Co, FL 3.1 May-96 168 82 547.34 9a-6p 1.59 48.8 425.04 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 3.2 Apr-01 171 182 654.90 4.10 47.8 1283.47 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Lake Co, FL 3.8 Apr-01 188 137 353.70 3.30 70.8 826.38 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesMarion County, FL 4.0 Jun-91 75 46 625.00 48hrs. 1.54 61.3 590.01 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pinellas Co. 4.3 Oct-89 456 260 660.40 1 day 2.30 57.0 865.78 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Pasco Co, Fl 4.4 Apr-02 168 120 759.24 9a-6p 1.89 71.4 1024.99 Tindale-Oliver & Associates Hernando Co., FL 5.4 May-96 136 82 311.83 9a-6p 1.68 60.2 315.27 Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTarpon Springs,FL - Oct-89 233 114 - 7am-7pm 3.60 49.0 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Collier County, FL - Aug-91 66 44 - - 1.91 66.7 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates Collier County, FL - Aug-91 118 40 - - 1.17 33.9 - Tindale-Oliver & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 61 - - - 2.70 - - Kimley-Horn & AssociatesTampa, FL - Mar-86 306 - - - - 65.0 - Kimley-Horn & Associates Total Size 39.9 Average Trip Length: 2.42 ITE 63.0 Weighted Average Trip Length: 2.05 Blended total 102.9 Bozeman Adjusted Trip Length: 1.27(less TL exclusions) 34.0 Weighted Percent New Trip Average: 57.9 Weighted Average Trip Generation Rate: 564.46 ITE Average Trip Generation Rate: 496.12 Blend of ITE & FL Studies - Average Trip Generation Rate: 522.62 Note: Studies with trip length of 5.10 and 4.10 are outliers and have been excluded from weighted average trip length calculation. Average VMT: 765.14 Size (1,000 sf)Location Date Total # Interviews # Trip Length Interviews Trip Gen Rate Time Period Trip Length Percent New Trips VMT Source Fast Food Restaurant w/Drive Thru (ITE LUC 934) 245379 APPENDIX B Cost Component Calculation 246380 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 B-1 Impact Fee Study Cost Component Calculations All information used to compute a typical cost per lane mile and a typical average daily capacity added per lane mile is presented in this Appendix. As noted, the primary sources for the city project data are recent engineer estimates and recent bids for projects being built and funded in the City of Bozeman. In the case of the state projects data, the source is the MDOT project reports for recently completed or fully programmed capacity expansion projects in the City of Bozeman. As mentioned previously, the cost calculations are based on city and state projects in the City of Bozeman (presented in Tables B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6). These projects were utilized in the calculation of the average cost per lane mile figure that is utilized in the update of the impact fee equation for the City of Bozeman. Right-Of-Way Cost City The ROW cost was developed based on two projects that are representative of future roadway improvements. Specifically, the ROW costs associated with the West Babcock Street and West Durston Road street projects were used to calculate a weighted average ROW cost per lane mile. The weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is presented in Table B-1. The weighted average ROW cost per lane mile is approximately $276,316 for city roads. Based on discussion with city staff it was noted that the City acquires right-of- way primarily through the development review process. State As mentioned in the report, ROW cost data for the South 19th Avenue and Rouse Avenue state projects are believed to be representative of typical state land acquisitions. These two projects had a weighted average ROW cost per lane mile of approximately $335,446. Given the fact that the projects evaluated include both future estimate and recent bid roadway improvements, it is expected that the recent increases in land values and recent land purchases associated with these state projects in the City of Bozeman were accounted for in the calculation, which is presented in Table B-2. The Rouse Avenue project costs are based on the acquisitions associated with the addition of a continuous left turn lane to the two-lane undivided roadway. 247381 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 B-2 Impact Fee Study Construction Cost The same projects used to calculate the respective ROW costs for city and state projects were used to determine the cost of construction. Tables B-3 and B-4 present the construction cost calculations for the city and state roads. Adjustments were made to account for the proportion of future roads based on project features expected to be representative of future City and the State projects. These adjustments were used to develop a weighted average construction cost per lane mile for both city and state roadways. Specifically, as shown in Table B-4 based on the 2001 Greater Bozeman Plan, it is estimated that the following project types will be constructed by the City of Bozeman. • New construction of two travel lanes and a continuous left turn lane (three-lane section) (16 percent). • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway where the city only pays for the addition of the third lane (three-lane section) (28 percent). • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway that is either a reconstruction of the existing lanes or an offset (three-lane section) (26 percent). • The addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five lane section) (30 percent). Similarly, based on the 2001 Greater Bozeman Plan, MDOT will construct the following project types within the City of Bozeman city limits. • The addition of a continuous left turn lane along a two-lane undivided roadway (three lane section) (26 percent) • The addition of two travel lanes to an existing two-lane divided roadway (five lane section) (74 percent) Again, based on a review of the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Recommended Major Improvements Plan projects (specifically for programmed projects) and consultation with City staff, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the City will build in the future will consist of urban design cross-sections. It should be noted that 248382 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 B-3 Impact Fee Study design costs are estimated to be 8.5 percent of construction for city roads and 10 percent for state roads, based on discussions with the City and MDOT staff, respectively. This estimate is based on design cost percentages observed on recently bid city and state projects. 249383 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 B-4 Impact Fee Study Table B-1 City of Bozeman Roadway Projects (in 2006 Dollars)(1) 1 West Babcock StMain StYellowstone Ave Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes Recent Bid Urban0.910.9$200,000$222,2222 West Durston Rd N 19th AveFowler AveAdd Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes Recent Bid Urban1.011.0$325,000$325,000Total1.90$525,000 $276,316 (a)Project Status Description From FeatureLength (Miles) ToTotal Lane Miles Lanes AddedSection Design Project NumberROW CostROW Cost per Lane Mile (1) Source: City of Bozeman Engineering Division Table B-2 State Roadway Projects in the City of Bozeman (in 2006 Dollars) (1) 4952 S 19th AveBabcock St Kagy BlvdAdd Lanes and Reconstruct 3-5 Lanes Future Estimate Urban1.32 2.6 $708,750 $272,596 $8,113,987 $3,120,764(b)4805 Rouse Ave Main St Story Mill Rd Add Lanes and Reconstruct 2-3 Lanes Future Estimate Urban2.01 2.0 $834,300 $417,150 N/A N/ATotal4.6$1,543,050 $335,446 N/A N/A(a)MDOT Project NumberProject Status Lanes AddedFeatureLength (Miles) ToSection Design FromROW CostROW Cost per Lane MileDescriptionConstruction Cost CST Cost per Lane MileTotal Lane Miles (1) Source: Montana Department of Transportation Project Reports 250384 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 B-5 Impact Fee Study Table B-3 Weighted Average Construction Cost City Roads (2 to 3 Lane Sections – Offset and Reconstruction) (in 2006 Dollars) Jurisdiction Project Feature Cost per Lane Mile(3)Weight(4) Weighted Cost per Lane Mile(5) Full Reconstruct with Added Turn Lane(1)$4,800,000 19% $912,000 Offset(2) $4,200,000 81% $3,402,000 City Weighted Construction Cost per Lane Mile (2 to 3 Lanes)(6):$4,314,000 City (1) Full reconstruction estimates that the City pays 100 percent for reconstructing the existing two lanes, adding, the third lane, new curb/gutter/sidewalk on one side (existing to remain on the other side), and all associated roadway costs. Note, the cost includes the addition of the third lane and the cost per lane mile for adding a travel lane (2) Offset construction estimates reasonable and usable sub-base on existing lanes overlaid with three-quarter inch of new asphalt. It also includes the cost of striping, new signals, drainage needs, and utility extensions to make the roadway segment functional (3) Cost per lane mile derived based on a review of quantities associated with each improvement type using unit prices from recently bid city projects (4) Source: 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan projects adjusted by city staff and consultant comments and review (5) Cost per lane mile (Item 3) multiplied by weight (Item 4) for city project features (6) Sum of weighted cost per lane mile (Item 5) for city 2 to 3 lane projects 251385 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 B-6 Impact Fee Study Table B-4 Weighted Average Construction Cost City and State Roads (in 2006 Dollars) Jurisdiction Project FeatureCost per Lane Mile Weight(7)Weighted Cost per Lane Mile(8)0-3 Lanes(1)$1,900,00016%$304,0002-3 Lanes - New Road City Contribution(2)$1,500,00028%$420,0002-3 Lanes - Offset and Reconstruction(3)$4,314,000 26% $1,121,6403-5 Lanes(4)$3,120,764 30% $936,229City Total Weighted Construction Cost per Lane Mile(9):$2,781,8692-3 Lanes(5)$4,314,000 26% $1,121,6403-5 Lanes(6)$3,120,764 74% $2,309,365State Total Weighted Construction Cost per Lane Mile(10):$3,431,005CityState (1) This improvement type estimates that the City pays for the cost associated with all three brand new lanes in a corridor where no road currently exists. These improvements will be constructed along corridors with no anticipated adjacent development to pay for the construction of the two new lanes consistent with the city code (2) This improvement type estimates that the City only pays for the costs associated with a third lane in a corridor where no road currently exists. Given current city policy, the developer pays for the new construction of the two travel lanes associated with this improvement type (3) Source: Table B-3 (4) Source: Table B-2, Item (b) (5) Source: Table B-3 (6) Source: Table B-2, Item (b) (7) Source: 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan projects adjusted by city staff and consultant comments and review (8) Cost per lane mile multiplied by weight (Item 7) for city and state project features (9) Sum of weighted cost per lane mile (Item 8) for city project features (10) Sum of weighted cost per lane mile (Item 8) for state project features252386 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 B-7 Impact Fee Study Table B-5 Lane Mile Distribution Jurisdiction Lane Mile Distribution(1) City 84% State 16% (1) Source: 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan projects adjusted by city staff and consultant comments and review Table B-6 Weighted Average Cost per Lane Mile (in 2006 Dollars) Cost Type City Roads State Roads City and State Roads(5) Design (1) $236,459 $343,101 $253,522 Construction(2) $2,781,869 $3,431,005 $2,885,731 Right-of-Way(3) $276,316 $335,446 $285,777 CEI(4)$236,459 $343,101 $253,522 Total $3,531,103 $4,452,653 $3,678,552 (1) City roads estimated at 8.5 percent and state roads at 10 percent based on discussion with City and MDOT staff respectively (2) Source: Table B-4 for city and state roads respectively. (3) Source: Table B-1, Item (a) for city roads and Table B-2, Item (a) for state roads (4) City roads estimated at 8.5 percent and state roads at 10 percent of construction cost based on discussion with City and MDOT staff respectively (5) Lane Mile distribution from Table B-5 (84 percent city, 16 percent state), multiplied by the design, construction, CEI, and ROW phase costs by jurisdiction to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile 253387 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 B-8 Impact Fee Study Table B-7 City of Bozeman Capacity Calculations Jurisdiction Project FeatureInitial Capacity(5)Final Capacity(6)Capacity Added(7)Lanes Added(8)Capacity Added per Lane Mile(9)Weight(10)Weighted Capacity Added per Lane Mile(11)0-3 Lanes(1)022,50022,50037,50016%1,2002-3 Lanes - New Road City Contribution(2)15,00022,5007,50017,50028%2,1002-3 Lanes - Offset and Reconstruction(3)15,000 22,500 7,500 1 7,50026%1,9503-5 Lanes(4)22,500 43,750 21,250 2 10,62530%3,188City Weighted Average Capacity Added(12)8,4382-3 Lanes(3)15,000 22,500 7,500 1 7,500 26% 1,9503-5 Lanes(4)22,500 43,750 21,250 2 10,625 74% 7,863State Weighted Average Capacity Added(13)9,813CityState (1) Project includes the initial construction of two travel lanes and addition of a continuous left turn lane to a two lane undivided roadway (2) Project includes the addition of a continuous left turn lane to a two lane undivided roadway. This project type estimates that the city will only contribute the funds associated with the addition of the third lane with the developer construction the first two lanes (3) Project includes the addition of a continuous left turn lane to a two lane undivided roadway (4) Project includes the addition of two travel lanes to a two lane divided roadway (5) Source: Table 4-1, 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan, ideal management condition volumes (6) Source: Table 4-1, 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan, ideal management condition volumes (7) Final capacity (Item 6) less initial capacity (Item 5) (8) Total lanes added based on project feature (9) Capacity added (Item 7) divided by lanes added (Item 8) (10) Source: 2001 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan projects adjusted by city staff and consultant comments and review (11) Capacity added per lane mile (Item 9) multiplied by weight (Item 10) for city project features (0 to 3 Lanes, 2 to 3 Lanes and 3 to 5 Lanes) (12) Sum of weighted capacity added per lane mile (Item 11) for city project features (13) Sum of weighted capacity added per lane mile (Item 11) for state project features 254388 APPENDIX C Credit Component Calculations 255389 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 C-1 Impact Fee Study Montana Department of Transportation Fuel Tax Distribution Currently, the primary source of revenue for capacity expansion projects in the City of Bozeman is the impact fees and federal and state gas tax revenues. As discussed in the report, the city is allocated a portion of the federal and state gas tax revenues using a formula that accounts for lane miles and population as outlined in MCA 15-70-101. Ad valorem is another source of revenue and is presented in Appendix D of this report. 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. It should be noted that the fuel tax distribution was calculated for Gallatin County since the impact fee is based on consumption of capacity on all roads regardless of ownership (city, county, and state), the revenue credit id applied to new development in the same manner. • Estimating the value per penny using the 2006 gross gasoline tax of $135,162,030 divided by 27 pennies • Calculating the value per penny per penny of gas tax • Estimating the fuel tax distribution in Gallatin County based on the value per penny per person multiplied by the 2006 population estimate Table C-1 MDOT Fuel Tax Distribution per Penny Item Value Value per Penny - State of Montana(1)$5,006,001 State of Montana 2006 Population Estimate(2)942,500 Value per Penny per Person(3)$5.31 Gallatin County 2006 Population Estimate(4)80,470 MDOT Fuel Tax Distribution per Penny to Gallatin County (5)$427,296 (1) Montana Department of Transportation (2), (4) 2006 population estimate obtained by applying the 2000-2005 average annual growth rate; 2000 population obtained from Census, 2005 population estimate provided by the Montana Department of Commerce, Census and Economics Information Center. (3) Value per penny (Item 1) divided by the 2006 population (Item 2). (5) Value per penny per person (Item 3) multiplied Gallatin County 2006 population (Item 4)/ 256390 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 C-2 Impact Fee Study Gas Tax Credit City Portion A review of the City’s roadway projects and its funding sources reveals that the City uses all gas tax revenues on maintenance projects only. Because no capacity expansion projects are funded with this source now, or in the foreseeable future, no gas tax credit can be applied for City spending. State Portion In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, the MDOT Work Program was reviewed for capacity expansion projects in the City of Bozeman, as well as Gallatin County, for the 9-year period from 2000 to 2008. The two years of “future” roadway projects from the currently adopted 2007-2008 Work Program indicate a total state expenditure of almost $26.4 million for capacity-adding projects in the city and county. The specific State projects that were utilized in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Tables C-2 through C-3. On an annual basis, this level of expenditure is equivalent to 30.8 pennies of gas tax revenue. Comparatively, the total cost of the capacity-adding projects for the 7-year “historical” period from 2000 to 2006 equates to 4.3 pennies. The combined weighted average over the 9-year total of state expenditures in the City for capacity-adding roadway projects results in a total equivalency of 10.2 pennies. Table C-4 documents this calculation. Note that because most of the construction expenditures for the projects included in this analysis are programmed for construction in 2007 and 2008, the historical expenditures consist primarily of design costs only. 257391 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc City of Bozeman October 2007 C-3 Impact Fee Study Table C-2 MDOT FY 2000 - 2006 Work Program – City of Bozeman and Gallatin County Expansion Projects Project NumberDescription On/From/To 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total City of Bozeman Capacity Expansion Projects4918 Intersection Upgrade/Signals S 19th & College $0 $0 $616 $47,787 $75,924 $23,009 $79,511 $226,8474555 Intersection Upgrade/Signals Citywide $0 $5,652 $26,883 $22,333 $9,743 $13,526 $11,862 $89,9994713 Intersection Upgrade/Signals Signal- 19th & Koch $0 $0 $1,922 $10,142 $11,566 $14,346 $3,178 $41,1545376 Intersection Upgrade/Signals College St Signal $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,760 $16,902 $43,264 $76,9264952 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Babcock to Kagy $0 $0 $2,245 $669 $4,457 $5,696 $152,967 $166,0344805 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Rouse Ave $0 $0 $905 $2,153 $4,958 $41,018 $582,145 $631,179Gallatin County Capacity Expansion Projects4471 Intersection Upgrade/Signals Main & Jackrabbit $695 $3,855 $118,601 $109,155 $52,720 $106,867 $3,508,755 $3,900,6484008 Add Turn Lanes Little Bear Rd $39,009 $16,416 $51,300 $18,654 $904,308 $0 $0 $1,029,6874009 Intersection Upgrade/Signals US 20/US 191 Int $10,241 $55,725 $1,047,018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,112,9844026 Add Turn Lanes Turn Bays-S of Belgrade $33,371 $32,822 $15,468 $651,732 $0 $0 $0 $733,3934306 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Four Corners-North $615 $124,940 $135,913 $36,258 $44 $63,033 $139,207 $500,0104433 Add Turn Lanes W of Bozeman $0 $23,320 $23,025 $25,859 $73,426 $1,516,029 $0 $1,661,6594179 Intersection Upgrade/Signals 19th & Main$7,805 $61,508 $80,289 $56,445 $2,508,746 $0 ($2,000) $2,712,793Total $91,736 $324,238 $1,504,185 $981,187 $3,662,652 $1,800,426 $4,518,889 $12,883,313 Source: Montana Department of Transportation 258392 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc City of Bozeman October 2007 C-4 Impact Fee Study Table C-3 MDOT FY 2007 - 2008 Work Program – City of Bozeman and Gallatin County Expansion Projects (1) Project NumberDescription On/From/To 2007 2008 Total City of Bozeman Capacity Expansion Projects4918 Intersection Upgrade/Signals S. 19th & College $3,962,423 $0 $3,962,4234555 Intersection Upgrade/Signals Citywide Signals - Bozeman $3,016,634 $0 $3,016,6344713 Intersection Upgrade/Signals Signal - 19th & Koch - Bozeman $232,737 $0 $232,7375376 Intersection Upgrade/Signals 2002- College Street Signal - Bozeman $278,769 $0 $278,7694952 Add Lanes & Reconstruct S. 19th Ave. from Babcock St. to Kagy Blvd. - Bozeman $0 $9,263,758 $9,263,7584805Add Lanes & Reconstruct(2)Rouse Avenue from Main St. to Story Mill Rd. - Bozeman $411,451 $0 $411,451Gallatin County Capacity Expansion Projects4306 Add Lanes & Reconstruct Four Corners- North $7,193 $9,164,693 $9,171,886Total $7,909,207 $18,428,451 $26,337,658 (1) Source: Montana Department of Transportation (2) Based on discussion with city staff, the construction phase of this project has been postponed until beyond 2011. As such the revenue credit has been adjusted accordingly. Table C-4 Equivalent Penny Calculation for State Portion (1) SourceCost of Projects(2)Number of YearsGas Tax Distribution to Gallatin County(3)Annual Revenue(4)Equivalent PenniesHistorical Work Program (2000-2006) $12,883,313 7$427,296 $1,840,473 $0.043Future Work Program (2007-2008) $26,337,6582$427,296 $13,168,829 $0.308Total $39,220,971 9$427,296 $4,357,886 $0.102 (1) Source: Montana Department of Transportation (2) Source: Table C-2 for the historical work program and Table C-3 for the future work program (3) Source: Table C-1 (4) Total cost of projects (Item 2) divided by number of years. 259393 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 C-5 Impact Fee Study Table C-5 Average Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency – Excluding Interstate Travel (1) 19.7 6.7 @ 19.7 mpg @ 6.7 mpgOther Arterial Rural356,437,241,650 40,123,037,750 396,560,279,400 90% 10%Other Rural348,080,891,010 28,852,429,199 376,933,320,209 92% 8%Other Urban1,414,612,160,557 62,088,922,445 1,476,701,083,001 96% 4%Total 2,119,130,293,217 131,064,389,393 2,250,194,682,610 94% 6%Gallons @ 19.7 mpg Gallons @ 6.7 mpg 2,250,195 miles (millions)Other Arterial Rural18,093,260,997 5,988,513,097 24,081,774,094 127,132 gallons (millions)Other Rural17,669,080,762 4,306,332,716 21,975,413,478 17.70 mpgOther Urban71,807,723,886 9,267,003,350 81,074,727,236 Total 107,570,065,645 19,561,849,163 127,131,914,808 Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) @Fuel ConsumedTravelPercent VMTTotal Mileage and Fuel (1) Source: Table VM-1 (Section V) of the document, Highway Statistics 2005, Office of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C (See Table C-6) 260394 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 C-6 Impact Fee Study Table C-6 Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled and Related Data – By Highway Category and Vehicle Type (1) SUBTOTALSSINGLE-UNIT PASSENGER SINGLE-UNIT ALLYEAR ITEM OTHER 2-AXLE 6-TIRE CARS 2-AXLE 6-TIRE MOTORPASSENGER MOTOR- BUSES2-AXLE 4-TIREOR MORE COMBINATION AND OR MORE AND VEHICLESCARS CYCLES VEHICLES 2/ TRUCKS 3/ TRUCKS OTHER 2-AXLE COMBINATION4-TIRE VEHICLESTRUCKS Motor-Vehicle Travel: (millions of vehicle-miles)2005 Interstate Rural 122,470 1,433 971 82,208 7,758 43,950 204,679 51,708 258,7902004 129,415 1,354 999 83,181 7,713 43,583 212,596 51,296 266,2452005 Other Arterial Rural 208,127 1,411 961 148,310 14,102 26,021356,437 40,123398,9322004 217,495 1,435 992 148,802 14,276 26,414 366,297 40,690 409,4132005 Other Rural 208,472 1,624 1,658 139,609 14,716 14,136348,081 28,852380,2152004 217,599 1,593 1,700 142,532 15,028 14,316 360,131 29,344 392,7682005 All Rural 539,070 4,467 3,589 370,127 36,577 84,107 909,197 120,683 1,037,9372004 564,509 4,381 3,691 374,515 37,017 84,313 939,024 121,330 1,068,4262005 Interstate Urban 259,602 2,296 964 166,144 10,492 29,572 425,746 40,063 469,0702004 258,666 2,089 986 155,714 9,729 28,355 414,379 38,083 455,5382005 Other Urban 891,293 4,006 2,093 523,319 32,105 29,9841,414,612 62,0891,482,8002004 876,715 3,652 2,124 496,935 31,696 29,702 1,373,651 61,398 1,440,8242005 All Urban 1,150,895 6,302 3,057 689,463 42,597 59,556 1,840,359 102,152 1,951,8702004 1,135,381 5,741 3,110 652,649 41,424 58,056 1,788,030 99,481 1,896,3622005 Total Rural and Urban 1,689,965 10,770 6,646 1,059,590 79,174 143,662 2,749,555 222,836 2,989,8072004 1,699,890 10,122 6,801 1,027,164 78,441 142,370 2,727,054 220,811 2,964,7882005 Number of motor vehicles 136,568,083 6,227,146 807,053 95,336,839 6,395,240 2,086,759 231,904,922 8,481,999 247,421,1202004 registered 4/ 136,430,651 5,767,934 795,274 91,845,327 6,161,028 2,010,335 228,275,978 8,171,364 243,010,5502005 Average miles traveled 12,375 1,729 8,235 11,114 12,380 68,845 11,856 26,272 12,0842004 per vehicle 12,460 1,755 8,552 11,184 12,732 70,819 11,946 27,023 12,2002005 Person-miles of travel 5/ 2,670,145 13,677 140,910 1,836,988 79,174 143,662 4,507,133 222,836 4,884,5572004 (millions) 2,685,827 12,855 144,188 1,780,771 78,441 142,370 4,466,598 220,811 4,844,4522005 Fuel consumed 6/ 73,870,371 215,393 1,329,254 65,419,170 9,042,283 24,410,512 139,289,541 33,452,796 174,286,9842004 (thousand gallons) 75,401,891 202,447 1,360,178 63,417,148 8,958,622 24,190,904 138,819,039 33,149,526 173,531,1902005 Average fuel consumption per 541 35 1,647 686 1,414 11,698 601 3,944 7042004 vehicle (gallons) 6/ 553 35 1,710 690 1,454 12,033 608 4,057 7142005 Average miles traveled per 22.9 50.0 5.0 16.2 8.8 5.919.7 6.717.22004 gallon of fuel consumed 6/ 22.5 50.0 5.0 16.2 8.8 5.9 19.6 6.7 17.1 1/ The 50 states and the District of Columbia report travel by highway category, number of motor vehicles registered, and total fuel consumed. The travel and fuel data by vehicle type and stratification of trucks are estimated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Entries for 2004 may have been revised based on the availability of more current data. Estimation procedures include use of State-supplied data, the 2002 Census of Transportation Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS), and other sources. Some States may still be using 1990 Census-based urbanized area boundaries which may in turn affect highway data by category. 2/ Other 2-Axle 4-Tire Vehicles which are not passenger cars. These include vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles. 3/ Single-Unit 2-Axle 6-Tire or More Trucks on a single frame with at least two axles and six tires. 4/ Truck registration figures are from tables MV-1 and MV-9 with truck distribution estimated by the FHWA using the 2002 VIUS. 5/ Vehicle occupancy is estimated by the FHWA from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) with nominal values for heavy trucks. 6/ Total fuel consumption figures are from tables MF-21 and MF-27. Distribution by vehicle type is estimated by the FHWA based on miles per gallon for both diesel and gasoline powered vehicles using State-supplied data, the 2002 VIUS, and other sources with nominal values for motorcycles and buses (revised). 261395 APPENDIX D Transportation Ad Valorem Credit Calculations 262396 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 D-1 Impact Fee Study This Appendix presents the calculations used to determine the credit due to ad valorem tax revenues being used to fund capacity expansion projects. The following sections provide an explanation of credit calculations. Residential Land Uses In determining the ad valorem credit for residential land uses, the study evaluated recent single family home sales and determined the taxable value of a home. Discussions with the City of Bozeman Chamber of Commerce provided a typical home value that could be used for estimating the ad valorem credit for residential land uses. Staff at the Chamber of Commerce provided information regarding recent home sales in the City of Bozeman. Based on this review of sales information, the average market value of a single family home was estimated at $346,112. To determine, the average taxable value of a single family home, the relationship between market and taxable values for non-residential uses was evaluated. Based on this analysis, a taxable value of approximately $211,000 was used for single family homes in the City of Bozeman. It should be noted that the ad valorem revenues used for transportation capital projects are estimated as a percentage of the City’s ad valorem revenues based on the General Obligation Bond being used by the City of Bozeman to finance transportation improvements. Over the next five years and beyond, this amount is projected to be approximately four percent per year based on the capacity expansion expenditures of the General Obligation Bond (specifically the ad valorem revenues being used to retire this debt). Table D-1 presents the projected ad valorem contributions of a new home over a 24- year period, beginning with the 2006 taxable value of approximately $211,000. An eight percent annual increase is applied to provide a generous credit (which results on a conservative impact fee) for the increase in the value of homes in the City of Bozeman. This is based on the increase in taxable values observed between 2002 and 2006. The resulting ad valorem taxes are brought to present value based on an interest rate of 4.6 percent, which is consistent with the interest rate at which the City currently borrows. Table D-1 also provides the portion of the ad valorem collections that would be applied toward transportation capital expansion projects, and the total credit per square foot. 263397 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 D-2 Impact Fee Study Table D-1 Ad Valorem Credit Calculation for Single Family Home Land Use (Based on Taxable Value) Total allocation from the General Fund FY 2007(1)$6,993,655 City General Fund Millage(2)110.57 Revenues generated from 1-mil(3)$63,251 Annual ad valorem revenue that goes to transportation capacity(4)$271,417 Total mills dedicated transportation capacity(5)4.29 Percentage of millage used for transportation capacity addition projects(6)4% Average value of a home subject to tax(7)$211,128 Annual increase in citywide taxable values(8)8% Value Used Ad Valorem Present for Credit for Transportation(10)Value(11) 2007 $211,128 $211 $8 $8 2008 $7 $7 2009 $6 $5 2010 $6 $5 2011 $6 $5 2012 $6 $5 2013 $6 $5 2014 $6 $4 2015 $6 $4 2016 $6 $4 2017 $6 $4 2018 $6 $4 2019 $6 $3 2020 $6 $3 2021 $6 $3 2022 $6 $3 2023 $6 $3 2024 $6 $3 2025 $6 $3 2026 $6 $3 2027 $6 $2 2028 $6 $2 2029 $6 $2 2030 $6 $2 Total $147 $92 Square footage(12)2,219 Credit per square foot $0.04 Interest Rate(13)4.6% Period 24 Year 1-Mil Tax (9) 264398 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 D-3 Impact Fee Study (1) Source: City of Bozeman FY 2006-2007 Approved Budget; General Fund allocation obtained by attributing 68 percent of the total property taxes levied in 2007 to the General Fund (General Fund Levy of 110.57 divided by Total Levies of 163.42 is 68%) (2) Total millage assessed to city residents within Bozeman applied to the General Fund. (3) Total allocation from the ad valorem FY 07 (Item 1) divided by City’s millage rate (Item 2). (4) Portion of the General Obligation Bond being used for capacity expansion. (5) Annual ad valorem that goes to transportation capacity (Item 4) divided by revenue generated by 1-mil (Item 3). (6) Total mills dedicated to transportation capacity (Item 5) divided by city general fund millage (Item 2). (7) Source: Market value obtained from discussions with local realtors and adjusted to taxable value (39%) (8) Annual increase in total citywide taxable values between 2002 and 2006 in the City of Bozeman. (9) Average home value used for credit divided by 1,000. (10) 1-mil tax (Item 8) multiplied by the percentage dedicated to transportation capital additions (Item 5). (11) Present value of the ad valorem for transportation (Item 9) based on an annual interest rate of 4.6 percent (Item 12). (12) Average size of a home based on 2004 sales. (13) 4.6 percent discount rate is used based on discussions with the City’s Finance Department To determine the credit for other residential uses (with the exception of multi-family), ad valorem credit per square foot is calculated based on the above table ($0.04 per square foot) and multiplied by the average size of each category. The average size is determined based on home size information obtained from the Montana Department of Revenue. Non-Residential Land Uses Table D-2 provides an explanation of how the ad valorem credit was calculated for non- residential land uses. It should be noted that the ad valorem credit calculations for these land uses represent broad estimates based on data obtained from the Montana Department of Revenue, as available, and the Consultant’s experience in other jurisdictions and knowledge of the industry. 265399 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 D-4 Impact Fee Study Table D-2 Ad Valorem Credit Calculation for Non-Residential Land Uses ITE LUC Land Use UnitTaxable Value(1)Annual Portion to Expansion(2)Total Ad Valorem Credit (3)110 Industrial sq ft $66,020 $2.64 $19.82150 Warehouse sq ft $44,080 $1.76 $13.90151 Mini Warehouse sq ft $59,840 $2.39 $18.65220 Multi-Family sq ft $135,391 $5.42 $42.47310 Hotel room $23,884 $0.96 $7.47320 Motel sq ft $17,913 $0.72 $5.64411 City Park acre $85,000 $3.40 $26.59430 Golf Course hole $595,000 $23.80 $186.25444 Movie Theater sf $300,000 $12.00 $93.94520 Schools student $40,000 $1.60 $12.47565 Daycare Center sq ft $222,000 $8.88 $69.47610 Hospital sq ft $255,500 $10.22 $79.92620 Nursing Home bed $20,000 $0.80 $6.25710 Office (Multiple stories) sq ft $88,970 $3.56 $27.86720 Medical Office sq ft $63,440 $2.54 $19.91812 Building/Lumber Storage sq ft $15,680 $0.63 $4.95813 Discount Store sq ft $60,120 $2.40 $18.68820 Retail/Office (1-2 stories) sq ft $62,510 $2.50 $19.62851 Convenience Store sq ft $91,140 $3.65 $28.58912 Banks sq ft $121,980 $4.88 $38.19931 Quality Restaurant sq ft $100,820 $4.03 $31.59934 Fast-Food Restaurant sq ft $127,410 $5.10 $39.92 (1) Source: Montana Department of Revenue (2) Annual ad valorem credit based on one percent dedication to capacity expansion expenditures. (3) Total ad valorem credit based over a 25-year period in present day dollars. 266400 APPENDIX E Analysis of Travel Behavior of Low-Income Households 267401 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 E-1 Impact Fee Study Analysis of the Travel Behavior of Low-Income Households The City of Bozeman has begun the process of evaluating workforce and affordable housing options within the city planning process. To accommodate this, an analysis was completed on the comparative relationship between housing unit size and household travel behavior. In addition, an analysis was completed on the travel behavior of lower income households. These analyses utilized data from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and the 2005 American Housing Survey (AHS) to examine the overall trip-making characteristics of low-income households in the United States. Table E-1 presents the existing trip characteristics being utilized in the proposed impact fee schedule for the Single Family (Detached) subcategory. The 2001 NHTS database was used to assess average annual household vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for various annual household income levels. In addition, the 2005 AHS database was used to compare median annual family/household incomes with housing unit size. It is important to recognize that the use of the income variable in each of these databases is completed simply to provide a convenient linking mechanism between household VMT from the NHTS and housing unit size from the AHS. This review helped develop three potential tiers for the Single Family (Detached) category based on ranges of housing unit size: less than 1,500 sf, 1,500 to 2,499 sf, and 2,500 sf or more. The results of the analyses of these two sources are included in Tables E-2 and E-4. First, the data shown in Table E-2 indicate that the median income in the U.S. for families/ households living in housing units smaller than 1,500 square feet in size ($34,579) is significantly lower than even the overall median income for the U.S. ($49,702). Then, in Table E-4, annual average household VMT was calculated from the NHTS database for a number of different income levels and ranges related to the resulting AHS income data in Table E-2. These ranges are selected based on the reporting of NHTS data in income ranges of $4,999 increments (i.e. $30,000 to $34,999). In addition, annual average household VMT was calculated for two additional income levels based on the 2007 Gallatin County definitions for low income (<$46,720) and very low income (<$29,200) households, based on a household size of 4 persons as shown in Table E-3. The results of these analyses indicate that the most logical income-restricted categories to utilize in conjunction with the smallest Single Family (Detached) housing unit size is the 268402 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 E-2 Impact Fee Study less-than-$46,720 (i.e., median of $23,360 category from Table E-4) and the less-than- $29,200 (i.e., median of $14,600 category from Table E-4) segments. In order to calculate a corresponding trip rate for these new subcategories, however, it was necessary to rely on comparative ratios. The term median is used since as mentioned previously, the NHS data is stratified in increments and the specific income level was estimated using an interpolation procedure. As an example, consider the subcategory for the Single Family (Detached) that is less than 1,500 sf and low income. First, it was determined that the average annual household VMT for the median income level of the less-than-$46,720 segment (median of $23,360 category from Table E-4) is 16,701 miles. This figure was then compared to the overall average annual VMT per household in the U.S., normalized to the median-of-$57,167 (28,541 miles) category to derive a ratio of 0.585. Next, this ratio was applied to the daily VMT for the average Single Family (Detached) housing unit size (i.e., 1,500 to 2,499 s.f.) to generate a daily VMT of 19.71 for the new subcategory, as shown in Table E-5. This daily VMT figure was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 3.52 miles to obtain a typical trip rate of 5.60 trips per day. 1 It should be noted that the second income-restricted subcategory was derived in this same manner for the Single Family (Detached) residential land use category of less than 1,500 s.f. and very low income, or annual household income of less than $29,200 (using the normalized ratio to the mean for the median of $14,600 income category from Table E-4). The travel rate calculations for this subcategory are the same as that described previously for the other new subcategory. The calculated daily trip rate for this subcategory is 3.88 trips. Then, these two trip rates were placed in the impact fee schedule to generate a net impact fee value for the new “income-restricted” subcategories. Table E-6 illustrates the impact that the incorporation of the housing unit size and low- income tiers for the Single Family (Detached) land use has on the City’s proposed impact fee schedule. As shown in the table, the net impact fee for a housing unit of less than 1,500 square feet and very low income is $2,171. The net impact fee for a housing unit of less than 1,500 square feet and low income is $3,147. 1 Assessable trip length is assumed to be 3.52 miles based on the trip characteristics studies performed in the City of Bozeman. 269403 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 E-3 Impact Fee Study Table E-1 Proposed Values Excluding Tiering Assessable Daily Ratio Trip Rate Trip Length VMT to Mean Single Family (Detached) 9.57 3.52 33.69 1.00 Source: Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. Table E-2 Table E-3 2005 AHS Median Income Data by Annual City of Bozeman Housing Unit Size (US) Income SHIP Definitions Less than 1,500 sf $34,579 1,500 to 2,499 sf $57,167 Median income ---> $58,400 2,500 sf or more $80,889 Low income ---> Less than $46,720 Mean of All Housing Unit Sizes $49,702 Very low income ---> Less than $29,200 Table E-4 2001 NHTS Travel Data by Annual Daily Ratio Normalized Annual HH Income (US) VMT/HH Days VMT to Mean to 1.128 Median of $14,600 11,559 365 31.67 0.457 0.405 Median of $23,360 16,701 365 45.76 0.660 0.585 Median of $34,579 20,976 365 57.47 0.829 0.735 Mean --->Total 25,294 365 69.30 1.000 Median of $57,167 28,541 365 78.19 1.128 1.000 Median of $80,889 32,285 365 88.45 1.276 1.131 Source: 2001 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration. Table E-5 Estimation of Trip Rate By Tier Assessable Daily Ratio Trip Rate Trip Length VMT to Mean Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low income 3.88 3.52 13.64 0.405 Less than 1,500 sf and low income 5.60 3.52 19.71 0.585 Less than 1,500 sf 7.03 3.52 24.76 0.735 Mean --->1,500 to 2,499 sf 9.57 3.52 33.69 1.000 2,500 sf or larger 10.82 3.52 38.10 1.131 Table E-6 Impact of Tiering on Fee Schedule Assessable Daily Net Trip Rate Trip Length VMT Fee Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf and very low income 3.88 3.52 13.64 $2,171 Less than 1,500 sf and low income 5.60 3.52 19.71 $3,147 Less than 1,500 sf 7.03 3.52 24.76 $3,968 Mean --->1,500 to 2,499 sf 9.57 3.52 33.69 $5,396 2,500 sf or larger 10.82 3.52 38.10 $6,082 Source: American Housing Survey for the United States in 2005, U.S. Census Bureau, Table 2-18. Source: Gallatin County Average Median Income - "Road to Home" - Downpayment Assistance Program . Very low income is define as 50 percent of the median income and low income is 80 percent of the median income for a family of four persons. 270404 APPENDIX F Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 271405 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 F-1 Impact Fee Study Table F-1 Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Non CBD) Unit Construction Cost: $3,678,552$0.102 Capacity per lane mile: 8,658 Interstate Adjustment Factor: 15%25 Fuel Efficiency: 17.70 mpgCost per VMC: $424.874.6% Effective days per year: 365Recommended Assessable Total Recommended Recommended% New Total Annual Gas Ad Net Current Fee PercentITE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length % New Trips Net Impact Gas Tax Valorem Impact (100%) Increase/LUC Unit Rate Source Length Length Source Trips SourceVMT(1)Cost Tax Credit Credit Fee 1996 Study DecreaseRESIDENTIAL:210 Single Family (Detached)Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(2)du 3.88ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 5.80 $2,466 $16 $235 $60.00 $2,171 $2,241 97%Less than 1,500 sf and low income(3)du 5.60ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 8.38 $3,559 $24 $352 $60.00 $3,147 $2,241 140%Less than 1,500 sf du 7.03ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 10.52 $4,468 $30 $440 $60.00 $3,968 $2,241 177%1,500 to 2,499 sf du 9.57ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 14.32 $6,083 $40 $587 $100.00 $5,396 $2,241 241%2,500 sf or larger du 10.82ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 16.19 $6,877 $46 $675 $120.00 $6,082 $2,241 271%220 Apartments du 6.64Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies3.10 3.60Same as LUC 230100% n/a 8.75 $3,717 $25 $367 $10.51 $3,339 $1,519 220%230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du 5.86 ITE 7th Edition 3.10 3.60Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 7.72 $3,280 $22 $323 $10.51 $2,946 $1,519 194%240 Mobile Home Park du 4.99 ITE 7th Edition 2.02 2.52TC Studies (Adjusted)100% n/a 4.28 $1,820 $13 $191 $36.00 $1,593 $1,130 141%LODGING:310 Hotel room 8.30Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies3.44 3.94TC Studies (Adjusted)66%TC Studies 8.01 $3,403 $23 $338 $1.93 $3,063 $2,040 150%320 Motel room 5.63 ITE 7th Edition 2.39 2.89TC Studies (Adjusted)77%TC Studies 4.40 $1,871 $13 $191 $1.55 $1,678 $2,040 82%RECREATION:430 Golf Course hole 35.74 ITE 7th Edition 2.37 2.87TIF Schedules (Adjusted)90%TC Studies 32.40 $13,766 $97 $1,424 $46.51 $12,295 $7,791 158%411 City Park acre 1.59 ITE 7th Edition 2.37 2.87Same as ITE LUC 43090%TC Studies 1.44 $612 $4 $59 $6.69 $546 $232 236%444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf 38.00 ITE 7th Edition 1.22 1.72TC Studies (Adjusted)88%TC Studies 17.34 $7,367 $60 $881 $23.50 $6,463 $7,173 90%INSTITUTIONS:610 Hospital 1,000 sf 17.57 ITE 7th Edition 2.75 3.25TIF Schedules (Adjusted)77%TIF Schedules15.81 $6,718 $46 $675 $19.99 $6,023 $2,465 244%620 Nursing Home bed 2.48Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies1.11 1.61TC Studies (Adjusted)89%TC Studies 1.04 $442 $4 $59 $1.69 $381 $788 48%Land UseGasoline Tax$$ per gallon to capital:Facility life (years):Interest rate: 272406 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 F-2 Impact Fee Study Table F-1 (continued) Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Non CBD) Recommended Assessable Total Recommended Recommended% New Total Annual Gas Ad Net Current Fee PercentITE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length % New Trips Net Impact Gas Tax Valorem Impact (100%) Increase/LUC Unit Rate Source Length Length Source Trips SourceVMT(1)Cost Tax Credit Credit Fee 1996 Study DecreaseINSTITUTIONS:520 Elementary School student 1.29 ITE 7th Edition 1.94 2.44TIF Schedules (Adjusted)80%TIF Schedules0.85 $362 $3 $44 $3.14 $315 $190 166%530 High School student 1.71 ITE 7th Edition 1.94 2.44TIF Schedules (Adjusted)90%TIF Schedules1.27 $539 $4 $59 $3.14 $477 $402 119%540University (7,500 or fewer students)(4)student 2.00 ITE 7th Edition 2.37 2.87TIF Schedules (Adjusted)80%TIF Schedules1.61 $685 $5 $73 $3.14 $609 N/A N/A550University (more than 7,500 students)(4)student 1.50 ITE 7th Edition 2.37 2.87TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TIF Schedules1.39 $591 $4 $59 $3.14 $529 $1,349 39%560 Church/ Synagogue 1,000 sf 9.11 ITE 7th Edition 1.84 2.34TIF Schedules (Adjusted)90%TIF Schedules6.41 $2,724 $20 $294 $1.93 $2,428 $1,369 177%565 Day Care 1,000 sf 75.07Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies0.87 1.37TC Studies (Adjusted)73%TC Studies 20.26 $8,609 $79 $1,159 $17.40 $7,433 $1,397 532%OFFICE:71050,000 sf or less(5)1,000 sf 15.65ITE 7th equation2.22 2.72Local Studies (Bozeman)71%Local Studies (Bozeman)10.48 $4,454 $32 $470 $6.95 $3,977 $3,895 102%71050,001-100,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 14.25ITE 7th equation2.22 2.72Local Studies (Bozeman)71%Local Studies (Bozeman)9.55 $4,056 $29 $426 $6.95 $3,623 $3,895 93%710100,001-200,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 12.15ITE 7th equation2.22 2.72Local Studies (Bozeman)71%Local Studies (Bozeman)8.14 $3,458 $25 $367 $6.95 $3,084 $3,895 79%710greater than 200,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 9.70ITE 7th equation2.22 2.72Local Studies (Bozeman)71%Local Studies (Bozeman)6.50 $2,761 $20 $294 $6.95 $2,460 $3,895 63%720 Medical Office 1,000 sf 35.95Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies2.39 2.89TC Studies (Adjusted)69%TC Studies (Adjusted)25.20 $10,705 $75 $1,101 $19.91 $9,584 $7,081 135%RETAIL: 820under 50,000 sf(5)1,000 sf 86.56ITE 7th equation1.24 1.74TC Curve55%TC Curve25.09 $10,660 $87 $1,277 $4.95 $9,378 $6,341 148%82050,000-99,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 75.10ITE 7th equation1.38 1.88TC Curve58%TC Curve25.55 $10,854 $86 $1,262 $4.95 $9,587 $6,669 144%820100,000-199,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 58.93ITE 7th equation1.57 2.07TC Curve63%TC Curve24.77 $10,525 $81 $1,189 $4.95 $9,331 $6,283 149%820200,000-299,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 49.28ITE 7th equation1.62 2.12TC Curve67%TC Curve22.73 $9,658 $74 $1,086 $4.95 $8,567 $5,791 148%820greater than 300,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 38.66ITE 7th equation1.75 2.25TC Curve75%TC Curve21.57 $9,162 $69 $1,013 $4.95 $8,144 $5,462 149%812 Building Material/Lumber 1,000 sf 45.16 ITE 7th Edition 3.89 4.39TC Studies (Adjusted)74%TC Studies 55.25 $23,474 $154 $2,260 $4.95 $21,209 $3,750 566%813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf 49.21 ITE 7th Edition 3.66 4.16TC Studies (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 70.42 $29,921 $198 $2,906 $18.68 $26,996 $6,466 417%817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf 36.08 ITE 7th Edition 3.78 4.28Same as ITE LUC 89085%TIF Schedules49.27 $20,933 $138 $2,025 $4.95 $18,903 $3,326 568%Land Use 273407 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 F-3 Impact Fee Study Table F-1 (continued) Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (Non CBD) Recommended Assessable Total Recommended Recommended% New Total Annual Gas Ad Net Current Fee PercentITE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length % New Trips Net Impact Gas Tax Valorem Impact (100%) Increase/LUC Unit Rate Source Length Length Source Trips SourceVMT(1)Cost Tax Credit Credit Fee 1996 Study DecreaseRETAIL: 851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf 737.99 ITE 7th Edition 0.94 1.44TC Studies (Adjusted)41%TC Studies 120.88 $51,358 $458 $6,722 $28.58 $44,607 $13,716 325%931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf 91.10Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies.1.95 2.45TC Studies (Adjusted)77%TC Studies 58.13 $24,700 $181 $2,656 $7.92 $22,036 $8,897 248%934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 522.62Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies.1.27 1.77TC Studies (Adjusted)58%TC Studies 163.61 $69,513 $564 $8,278 $9.95 $61,225 $11,749 521%841 New/ Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 32.93Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies2.85 3.35TC Studies (Adjusted)79%TC Studies 31.51 $13,388 $92 $1,350 $4.95 $12,033 $4,417 272%890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 5.06ITE 7th Edition3.78 4.28TC Studies (Adjusted)54%TC Studies 4.39 $1,865 $12 $176 $4.95 $1,684 $400 421%912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf 281.55Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies1.53 2.03TC Studies (Adjusted)46%TC Studies 84.22 $35,781 $277 $4,065 $9.56 $31,706 $9,859 322%INDUSTRY:110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97ITE 7th Edition2.21 2.71TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 6.02 $2,559 $18 $264 $4.98 $2,290 $1,635 140%140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 3.82ITE 7th Edition2.21 2.71TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 3.30 $1,402 $10 $147 $4.98 $1,250 $904 138%150 Warehouse 1,000 sf 4.96ITE 7th Edition2.21 2.71TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 4.29 $1,821 $13 $191 $3.41 $1,627 $1,144 142%151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.50ITE 7th Edition2.21 2.71TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 2.16 $918 $7 $103 $4.77 $810 $614 132%Land Use (1) Net VMT calculated as ((Trip Generation Rate* Trip Length* % New Trips)*(1-Interstate/Toll Facility 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 mile of capacity to determine the total impact cost. (2) Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. (5) The trip generation rate recommended for the office and retail less than 50,000 sf categories used the end-point of 50,000 (6) The trip generation rate recommended for all other office and retail tiered categories used the mid-point of each tier of the respective category 274408 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 F-4 Impact Fee Study Table F-2 Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (CBD) Unit Construction Cost: $3,678,552$0.102 Capacity per lane mile: 8,658 Interstate Adjustment Factor: 15%25 Fuel Efficiency: 17.70 mpgCost per VMC: $424.874.6% Effective days per year: 365Recommended Assessable Total Recommended Recommended % New Total Annual Gas Ad Net Current Fee PercentITE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length % New Trips Net Impact Gas Tax Valorem Impact (100%) Increase/LUC Unit Rate Source Length Length Source Trips SourceVMT(1)Cost Tax Credit Credit Fee 1996 Study DecreaseRESIDENTIAL:210 Single Family (Detached)Less than 1,500 sf and very low income(1)du 3.88ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 5.80 $2,466 $16 $235 $60.00 $2,171 $2,241 97%Less than 1,500 sf and low income(2)du 5.60ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 8.38 $3,559 $24 $352 $60.00 $3,147 $2,241 140%Less than 1,500 sf du 7.03ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 10.52 $4,468 $30 $440 $60.00 $3,968 $2,241 177%1,500 to 2,499 sf du 9.57ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 14.32 $6,083 $40 $587 $100.00 $5,396 $2,241 241%2,500 sf or larger du 10.82ITE (NPTS,AHS, Census)3.52 4.02Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 16.19 $6,877 $46 $675 $120.00 $6,082 $2,241 271%220 Apartments du 6.64Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies3.10 3.60Same as LUC 230100% n/a 8.75 $3,717 $25 $367 $10.51 $3,339 $1,519 220%230 Residential Condominium/ Townhouse du 5.86 ITE 7th Edition 3.10 3.60Local Studies (Bozeman)100% n/a 7.72 $3,280 $22 $323 $10.51 $2,946 $1,519 194%240 Mobile Home Park du 4.99 ITE 7th Edition 2.02 2.52TC Studies (Adjusted)100% n/a 4.28 $1,820 $13 $191 $36.00 $1,593 $1,130 141%LODGING:310 Hotel room 8.30Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies3.44 3.94TC Studies (Adjusted)61%City of Tampa CBD Study7.40 $3,145 $21 $308 $1.93 $2,835 $2,040 139%320 Motel room 5.63 ITE 7th Edition 2.39 2.89TC Studies (Adjusted)61%City of Tampa CBD Study3.49 $1,482 $10 $147 $1.55 $1,333 $2,040 65%RECREATION:430 Golf Course hole 35.74 ITE 7th Edition 2.37 2.87TIF Schedules (Adjusted)32%City of Tampa CBD Study11.52 $4,894 $35 $514 $46.51 $4,333 $7,791 56%411 City Park acre 1.59 ITE 7th Edition 2.37 2.87Same as ITE LUC 43032%City of Tampa CBD Study0.51 $218 $2 $29 $6.69 $182 $232 79%444 Movie Theaters 1,000 sf 38.00 ITE 7th Edition 1.22 1.72TC Studies (Adjusted)32%City of Tampa CBD Study6.30 $2,679 $22 $323 $23.50 $2,333 $7,173 33%INSTITUTIONS:610 Hospital 1,000 sf 17.57 ITE 7th Edition 2.75 3.25TIF Schedules (Adjusted)77%TC Studies 15.81 $6,718 $46 $675 $19.99 $6,023 $2,465 244%620 Nursing Home bed 2.48Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies1.11 1.61TC Studies (Adjusted)89%TC Studies 1.04 $442 $4 $59 $1.69 $381 $788 48%Land UseGasoline Tax$$ per gallon to capital:Facility life (years):Interest rate: 275409 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 F-5 Impact Fee Study Table F-2 (continued) Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (CBD) Recommended Assessable Total Recommended Recommended % New Total Annual Gas Ad Net Current Fee PercentITE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length % New Trips Net Impact Gas Tax Valorem Impact (100%) Increase/LUC Unit Rate Source Length Length Source Trips SourceVMT(1)Cost Tax Credit Credit Fee 1996 Study DecreaseINSTITUTIONS:520 Elementary School student 1.29 ITE 7th Edition 1.94 2.44TIF Schedules (Adjusted)80%TIF Schedules0.85 $362 $3 $44 $3.14 $315 $190 166%530 High School student 1.71 ITE 7th Edition 1.94 2.44TIF Schedules (Adjusted)90%TIF Schedules1.27 $539 $4 $59 $3.14 $477 $402 119%540University (7,500 or fewer students)(4)student 2.00 ITE 7th Edition 2.37 2.87TIF Schedules (Adjusted)80%TIF Schedules1.61 $685 $5 $73 $3.14 $609 N/A N/A550University (more than 7,500 students)(4)student 1.50 ITE 7th Edition 2.37 2.87TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TIF Schedules1.39 $591 $4 $59 $3.14 $529 $1,349 39%560 Church/Synagogue 1,000 sf 9.11 ITE 7th Edition 1.84 2.34TIF Schedules (Adjusted)90%TIF Schedules6.41 $2,724 $20 $294 $1.93 $2,428 $1,369 177%565 Day Care 1,000 sf 75.07Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies0.87 1.37TC Studies (Adjusted)73%TC Studies 20.26 $8,609 $79 $1,159 $17.40 $7,433 $1,397 532%OFFICE:71050,000 sf or less(5)1,000 sf 15.65ITE 7th equation2.22 2.72Local Studies (Bozeman)57%Local Studies-Bozeman (adjusted)8.42 $3,576 $26 $382 $6.95 $3,187 $3,895 82%71050,001-100,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 14.25ITE 7th equation2.22 2.72Local Studies (Bozeman)57%Local Studies-Bozeman (adjusted)7.66 $3,256 $23 $338 $6.95 $2,911 $3,895 75%710100,001-200,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 12.15ITE 7th equation2.22 2.72Local Studies (Bozeman)57%Local Studies-Bozeman (adjusted)6.53 $2,776 $20 $294 $6.95 $2,475 $3,895 64%710greater than 200,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 9.70ITE 7th equation2.22 2.72Local Studies (Bozeman)57%Local Studies-Bozeman (adjusted)5.22 $2,216 $16 $235 $6.95 $1,974 $3,895 51%720 Medical Office 1,000 sf 35.95Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies2.39 2.89TC Studies (Adjusted)69%TC Studies (Adjusted)25.20 $10,705 $75 $1,101 $19.91 $9,584 $7,081 135%RETAIL: 820under 50,000 sf(5)1,000 sf 86.56ITE 7th equation1.24 1.74TC Curve31%City of Tampa CBD Study14.14 $6,008 $49 $719 $4.95 $5,284 $6,341 83%82050,000-99,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 75.10ITE 7th equation1.38 1.88TC Curve33%City of Tampa CBD Study14.54 $6,176 $49 $719 $4.95 $5,452 $6,669 82%820100,000-199,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 58.93ITE 7th equation1.57 2.07TC Curve35%City of Tampa CBD Study13.76 $5,847 $45 $660 $4.95 $5,182 $6,283 82%820200,000-299,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 49.28ITE 7th equation1.62 2.12TC Curve40%City of Tampa CBD Study13.57 $5,766 $44 $646 $4.95 $5,115 $5,791 88%820greater than 300,000 sf(6)1,000 sf 38.66ITE 7th equation1.75 2.25TC Curve46%City of Tampa CBD Study13.23 $5,620 $42 $616 $4.95 $4,999 $5,462 92%812 Building Material/Lumber 1,000 sf 45.16 ITE 7th Edition 3.89 4.39TC Studies (Adjusted)74%TC Studies 55.25 $23,474 $154 $2,260 $4.95 $21,209 $3,750 566%813 Discount Super-Store 1,000 sf 49.21 ITE 7th Edition 3.66 4.16TC Studies (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 70.42 $29,921 $198 $2,906 $18.68 $26,996 $6,466 417%817 Nursery/Garden Center 1,000 sf 36.08 ITE 7th Edition 3.78 4.28Same as ITE LUC 89085%TIF Schedules49.27 $20,933 $138 $2,025 $4.95 $18,903 $3,326 568%Land Use 276410 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 F-6 Impact Fee Study Table F-2 (continued) Proposed City of Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Schedule (CBD) Recommended Assessable Total Recommended Recommended % New Total Annual Gas Ad Net Current Fee PercentITE Trip Trip Rate Trip Trip Trip Length % New Trips Net Impact Gas Tax Valorem Impact (100%) Increase/LUC Unit Rate Source Length Length Source Trips SourceVMT(1)Cost Tax Credit Credit Fee 1996 Study DecreaseRETAIL: 851 Convenience Store 1,000 sf 737.99 ITE 7th Edition 0.94 1.44TC Studies (Adjusted)41%TC Studies 120.88 $51,358 $458 $6,722 $28.58 $44,607 $13,716 325%931 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf 91.10Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies.1.95 2.45TC Studies (Adjusted)21%City of Tampa CBD Study15.85 $6,736 $49 $719 $7.92 $6,009 $8,897 68%934 Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru 1,000 sf 522.62Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies.1.27 1.77TC Studies (Adjusted)21%City of Tampa CBD Study59.24 $25,168 $204 $2,994 $9.95 $22,164 $11,749 189%841 New/ Used Auto Sales 1,000 sf 32.93Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies2.85 3.35TC Studies (Adjusted)79%TC Studies 31.51 $13,388 $92 $1,350 $4.95 $12,033 $4,417 272%890 Furniture Store 1,000 sf 5.06ITE 7th Edition3.78 4.28TC Studies (Adjusted)54%TC Studies 4.39 $1,865 $12 $176 $4.95 $1,684 $400 421%912 Bank/ Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf 281.55Blend of ITE 7th & TC Studies1.53 2.03TC Studies (Adjusted)35%City of Tampa CBD Study64.08 $27,225 $210 $3,082 $9.56 $24,133 $9,859 245%INDUSTRY:110 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97ITE 7th Edition2.21 2.71TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 6.02 $2,559 $18 $264 $4.98 $2,290 $1,635 140%140 Manufacturing 1,000 sf 3.82ITE 7th Edition2.21 2.71TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 3.30 $1,402 $10 $147 $4.98 $1,250 $904 138%150 Warehouse 1,000 sf 4.96ITE 7th Edition2.21 2.71TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 4.29 $1,821 $13 $191 $3.41 $1,627 $1,144 142%151 Mini-Warehouse 1,000 sf 2.50ITE 7th Edition2.21 2.71TIF Schedules (Adjusted)92%TC Studies 2.16 $918 $7 $103 $4.77 $810 $614 132%Land Use (1) Net VMT calculated as ((Trip Generation Rate* Trip Length* % New Trips)*(1-Interstate/Toll Facility 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 mile of capacity to determine the total impact cost. (2) Defined as 50% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (3) Defined as 80% of city median income based on 2007 Gallatin County Average Median Income (AMI) (4) Impact fee to be assessed on structures with classroom facilities. All auxiliary structures such as administrative buildings and research centers are to be charged at the office land use rate. (5) The trip generation rate recommended for the office and retail less than 50,000 sf categories used the end-point of 50,000 (6) The trip generation rate recommended for all other office and retail tiered categories used the mid-point of each tier of the respective category 277411 APPENDIX G Indexing Calculations 278412 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 G-1 Impact Fee Study Land Cost As shown in Table G-1, the taxable property values for the City of Bozeman increased over the past five years by approximately 8.2 percent per year between 2002 and 2006. It should be noted that market values are typically used to determine the actual increase in land values. Since these data were not available, to provide a conservative estimate of the increase in land values, taxable values were used. Table G-1 City of Bozeman Taxable Property Value Increase (1) Year City of Bozeman Taxable Values Percent Change 2002 $42,450,000 N/A 2003 $46,055,000 8.5% 2004 $49,559,000 7.6% 2005 $52,985,000 6.9% 2006 $58,063,000 9.6% 8.2%Average (1) Source: City of Bozeman Annual Financial Report, Part III, Revenue Capacity Construction Cost For construction costs, it is recommended that the construction cost index provided by Engineering News Record be used for indexing purposes. The average annual increases in the construction cost index are used for the design, CEI, and construction cost components of the transportation impact fee indexing. As shown in Table G-2, over the past five years the average annual index is 4.4 percent. It should be noted that this index does not reflect the actual increases in construction costs that have occurred over the past five years. As mentioned previously, the City may consider conducting a separate analysis to determine the increase in local construction costs, or at a minimum, review annual increases in the construction cost per lane mile figures provided by MDOT and consider adjusting the index accordingly. In the absence of such studies or analyses, the index calculated in this section provides a conservative estimate. 279413 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 G-2 Impact Fee Study Table G-2 ENR Construction Cost Index (1) Year Annual Avg Percent Change 2002 6,538 N/A 2003 6,694 2.4% 2004 7,115 6.3% 2005 7,446 4.7% 2006 7,751 4.1% Average 4.4% (1) Source: Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (2002-2006) Application As presented in Table G-3, of the weighted average total cost per lane mile, 93 percent is for Design, CEI, and Construction Cost, and 7 percent is for ROW. As shown in the table, applying these percentages to the average cost increases presented previously would provide a combined index of 4.7 percent, which then can be applied to the cost component for all land uses presented in the transportation impact fee schedule. Table G-3 Indexing Application Phase Cost per Lane Mile(1) Percent of Total Cost(2) Annual Increase(3)Index(4) Design $253,522 6.9% 4.4% 0.3% ROW $285,777 7.8% 8.2% 0.6% Construction/CEI $3,139,253 85.3% 4.4% 3.8% Total Cost $3,678,552 Total Applicable Index(5)4.7% (1) Source: Table 4 (2) Source: Item (1) for each phase (design, ROW, construction/CEI) divided by total cost (3) Source: Table G-1 for ROW costs and Table G-2 for design and construction/CEI (4) Annual increase (Item 3) multiplied by the percent of total (Item 2) (5) Sum of index components for design, ROW, and construction/CEI With this index, net impact fee for the single family 1,500 – 2,499 s.f. detached land use would increase to $5,650 ($5,396 x 1.047) at the end of first year after adoption and 280414 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 G-3 Impact Fee Study implementation of the updated fee schedule. This index would change all fees within the fee schedule accordingly. 281415 APPENDIX H Revenue Projections 282416 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 H-1 Impact Fee Study REVENUE PROJECTIONS Revenue estimates are based on a review of building permit activity and future population growth estimates. The impact fee schedule by land use presented in Appendix F, Table F- 1, provides the basis for this analysis. Table H-1 presents the projected residential units per year through 2025. These population projections are based on the information from the 2007 Sewer Facility Plan and reflect the most recent and localized data. The following estimates were made by projecting the transportation impact fee revenues based on a review of the City of Bozeman historical building permit activity. • Based on historical impact fee revenue collections, revenues from residential land uses represent 61 percent of total collections and non-residential land uses represent 39 percent. • Residential building permits are estimated to be generated by single family units (37 percent), townhomes (8 percent), multi-family (53 percent), and mobile homes (2 percent). • The rate of growth of building permits is projected to increase through 2025 as the City continues annex urbanizing areas in its geographic proximity. • The average annual number of building permits between 2002 and 2006 was 724. Based on projected population, approximately 23,406 new homes will be constructed in the next 17 years as the county approaches its build-out population in 2025. • The projection of revenues will be based on an average of 1,377 new homes per year between now and 2025 given the expected population growth. Table H-1 Residential Units per Year (2008-2025) Year Population Item 2008 39,602 2025 92,500 Population Growth (2008-2025)(1)52,898 Residents Per Dwelling Unit(2)2.26 New Homes (2008-2025)(3)23,406 New Homes per Year(4)1,377 (1) Source: Source: Bozeman Sewer Facility Plan, 2007 (2) Source: 2000 Census Data, Table P17 (3) Population growth (Item 1) divided by residents per dwelling unit (Item 2). (4) New homes (2008-2025) (Item 3) divided by 17 years. 283417 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 H-2 Impact Fee Study As shown in Table H-2, the transportation impact fee program will generate a total of approximately $154.8 million, generating an average of approximately $9.1 million annually through 2025. These estimates are based on using the population growth approach. Compared to historical collections, these projections are optimistic since they are based on a higher annual projected number of building permits. Table H-2 Projected Transportation Impact Fee Revenues (2008-2025) (in 2007 Dollars) Land Use Distribution(1) Permits(2) Impact Fee(3) Total Revenues(4) Single Family 37% 8,661 $5,396 $46,734,756 Townhomes 8% 1,872 $2,946 $5,514,912 Multi-Family (Apartments) 53% 12,405 $3,339 $41,420,295 Mobile Home Park 2% 468 $1,593 $745,524 Total Residential Revenues 100% 23,406 N/A $94,415,487 Non-Residential Impact Fee Revenues(5) $60,364,000 Total Residential and Non-residential Impact Fee Revenues(6)$154,779,487 (1) Source: Distribution of historical building permits from 2002 through 2006 (2) Source: Table H-1 for total permits. Permits distributed for residential uses by estimated percentages in (Item 1) (3) Source: Appendix F, Table F-1 (4) Permits (Item 2) multiplied by impact fee (Item 3) (5) Non-residential revenues are estimated to be 39 percent of total collections (6) Sum of total residential impact fees and total non-residential impact fee revenues (Item 5) Based on the analysis shown in these tables, the City of Bozeman is projected to generate an average of $9.1 million annually in transportation impact fee revenue between 2007 and 2025, and a total of $154.8 million during this 17-year time period. This projection is in 2007 dollars and does not take into account the indexing of the impact fees. 284418 APPENDIX I Evaluation of Funding Sources 285419 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 I-1 Impact Fee Study Current Conditions The City’s roadway financing program, including expenditure and revenue policies that have historically been used for capital and operations, was evaluated. It is recommended that the City evaluate alternative revenue sources once every three years to make sure that a dynamic process is in place in case there are any new revenue options. As a part of this review, historical expenditures were reviewed dating to Fiscal Year 2002. Specifically, expenditures were categorized as personnel, operations, capital, other, and capacity expansion. Table I-1 provides a summary of the percentage of the annual street maintenance expenditures by funding source. As shown in the table, the primary funding source has been the Street Maintenance District Fund. Similarly, there has been a strong increase in revenues from impact fees in more recent years primarily due to the settlement of a law suit such that the City could begin expending the impact fees that were collected during the litigation period. Table I-1 Historical Roadway Expenditures by Funding Source(1) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Average Street Maintenance 76% 57% 68% 19% 11% 19% 42% Gas Tax Allocation 22% 37% 28% 6% 4% 6% 17% Special Improvement Districts 0% 0% 0% 51% 11% 0% 10% Impact Fees 2% 3% 2% 23% 74% 58% 27% G.O. Bonds 0%3%2%1%0%17%4% % of Total Expenditures by Funding Source Funding Source (1) Source: City of Bozeman Finance Department Table I-2 presents transportation expenditures by task as a percentage of total expenditure. As shown in the table, the three categories that dominate transportation expenditures on average since 2002 are operations, capacity expansion, and personnel projects. Specifically, an average of 30 percent of funds has been devoted to operations and capacity expansion, while 25 percent has been expended on personnel. Capital expenditures refer to the purchase of specific equipment needed to support the roadway program’s capacity expansion and operational activities. As mentioned previously, as impact fees became available as a source of funding, the percentage of total funds being allocated to capacity expansion projects increased. 286420 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 I-2 Impact Fee Study Table I-2 Historical Roadway Maintenance Expenditure by Task (1) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Average Personnel 44% 39% 41% 9% 6% 10% 25% Operations 39% 28% 34% 55% 16% 9% 30% Capital 15% 28% 22% 8% 3% 12% 15% Capacity Expansion 2% 5% 3% 28% 74% 69% 30% % of Total Expenditures by Task Task (1) Source: City of Bozeman Finance Department Surrounding Communities Table I-3 below presents the funding sources of various cities near the City of Bozeman. The most common source of funding comes from gas tax revenue as distributed by the State of Montana Department of Transportation. It should be noted that this funding source is used primarily for maintenance related expenditures by the City of Bozeman. As shown in the table, the City of Billings has enacted an arterial street fee as an innovative way of generating revenues for the construction and reconstruction of arterial streets within the city. Similarly, special assessments, or special improvement districts, as well as, impact fees, are also common sources of revenue to meet the transportation needs of other communities besides the City of Bozeman. Table I-3 Comparison of Funding Sources for Transportation Expenditures (1) City General Fund Special Assessment/ Improvement Districts Other Debt (e.g. General Obligation Bonds) Impact Fees Arterial Street Fees Gas Tax Federal Grants City of Bozeman X X X X X City of Billings X X X X X X City of Great Falls X X City of Missoula X X City of Belgrade X X X Gallatin County X X X X (1) Source: Adopted budgets for Fiscal Year 2007 287421 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 I-3 Impact Fee Study Funding Options Aside from the funding sources presented in Table I-3, two other possible funding sources were evaluated. First, a retail sales tax scenario was examined and is presented in Table I-4 below. We understand that the implementation of sales tax may be difficult; since recently the state legislature did not consider this to be a feasible funding option at this time. However, since the sales tax has the potential of generating significant revenues, the sales tax analysis is included as one of the options for purposes of illustration. Based on data collected on retail sales in the City of Bozeman, as well as for the State of Montana, the estimated 2007 retail sales is multiplied by each sales tax scenario. For example, it is estimated that a one-half cent sales tax in the City of Bozeman will generate approximately $4.4 million in revenue annually. Table I-4 Sales Tax Scenario Calculation Step Retail Sales Estimated Sales Tax Revenue(5) Estimated 2007 City of Bozeman Retail Sales State of Montana 2002(1)$10,122,625,000 State of Montana 2005(2)$11,886,957,000 State of Montana Average Annual Growth Rate Of Retail Sales 5.5% City of Bozeman 2002(3)$679,846,000 Number of Years Between 2002-2007 5 Estimated 2007 City of Bozeman(4)$888,531,533 Sales Tax Scenario $0.005 $4,442,658 $0.010 $8,885,315 $0.020 $17,770,631 (1) Source: 2002 Economic Census (2) Source: Montana Department of Commerce, Census and Economics Information Center (3) Source: 2002 Economic Census (4) Based on the average annual growth rate of retail sales in the State of Montana (5) Sales tax multiplied by the estimated 2007 retail sales in the City of Bozeman (Item 4). 288422 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 I-4 Impact Fee Study Table I-5 shows the equivalent pennies of gas tax calculation for the three sales tax scenarios that can be applied to the transportation impact fee in the same way gas tax credit is applied. Table I-6 presents the credit that would be applied to the transportation impact fee for selected land uses if a sales tax were to be implemented. Three credit scenarios are shown to reflect the three sales tax scenarios presented above in Table I-4. Note that this analysis estimates that 100 percent of all sales tax revenue collected will be allocated to road capacity expansion projects. As an example, an additional $602 would be credited to the single family land use if a $0.005 sales tax were to be implemented. It should be noted that additional sales tax revenues are not likely given recent state legislative action. Table I-5 Equivalent Pennies Sales Tax Scenario Estimated Annual Sales Tax Revenue(1) MDOT Fuel Tax Distribution per Penny to Gallatin County(2) Equivalent Pennies $0.005 $4,442,658 $427,296 $0.104 $0.010 $8,885,315 $427,296 $0.208 $0.020 $17,770,631 $427,296 $0.416 (1) Source: Table I-4 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C-1 289423 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 I-5 Impact Fee Study Table I-6 Transportation Impact Fee Sales Tax Credit (1) Land Use UnitRecommended Trip RateTotal Trip LengthRecommended % New TripsAnnual Sales Tax Credit ($0.005)Total Sales Tax Credit ($0.005)Annual Sales Tax Credit ($0.01)Total Sales Tax Credit ($0.01)Annual Sales Tax Credit ($0.02)Total Sales Tax Credit ($0.02)Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) du 9.57 4.02 100% $41 $602 $83 $1,218 $165 $2,422Office (50,000 sf) 1,000 sf 15.65 2.72 71% $32 $470 $65 $954 $130 $1,908Retail (100,000 sf) 1,000 sf 58.93 2.07 63% $82 $1,203 $165 $2,422 $330 $4,843Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf 91.10 2.45 77% $184 $2,701 $367 $5,386 $734 $10,773Bank/Savings Drive-in 1,000 sf 281.55 2.03 46% $283 $4,154 $566 $8,307 $1,133 $16,629General Light Industrial 1,000 sf 6.97 2.71 92% $19 $279 $37 $543 $75 $1,101 (1) Trip characteristics variables are presented in the demand component in Appendix F, Table F-1. Sales tax credit is based on a facility life of 25 years, 4.6 percent interest rate, 365 effective days, and a fuel efficiency of 17.70 miles per gallon. (2) This scenario estimate 100 percent of the sales tax revenue will be allocated to capacity expansion projects. 290424 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 I-6 Impact Fee Study A millage option was also evaluated as a form of revenue to fund transportation projects. Presented in Table I-6 are various scenarios of levying a millage tax. Based on the revenues generated from 1-mil as presented in Appendix D, Table D-1, a one mil levy will generate approximately $63,251 in revenue per year. Similarly, a three mil levy will generate approximately $189,753 in annual revenue. Table I-7 Millage Tax Scenario Calculation Step Estimated Revenues(2) Revenue Generated from 1-mil(1)$63,251 Millage Scenario: 1.0 $63,251 2.0 $126,502 3.0 $189,753 (1) Source: Appendix D, Table D-1 (2) Millage scenario multiplied by the amount of revenue generated from one mil (Item 1). As presented in Table I-6 in the sales tax scenario, Table I-8 below presents the effect on the transportation impact fee if the City of Bozeman levied a 1, 2, or 3-mil tax for the single family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) land use. The additional ad valorem credit that would be applied to various non-residential land uses is presented in Table I-9. Note that the calculation for this analysis is done in the same manner as presented in the applied ad valorem credit analysis in Appendix D. For example, the additional ad valorem credit for the mid-tier single family detached land use of levying a 1-mil tax would be $75. The additional credit that would be applied to a 50,000 square foot office land use is $6.95 if a 1-mil tax were implemented. As shown in the analysis of funding sources presented above, the city has the option of using two primary funding sources (sales tax and ad valorem tax) to finance operations expenditures. It should be noted that additional mills require an independent vote from city residents. These funding sources can be used to develop a cost affordable maintenance program that meets the growing demands of the roadway system. In addition, depending of the use of the special improvement district funds these additional revenues can be used to provide leverage for any funding shortfalls. 291425 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 I-7 Impact Fee Study Table I-8 Additional Transportation Impact Fee Ad Valorem Credit for the Single Family (1,500 to 2,499 sf) Land Use Mil Scenario Credit per Square Foot Additional Ad Valorem Credit(1) 1.0 $0.03 $75.00 2.0 $0.07 $175.00 3.0 $0.10 $250.00 (1) Credit per square foot multiplied by 2,500 sf 292426 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 I-8 Impact Fee Study Table I-9 Additional Transportation Impact Fee Ad Valorem Credit for Sample Non-Residential Land Uses* Annual Portion to Expansion(1)Total Ad Valorem Credit(2)Annual Portion to Expansion(3)Total Ad Valorem Credit(4)Annual Portion to Expansion(5)Total Ad Valorem Credit(6)Office (50,000 sf)$0.89 $6.95 $1.78 $13.96 $2.67 $20.89Retail (100,000 sf)$0.63 $4.95 $1.25 $9.80 $1.88 $14.74Quality Restaurant$1.01 $7.92 $2.02 $15.73 $3.02 $23.59Fast Food Rest w/ Drive-Thru$1.27 $9.95 $2.55 $19.94 $3.82 $29.98Bank/Savings Drive-in$1.22 $9.56 $2.44 $19.14 $3.66 $28.64General Light Industrial$0.66 $4.98 $1.32 $9.74 $1.98 $14.791 Mil 2 Mil 3 MilLand Use Note: Credit shown for all land uses is per 1,000 square feet (1) Taxable value of land use divided by 1,000 and multiplied by the percentage of one mill that is attributed to transportation capacity expansion (1%) (2), (4), (6) Total ad valorem credit over the 24-year period in present day dollar (3) Taxable value of land use divided by 1,000 and multiplied by the percentage of one mill that is attributed to transportation capacity expansion (2%) (5) Taxable value of land use divided by 1,000 and multiplied by the percentage of one mill that is attributed to transportation capacity expansion (3%)293427 APPENDIX J Acronyms and Definitions 294428 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 J-1 Impact Fee Study Acronyms AMI - Average Median Income CBD - Central Business District CEI - Construction Engineering/Inspection CPI - Consumer Price Index GO Bonds - General Obligation Bonds ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineers LUC - Land Use Code MDOT - Montana Department of Transportation MPG - Miles per Gallon PNT - Percent (%) New trips PV - Present Value ROW - Right-of-Way STIP - State Transportation Improvement Plan TC Database - Trip Characteristics Database TGR - Trip Generation Rate TL - Trip Length VMC - Vehicle Miles of Capacity VMT - Vehicle Miles of Travel 295429 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 J-2 Impact Fee Study Definitions “Ad Valorem Tax Credit” shall mean a credit applied to the total impact cost that is based on an estimate of the property tax revenues per millage that is generated by a unit of each land use of new development that are allocated to transportation system capacity expansion. “Average Median Income” shall mean the mid-point value in the total distribution of all income levels in the United States. “Capacity” shall mean the maximum number of vehicles for a given time period which a road can safely and efficiently carry, expressed in terms of vehicles per day. “Capacity per Lane Mile” shall mean the number of vehicles added to the roadway network based on an additional lane mile of roadway constructed. “Central Business District” shall mean is the commercial (and often) geographic heart of a city. The CBD is also commonly referred to as “downtown.” “Construction Engineering/Inspection” shall mean the review process of ensuring that roadway construction projects are built in accordance with their plans and specifications. “Consumer Price Index (CPI)” shall mean inflationary indicator that measures the change in the cost of a fixed basket of products and services, including housing, electricity, food, and transportation. The CPI is published monthly. Also called cost-of-living index. “Cost per Lane Mile” shall mean the unit cost to construct on lane mile of roadway. “Design” shall mean to the process of developing a roadway design plan based on a selected roadway section alternative. “Dollar ($)/Gallon to Capital” shall mean the amount of gas tax revenue per gallon of fuel that is used for capital improvements, in $/gallon. “Effective Days per Year” shall mean the total number of days used in the impact fee equation to calculate the consumption of gasoline taxes credited against the fee. “Facility Life” shall mean the reasonable life of a roadway which is proposed at 25 years 296430 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 J-3 Impact Fee Study “Fuel Efficiency” shall mean the average energy efficiency of a particular vehicle model, where its total output (mileage) is given as a ratio of range units per a unit amount of input fuel (gasoline, diesel, etc.). “Gas Tax Credit” shall mean a credit applied to the total impact cost that is based on an estimate of the gas tax revenues per gallon of future gasoline consumption that is generated by a unit of each land use of new development that are allocated to roadway construction or transportation system capacity expansion. “General Obligation Bonds” shall mean a municipal bond secured by the taxing and borrowing power of the municipality issuing it. “Interest Rate” shall mean the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. “Institute of Transportation Engineers” shall mean the ITE Trip Generation 7th Edition, Journal. The three-volume report contains introductory and instructional material as well as two data volumes with land use descriptions, trip generation rates, equations and data plots. Data from more than 500 sites has been included in the seventh edition, bringing the number of data points contained in the database to more than 4,250. In addition, the seventh edition contains a total of 150 land use classifications. “Interstate Adjustment Factor” shall mean an adjustment factor applied to an impact fee calculation to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways. “Land Use Code” shall mean the three (3) digit number designated to a specific land use by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. “Montana Department of Transportation” shall mean the governmental entity assigned the task of providing a transportation system and services that emphasize quality, safety, cost effectiveness, economic vitality and sensitivity to the environment for the citizens of the state of Montana. “Miles per Gallon” shall mean the number of miles a vehicle can travel per gallon of gasoline consumed. “Net Impact Fee” shall mean the “up-front” fee that is charged to new development based on the adopted City of Bozeman Impact Fee Schedule. “Percent (%) New Trips” shall mean the proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is estimated to have already been on the road system. 297431 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 J-4 Impact Fee Study “Present Value” shall mean the calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, given an interest rate, “i,” and a number of periods, “n.” “Right-of-Way” shall mean an easement or strip of land granted for transportation purposes. “Square Foot” as referred to in the Fee Schedule, it means total square footage under roof used for occupancy or storage. “Square Footage” shall mean the gross area measured in square feet from the exterior faces of exterior walls or other exterior boundaries of the building, including all floors and mezzanines within said building, but excluding areas within the interior of the building which are utilized for parking. “State Transportation Improvement Plan” shall mean the five-year capital and maintenance program developed by the Montana Department of Transportation. The plan is developed in accordance with the requirements of Section 135 of 23 USC (United States Code). “Total Trip Length” shall mean the (assessable) trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads, including local roads. “Transportation Impact Fee” shall mean a one-time, "up front" payment for a portion of the cost to replace the transportation facilities consumed by each unit of new development “Trip” shall mean a one-way movement of vehicular travel from an origin (one trip end) to a destination (the other trip end). “Trip Characteristics Database” shall mean the database of information collected by TOA containing trip characteristic data for a variety of land uses spanning the state of Florida. Trip characteristic data includes trip lengths, trip generation rates and percent new trips. “Trip Generation Rate” shall mean the average number of daily trips caused by a given land use, given in vehicle-trips/day. “Trip Length” shall mean the average length of daily trips (in miles) or travel by land use. “Vehicle Miles of Capacity” shall mean the average daily traffic on one travel lane at capacity for one lane mile of roadway, in vehicles/lane-mile/day. “Vehicle Miles of Travel” shall mean a measurement of the total miles traveled for each respective land use in the impact fee schedule and provides the basis for the gross fee 298432 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 J-5 Impact Fee Study calculation. It is calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips variable. For impact fee purposes, to allocate the assessment for a trip evenly between origin-end development and destination-end development, the vehicle miles of travel are divided in half. 299433 APPENDIX K Central Business District (CBD) Definition Characteristics 300434 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 K-1 Impact Fee Study Central Business District (CBD) Defining Characteristics The City of Bozeman is committed to having impact fees which accurately reflect demand on the transportation system. Therefore, the City has adopted different impact fees for the Central Business District (CBD) than for other areas in the community. This reflects a difference in the travel characteristics of travel in the CBD and a corresponding lower consumption of transportation capacity per unit of development within the CBD. Over time, other areas of the community may develop similar travel characteristics and should therefore pay a similar transportation impact fee as development does within the CBD. Development that desires to be categorized as “CBD” has the responsibility to demonstrate that their travel demand on the transportation system will have a similar demand as do development projects being built in the CBD. Some of the defining characteristics of the CBD, relating to different demands on transportation are: • Shared and consolidated parking; • A high degree of pedestrian and bicycle access to and throughout the CBD; • Public Transit availability. • Extensive trip capture within the CBD where a person will make one vehicle trip to the CBD and then visit multiple businesses via a mode other than automobile thereby reducing the overall vehicle miles of capacity being consumed; 301435 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 K-2 Impact Fee Study Example potential reductions in trip capture are illustrated in Table K-1 below. Table K-1 CBD Percent New Trips Reductions Non CBD CBD Office 71 57 20% Shopping Center Low 55 31 44% Shopping Center High 74 46 38% Quality Restaurant 77 21 73% Fast Food Restaurant 58 21 64% Bank 46 35 24% General Light Industrial 92 92 0% Hotel 66 61 8% Motel 77 61 21% Sample Land Uses Percent New Trips % Reduction (1) Sources: City of Tampa Transportation Impact Fee Study, 1988 and Downtown Portland Circulation Study conducted by DeLeuw, Cather, and Company, 1973 Some of the physical development characteristics of the CBD that facilitate the different travel characteristics are: • Multi-story development for the majority of buildings, often more than two stories; • Diverse business proprietorships within the CBD area; • Primary use at the ground floor is commercial operations of some type; • Businesses tending to be smaller scale (e.g., less than 20,000 sf for the majority of the businesses); • Structures are in near proximity to each other and the public street (with small or even zero foot setbacks); • Having a high percentage of each lot covered by buildings and a ratio of total building floor area typically in excess of 0.5; • The physical characteristics are shared among the entire business area, not just one or a few of the businesses. Each potential development desiring to be categorized as a CBD type development will be reviewed on a case by case basis. 302436 APPENDIX L Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 303437 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 L-1 Impact Fee Study Transportation Impact Fee Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the City of Bozeman transportation impact fee program, a comparison of transportation impact fee schedules of surrounding jurisdictions was completed. In addition, two impact fee schedules were developed for the City of Bozeman. Specifically, a fee schedule for the Central Business District (CBD) and a fee schedule for the non-CBD area were calculated. The CBD fee schedule provides a reduction to the percent new trips variable for certain recreation, lodging, retail, office, restaurant, and bank land uses. Table L-1 presents the existing City of Bozeman impact fees and proposed City of Bozeman impact fees compared to transportation impact fees in the other jurisdictions. 304438 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman October 2007 L-2 Impact Fee Study Table L-1 Transportation Impact Fee Comparison CBD Non- CBD Date of Last Update 2007 2007 1996 2007 2007Residential:Single Family Detached (2,000 sq ft) du $5,396 $5,396 $2,241 $3,973 $2,506Non-residential:General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $2,290 $2,290 $1,635 $1,770 $904Office (50,000 sf) 1,000 sf $3,187 $3,977 $3,895 $3,400 $2,028Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $6,009 $22,036 $8,897 $8,870 $6,318Retail (100,000 sf) 1,000 sf $5,182 $9,331 $6,283 $8,870 $5,272Bank w/Drive-In 1,000 sf $24,133 $31,706 $9,859 $8,870 $6,318Gallatin County (Proposed)(2)City of Belgrade (Adopted)(3)Land UseCity of Bozeman (Existing @ 100%)UnitCity of Bozeman (Proposed)(1) (1) Source: Appendix F, Table F-2 for CBD and Table F-1 for Non-CBD (2) Source: Gallatin County Transportation Impact Fee Study, March 2007. Note, fee shown includes a five percent administration charge. The commercial/shopping center fee is shown for the quality restaurant, retail, and bank w/drive-in land uses in the City of Bozeman. (3) Source: City of Belgrade Transportation Impact Fee Study, February 2007. The commercial/shopping center (50,000 sf or less) fee is shown for the quality restaurant and bank w/drive-in land uses. Impact Fees for the City of Belgrade have been adopted at 65 percent of the impact fee in the 2007 Technical Report. 305439 CITY OF BOZEMAN TRIP CHARACTERISTICS STUDY FINAL REPORT September 24, 2007 Prepared for: CITY OF BOZEMAN 20 E. Olive Street. Bozeman, Montana 59715 Prepared by: Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100 Tampa, Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224-8862, fax (813) 226-2106 497001-00.06 306440 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 i Trip Characteristics Study CITY OF BOZEMAN TRIP CHARACTERISTICS STUDY Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE SELECTION.................................................................................... 2 2.1 Single Family Residential Land Use..................................................... 2 2.2 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Land Use................................. 2 2.3 Office Land Use .................................................................................... 3 2.4 Shopping Center Land Use.................................................................... 3 3.0 SAMPLE SIZE REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS...................................... 3 4.0 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS RESULTS................................................... 5 4.1 Trip Generation Rate.............................................................................. 5 4.2 Percent New Trips.................................................................................. 7 4.3 Trip Length............................................................................................ 8 APPENDIX A - City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study Data 307441 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 1 Trip Characteristics Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Bozeman retained Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) to update the transportation impact fee program that was initially established in 1996. To ensure a legally defensible study with the use of localized data, it is prudent to conduct trip characteristics studies for several residential and non-residential sites to support the update effort. Results of these studies will reflect the amount of vehicle miles of travel in the City of Bozeman that is generated by specific major land uses. To this end, and to accompany the Transportation Impact Fee Study, TOA also has been retained by the City to conduct a Trip Characteristics Study to reflect local trip conditions. According to the 2007 City of Bozeman Sewer Facility Plan population will increase almost 147 percent by 2025. This influx of population and the expected new development that will occur were considered in this selection of the land uses studied herein. Four land uses comprise the majority of the permit activity and, thus, are the dominant source of transportation impact fee revenue. The following four land uses were studied as part of the local trip characteristics data collection: • Single Family Residential Land Use • Residential Condominium/Townhouse Land Use • Office Land Use • Shopping Center Land Use This summary report, which acts as a technical support document to the Transportation Impact Fee Study report, presents the results of the trip data collected in the City of Bozeman. Included in this document is a summary of the trip characteristics study results, as well as the necessary support material utilized in the development of the summary statistics. Trip characteristics are inputs to the demand component of the Transportation Impact Fee. The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is usually expressed in units of vehicle miles or lane miles of roadway capacity consumed. In particular, the three variables needed to obtain the measure of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the City of Bozeman for all land uses shown in the final transportation impact fee schedule are: Number of daily trips generated, or the trip rate; Length of those trips; and Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is estimated to have already been on the road system, referred to as percent new trips. 308442 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 2 Trip Characteristics Study 2.0 SITE SELECTION The study site selection process examined potential study sites with respect to such factors as age of development, occupancy level, and number of access points. Another important characteristic of all study sites is the similarity of the development with respect to what is expected of future development. This section summarizes the study sites selected in the City of Bozeman to reflect the trip characteristics of these four land uses and were found to be similar to what is expected of future development. 2.1 Single Family Residential Land Use After an examination of multiple potential study sites and the surrounding conditions, three single family residential land use sites were selected. • Site 1 is located in the southeast quadrant of the city and selected because it is considered to be typical of future single family residential developments. The site also had appropriate throat access and limited number of access points making it suitable to be cordoned off. • Site 2 is located in the northwest quadrant of the city and is also considered to be typical of future development. The site was fairly built out with a typical occupancy rate and was located near mixed-use development. • Site 3 is located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Bozeman, is a fairly recent development, and is considered to be typical of future single family residential subdivisions. The site had limited number of access points and as such was easily cordoned off. 2.2 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Land Use Two residential/condominium/townhouse land use sites were studied in the City of Bozeman. • Site 4 is located in the southwest quadrant is considered to be typical of future residential condominium/townhouse development. • Site 5 is located in the southeast quadrant and is also considered to be typical of future development. 309443 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 3 Trip Characteristics Study 2.3 Office Land Use The trip characteristics of three office land use developments were studied. • Site 6 is located in the southwest quadrant and is considered to be typical of future office development. • Site 7 is also located in the southwest quadrant of the city and also typical of future development. • Site 8 is located in the center of the City of Bozeman and is also typical of future development. 2.4 Shopping Center Land Use Three study sites were selected to represent the fourth land use of interest, the shopping center land use. • Site 9 is located in the southeast quadrant of the city and is considered to be typical of future shopping center developments. • Site 10 is located in the northwest quadrant of the city and is typical of future development. • Site 11 is located in the northwest quadrant of the city and is also considered to be typical of future shopping center developments. 3.0 SAMPLE SIZE REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS One of the considerations in the collection of origin-destination survey data is to collect survey samples that reflect local travel conditions in the City of Bozeman. A statistical review of the survey data was performed to determine how well the data collected will accurately reflect these trip characteristics by estimating the required sample size. From a statistical sampling perspective, the goal of these studies is to collect enough survey samples to be 85 percent confident that the average trip length from the survey data is within a plus or minus 15 percent level of accuracy for each study site. A margin of error analysis performs this calculation by relating the inbound and outbound sample trip ends to the average of all the data collected at the study site. This confidence level has been used in the collection of local trip characteristic data throughout a number of other communities in other states. 310444 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 4 Trip Characteristics Study Table 1 presents the review of the land use sample size for each of the sites surveyed at the four land uses. This table indicates the number of samples, coefficient of variation, and sample size requirement at both the 85- and 90-percent levels of confidence. Table 1 Sample Size Requirement- Margin of Error Analysis 10% Margin of Error 15% Margin of Error 10% Margin of Error 15% Margin of Error SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Site 1 210 1622 1.167 369 164 282 126 Site 2 210 487 0.973 256 114 196 87 Site 3 210 354 0.862 201 89 154 68 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE Site 4 230 393 0.703 134 59 102 46 Site 5 230 188 1.111 334 148 256 114 OFFICE Site 6 710 208 0.575 89 40 69 30 Site 7 710 158 0.906 222 99 170 76 Site 8 710 384 1.003 272 121 209 93 SHOPPING CENTER Site 9 820 481 1.257 428 190 328 146 Site 10 820 346 0.892 215 96 165 73 Site 11 820 530 0.646 113 50 87 38 Count of Assessable Inbound/ Outbound Trip Ends ITE Land Use CodeDevelopment Sample Size Requirement at 85% Confidence Sample Size Requirement at 90% ConfidenceCoefficient of Variation Notes: (1) Coefficient of Variation (C) is the standard deviation of the sample divided by the sample mean. (2) The Normal Distribution Z-value statistic at 90% and 85% confidence level is 1.645 and 1.440, respectively. (3) The sample size requirement is calculated by the formula N = (C2 x Z2)/E2, where C is the coefficient of variation, Z is the Z-value statistic, and E is the margin of error. This formula is based on a methodology reported by Michael E. Smith in "Design of Small-Sample Home Interview Travel Surveys," Transportation Research Board 701, 1979. (4) For the trip length analysis, all sites meet or exceed 90% confidence at plus or minus 15% Margins of error for each of these sample size requirements are provided at 10 and 15 percent. Review of the data presented in Appendix A indicates that enough samples were obtained at all 11 of the study sites for the 4 land uses to obtain a confidence level at or above 85 percent within a 15 percent margin of error. In fact, all sites surveyed met the sample size required for a 90-percent level of confidence with a 15-percent margin of error. 311445 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 5 Trip Characteristics Study In summary, the results of the local trip characteristic studies in the City of Bozeman are reasonable and meet the typical statistical sampling requirements for studies of this nature. Thus, the data collection will be used in the development of the demand component for the four land uses for which data were collected in the City of Bozeman. 4.0 TRIP CHARACTERISTICS RESULTS Finally, the results of the trip characteristics surveys are summarized in three tables. These tables provide information regarding the trip generation, percent new trips, and trip lengths for each of the four land uses previously referenced, including all 11 study sites. Data resulting from the trip characteristics surveys are included in Appendix A of this report and, as previously mentioned, are used in the development of the demand component of the transportation impact fee calculation for the four land uses. 4.1 Trip Generation Rate The first variable of the demand component used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee is the trip generation rate. The daily trip rate is obtained by dividing the traffic counts by the number of units after accounting for occupancy rate. In the case of residential land uses, the trip generation rate is obtained by dividing the daily trips by the number of dwelling units. For non-residential land uses, the daily trip rate is obtained by dividing the daily trips by the square footage of the study sites, which in many cases is in terms of 1,000 square feet. Table 2 presents the findings of the traffic counts that were obtained for all 11 study sites and the resulting trip generation rates that have been calculated for each. Note that traffic counts for both Site 2 residential land use site and the Site 7 office land use site are excluded due to high cut-through traffic present at each study site location, which rendered the counts unusable. Specifically, for both sites, the high cut-thru traffic was caused by lane-widening construction along an adjacent street. The resulting weighted average trip generation rate for the single family residential land use is 9.32 daily trips per dwelling unit. The trip generation rate for the residential condominium/ townhouse land use is 6.77 daily trips per dwelling unit. The office land use and shopping center land use survey data resulted in a weighted average trip generation rate of 17.70 and 56.50 daily trips per 1,000 square feet, respectively. 312446 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 6 Trip Characteristics Study Table 2 Trip Generation Rate Summary Development Type Percent Occupied(2) Gross Daily Trips Site 1 Residential 142 du 100% 142 du 1,376 9.69 trip ends per du Site 2 Residential 105 du 100% 105 du N/A N/A trip ends per du Site 3 Residential 41 du 100% 41 du 382 9.32 trip ends per du SINGLE FAMILY 41 382 9.32 trip ends per du Site 4 Residential 63 du 100% 63 du 485 7.70 trip ends per du Site 5 Residential 57 du 100% 57 du 327 5.74 trip ends per du RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE 120 812 6.77 trip ends per du Site 6 Non-Residential 48,344 1,000 sf 100% 48,344 1,000 sf 1,033 21.37 trip ends per 1,000 sf Site 7 Non-Residential 39,027 1,000 sf 100% 39,027 1,000 sf N/A N/A trip ends per 1,000 sf Site 8 Non-Residential 61,199 1,000 sf 90% 55,079 1,000 sf 1,593 28.92 trip ends per 1,000 sf OFFICE 148,570 142,450 2,626 17.70 trip ends per 1,000 sf Site 9 Non-Residential 35,888 1,000 sf 100% 35,888 1,000 sf 2,487 69.30 trip ends per 1,000 sf Site 10 Non-Residential 104,257 1,000 sf 90% 93,831 1,000 sf 4,406 46.96 trip ends per 1,000 sf Site 11 Non-Residential 159,852 1,000 sf 90% 143,867 1,000 sf 8,127 56.49 trip ends per 1,000 sf SHOPPING CENTER 159,852 143,867 8,127 56.50 trip ends per 1,000 sf Daily Trip RateGross Size(1)Net Size (1) & (2) Source - Field visits for residential sub-division sites, property management for office and shopping center sites, October 2006 313447 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 7 Trip Characteristics Study 4.2 Percent New Trips The percentage of new trips is the second variable computed from the survey data collected. For each land use, the weighted average percent new trips is obtained by weighting the percent new trips of each site by the number of surveys used. For each site, the percent new trips is calculated by first classifying all trips as either a captured trip, primary trip, diverted trip, or secondary trip. The percentage of the combined primary, diverted, and secondary trips of the total trips classified is the percent new trips. As shown, the single family and condominium/townhouse residential land uses had percent new trips of 100 percent. In addition, the office land use had percent new trips ranging from 69 percent to 72 percent and the shopping center percent new trips ranged from 49 percent to 74 percent. These results are illustrated in Table 3. . Table 3 Percent New Trips Summary (1) Site Site Location % New Trips # of Surveys Weighted % New Trips Site 1 Highland Blvd & Cherry 100% 819 819 Site 2 Woodland & Maplewood 100% 249 249 Site 3 Augusta Dr & McIlhattan 100% 180 180 Site Site Location % New Trips # of Surveys Weighted % New Trips Site 4 Ferguson Ave & Babcock Rd 100% 200 200 Site 5 Graf St & Matthew Bird Cr 100% 95 95 Land Use: Single Family Residential Land Use: Residential Condominium/Townhouse Site Site Location % New Trips # of Surveys Weighted % New Trips Site 6 Ferguson Ave & Fallon St 69% 153 106 Site 7 N 19th Ave & 22nd 77% 107 82 Site 8 W Main @ Edelweiss 72% 268 193 Site Site Location % New Trips # of Surveys Weighted % New Trips Site 9 Kagy Blvd & Tracy Ave 74% 329 243 Site 10 N 19th Ave & Burke St 49% 359 176 Site 11 N 19th Ave & Oak St 54% 502 271 Land Use: Shopping Land Use: Office (1) Source: Origin-Destination surveys conducted in the City of Bozeman, October 2006 314448 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 8 Trip Characteristics Study 4.3 Trip Length The final variable obtained from the trip characteristics study is trip length. To calculate the weighted average trip length from the data collected in the City of Bozeman the average trip length for each site is weighted by the number of assessable trip ends obtained from the surveys collected at the study site. Table 4 presents the weighted average trip length obtained from the collected survey data. As shown, the single family residential land use trip lengths range from 1.59 miles to 3.52 miles. Similarly, for the residential condominium/townhouse, the range is from 2.67 miles to 3.58 miles. In addition, the office land use trip lengths ranged from 1.64 miles to 2.83 miles and the shopping center trip lengths ranged from 1.39 miles to 3.35 miles. The results of the data reduction process are presented in detail in Appendix A, including survey number, trip type, inbound and outbound trip lengths, and assessable trip length that assesses all data plus or minus three standard deviations of the mean and excluding resulting data that lie outside this range. Note that trip type is denoted as “C” for captured, “P” for primary, “D” for diverted, and “S” for secondary. Also, the limit check denotes “OK” if the inbound and outbound trip lengths lie within three standard deviations of the mean and are, thus, assessable lengths, or “NO” if the trip lengths are considered outliers and are excluded from the assessable trip length calculation. As shown in Appendix A, Tables A-1 through A-3 present the findings of the single family residential land use sites studied, including Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 study site locations. Table A-4 and Table A-5 show the data obtained from the residential condominium/townhouse land use sites, specifically Site 4 and Site 5. The data collected from Site 6, Site 7, and Site 8 office land use study sites are presented in Tables A-6 through A-8. Finally, Tables A-9 through A-11 present the data collected from the shopping center land use study sites, including Site 9, Site 10, and Site 11. 315449 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 9 Trip Characteristics Study Table 4 Trip Length Summary (1) Site Assessable Trip Length Dwelling Units Weighted Trip Lengths Site 1 3.23 142 458.66 Site 2 1.59 105 166.95 Site 3 4.53 41 185.73 Site Assessable Trip Length Dwelling Units Weighted Trip Lengths Site 4 2.67 63 168.21 Site 5 3.58 57 204.06 Land Use: Single Family Residential Land Use: Residential Condominium/Townhouse Site Assessable Trip Length Size (1,000 sf) Weighted Trip Lengths Site 6 2.83 48.3 136.69 Site 7 1.64 39.0 63.96 Site 8 1.74 61.2 106.49 Site Assessable Trip Length Size (1,000 sf) Weighted Trip Lengths Site 9 1.39 35.9 49.90 Site 10 3.35 104.3 349.41 Site 11 1.56 159.9 249.44 Land Use: Office Land Use: Shopping Center (1) Source: Origin-Destination surveys conducted in the City of Bozeman, October 2006 316450 APPENDIX A City of Bozeman Trip Characteristics Study Data 317451 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-1 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use – Site #1 Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 1 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 1 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 2 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 2 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 4 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 4 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 5 Inbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 5 Outbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 6 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 6 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 7 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 7 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 8 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 8 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 9 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 9 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 10 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 10 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 11 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 11 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 12 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 12 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 13 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 13 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 14 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 14 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 15 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 15 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 16 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 16 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 17 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 17 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 18 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 18 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 19 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 19 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 20 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 20 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 21 Inbound 78.2 NO P 2 – 21 Outbound 78.2 NO P 2 – 22 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 22 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 23 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 23 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 25 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 318452 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-2 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 25 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 26 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 26 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 27 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 27 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 28 Inbound 5.0 OK 5.0 P 2 – 28 Outbound 5.0 OK 5.0 P 2 – 30 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 30 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 31 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 31 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 32 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 32 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 33 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 33 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 34 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 34 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 35 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 35 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 36 Inbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 36 Outbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 37 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 37 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 38 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 38 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 39 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 39 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 40 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 40 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 41 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 41 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 42 Inbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 42 Outbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 43 Inbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 43 Outbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 44 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 44 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 45 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 45 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 46 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 46 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 47 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 47 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 48 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 48 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 49 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 49 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 50 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 50 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 319453 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-3 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 51 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 51 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 52 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 52 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 53 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 53 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 54 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 54 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 56 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 56 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 57 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 57 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 58 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 58 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 59 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 59 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 60 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 60 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 61 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 61 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 62 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 62 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 63 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 63 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 64 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 64 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 65 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 65 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 66 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 66 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 67 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 67 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 68 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 68 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 69 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 69 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 70 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 70 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 71 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 71 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 72 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 72 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 74 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 74 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 75 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 75 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 320454 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-4 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 76 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 76 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 77 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 77 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 78 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 78 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 79 Inbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 2 – 79 Outbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 2 – 80 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 80 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 81 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 81 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 82 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 82 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 83 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 83 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 84 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 84 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 85 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 85 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 86 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 86 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 87 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 87 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 88 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 88 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 89 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 89 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 90 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 90 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 92 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 92 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 93 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 93 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 94 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 94 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 95 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 95 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 97 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 97 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 98 Inbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 98 Outbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 100 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 100 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 101 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 101 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 321455 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-5 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 102 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 102 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 103 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 103 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 104 Inbound 9.7 OK 9.7 P 2 – 104 Outbound 9.7 OK 9.7 P 2 – 107 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 107 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 108 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 108 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 110 Inbound 14.0 OK 14.0 P 2 – 110 Outbound 14.0 OK 14.0 P 2 – 111 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 111 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 112 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 112 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 113 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 113 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 114 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 114 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 115 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 115 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 117 Inbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 117 Outbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 118 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 118 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 119 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 119 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 120 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 120 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 121 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 121 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 122 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 122 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 124 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 124 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 125 Inbound 27.1 OK 27.1 P 2 – 125 Outbound 27.1 OK 27.1 P 2 – 127 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 127 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 128 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 128 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 130 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 130 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 132 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 132 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 133 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 133 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 322456 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-6 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 134 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 134 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 135 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 135 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 136 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 136 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 137 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 137 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 138 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 138 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 139 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 139 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 140 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 140 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 141 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 141 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 142 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 142 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 143 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 143 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 144 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 144 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 145 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 145 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 146 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 146 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 148 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 148 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 149 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 149 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 150 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 150 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 152 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 152 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 154 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 154 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 155 Inbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 155 Outbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 156 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 156 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 159 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 159 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 160 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 160 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 161 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 161 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 323457 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-7 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 162 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 162 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 163 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 163 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 165 Inbound 1.4 OK 1.4 P 2 – 165 Outbound 1.4 OK 1.4 P 2 – 166 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 166 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 167 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 167 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 168 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 168 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 170 Inbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 170 Outbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 171 Inbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 171 Outbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 172 Inbound 5.4 OK 5.4 P 2 – 172 Outbound 5.4 OK 5.4 P 2 – 173 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 173 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 174 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 174 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 176 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 176 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 177 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 177 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 179 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 179 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 181 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 181 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 182 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 182 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 184 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 184 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 186 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 186 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 189 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 189 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 191 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 191 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 192 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 192 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 193 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 193 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 194 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 194 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 195 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 195 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 324458 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-8 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 196 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 196 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 197 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 197 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 198 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 198 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 199 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 199 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 201 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 201 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 203 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 203 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 205 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 205 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 206 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 206 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 207 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 207 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 208 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 208 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 209 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 209 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 210 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 210 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 211 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 211 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 212 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 212 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 213 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 213 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 214 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 214 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 215 Inbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 215 Outbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 216 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 216 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 218 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 218 Outbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 219 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 219 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 220 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 220 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 222 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 222 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 224 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 224 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 225 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 225 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 226 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 226 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 325459 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-9 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 227 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 227 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 228 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 228 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 229 Inbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 229 Outbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 230 Inbound 6.5 OK 6.5 P 2 – 230 Outbound 6.5 OK 6.5 P 2 – 231 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 231 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 232 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 232 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 233 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 233 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 234 Inbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 234 Outbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 235 Inbound 6.7 OK 6.7 P 2 – 235 Outbound 6.7 OK 6.7 P 2 – 236 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 236 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 237 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 237 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 238 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 238 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 239 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 239 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 241 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 241 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 242 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 242 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 243 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 243 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 244 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 244 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 246 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 246 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 247 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 247 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 249 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 249 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 250 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 250 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 251 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 251 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 254 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 254 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 256 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 256 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 257 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 257 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 326460 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-10 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 258 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 258 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 259 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 259 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 260 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 260 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 261 Inbound 14.5 OK 14.5 P 2 – 261 Outbound 14.5 OK 14.5 P 2 – 263 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 263 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 264 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 264 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 265 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 265 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 266 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 266 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 268 Inbound 0.8 OK 0.8 P 2 – 268 Outbound 0.8 OK 0.8 P 2 – 270 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 270 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 271 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 271 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 272 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 272 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 273 Inbound 0.6 OK 0.6 P 2 – 273 Outbound 0.6 OK 0.6 P 2 – 274 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 274 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 275 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 275 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 276 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 276 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 277 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 277 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 278 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 278 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 279 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 279 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 280 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 280 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 281 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 281 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 282 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 282 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 284 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 284 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 285 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 285 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 286 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 286 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 327461 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-11 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 287 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 287 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 288 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 288 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 290 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 290 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 291 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 291 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 292 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 292 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 293 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 293 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 294 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 294 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 295 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 295 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 296 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 296 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 298 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 298 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 300 Inbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 2 – 300 Outbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 2 – 301 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 301 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 302 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 302 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 305 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 305 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 306 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 306 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 307 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 307 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 308 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 308 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 309 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 309 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 310 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 310 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 311 Inbound 5.0 OK 5.0 P 2 – 311 Outbound 5.0 OK 5.0 P 2 – 312 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 312 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 313 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 313 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 314 Inbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 2 – 314 Outbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 2 – 318 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 318 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 319 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 319 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 328462 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-12 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 320 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 320 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 321 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 321 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 322 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 322 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 323 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 323 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 324 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 324 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 -325 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 -325 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 327 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 327 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 328 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 328 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 329 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 329 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 330 Inbound 5.0 OK 5.0 P 2 – 330 Outbound 5.0 OK 5.0 P 2 – 331 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 331 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 334 Inbound 0.2 OK 0.2 P 2 – 334 Outbound 0.2 OK 0.2 P 2 – 335 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 335 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 336 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 336 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 337 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 337 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 338 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 338 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 339 Inbound 5.0 OK 5.0 P 2 – 339 Outbound 5.0 OK 5.0 P 2 – 341 Inbound 14.2 OK 14.2 P 2 – 341 Outbound 14.2 OK 14.2 P 2 – 342 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 342 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 343 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 343 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 344 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 344 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 345 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 345 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 346 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 346 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 347 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 347 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 348 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 348 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 329463 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-13 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 350 Inbound 5.7 OK 5.7 P 2 – 350 Outbound 5.7 OK 5.7 P 2 – 351 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 351 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 352 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 352 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 353 Inbound 23.5 OK 23.5 P 2 – 353 Outbound 23.5 OK 23.5 P 2 – 354 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 354 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 356 Inbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 356 Outbound 8.9 OK 8.9 P 2 – 357 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 357 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 359 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 359 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 360 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 360 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 362 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 362 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 363 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 363 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 364 Inbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 364 Outbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 365 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 365 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 2 – 367 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 367 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 368 Inbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 2 – 368 Outbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 2 – 369 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 369 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 372 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 372 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 373 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 373 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 374 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 374 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 375 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 375 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 376 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 376 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 377 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 377 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 378 Inbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 378 Outbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 379 Inbound 14.2 OK 14.2 P 2 – 379 Outbound 14.2 OK 14.2 P 2 – 380 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 380 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 330464 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-14 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 381 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 381 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 382 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 382 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 383 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 383 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 384 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 384 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 386 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 386 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 387 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 387 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 388 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 388 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 389 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 389 Outbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 390 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 390 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 391 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 391 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 392 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 392 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 394 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 394 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 395 Inbound 4.0 OK 4.0 P 2 – 395 Outbound 4.0 OK 4.0 P 2 – 396 Inbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 396 Outbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 398 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 398 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 399 Inbound 14.2 OK 14.2 P 2 – 399 Outbound 14.2 OK 14.2 P 2 – 400 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 400 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 401 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 401 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 402 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 402 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 403 Inbound 143.8 NO P 2 – 403 Outbound 143.8 NO P 2 – 404 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 404 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 405 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 405 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 406 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 406 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 407 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 407 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 408 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 408 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 331465 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-15 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 409 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 409 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 410 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 410 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 411 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 411 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 412 Inbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 412 Outbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 415 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 415 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 2 – 416 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 416 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 417 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 417 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 418 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 418 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 420 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 420 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 421 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 421 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 423 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 423 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 424 Inbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 424 Outbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 426 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 426 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 427 Inbound 27.1 OK 27.1 P 2 – 427 Outbound 27.1 OK 27.1 P 2 – 429 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 429 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 430 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 430 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 431 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 431 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 434 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 434 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 435 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 435 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 436 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 2 – 436 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 4 – 437 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 4 – 437 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 439 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 439 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 440 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 440 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 441 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 441 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 442 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 442 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 332466 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-16 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 443 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 443 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 444 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 444 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 445 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 445 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 446 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 446 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 447 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 447 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 448 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 448 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 449 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 449 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 450 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 450 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 451 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 451 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 452 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 452 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 454 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 454 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 455 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 455 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 456 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 456 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 457 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 457 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 458 Inbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 458 Outbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 461 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 461 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 462 Inbound 4.7 OK 4.7 P 2 – 462 Outbound 4.7 OK 4.7 P 2 – 465 Inbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 465 Outbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 466 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 466 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 467 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 467 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 468 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 468 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 470 Inbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 470 Outbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 471 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 471 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 472 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 472 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 473 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 473 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 333467 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-17 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 476 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 476 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 477 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 477 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 480 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 480 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 482 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 482 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 483 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 483 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 484 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 484 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 485 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 485 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 487 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 487 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 488 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 488 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 489 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 489 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 490 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 490 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 491 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 491 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 492 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 492 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 494 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 494 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 495 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 495 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 496 Inbound 6.9 OK 6.9 P 2 – 496 Outbound 6.9 OK 6.9 P 2 – 497 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 497 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 499 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 499 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 501 Inbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 501 Outbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 502 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 502 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 503 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 503 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 504 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 504 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 506 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 506 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 508 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 508 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 509 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 509 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 510 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 510 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 334468 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-18 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 512 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 512 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 513 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 513 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 - 516 Inbound 0.7 P 2 – 516 Outbound 0.7 P 2 – 517 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 517 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 518 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 518 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 519 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 519 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 520 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 520 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 521 Inbound 12.7 OK 12.7 P 2 – 521 Outbound 12.7 OK 12.7 P 2 – 522 Inbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 522 Outbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 523 Inbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 2 – 523 Outbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 2 – 524 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 524 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 525 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 525 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 526 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 526 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 527 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 527 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 529 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 529 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 530 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 530 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 531 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 531 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 532 Inbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 532 Outbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 533 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 533 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 534 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 534 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 535 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 535 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 536 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 536 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 537 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 537 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 538 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 538 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 539 Inbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 539 Outbound 5.6 OK 5.6 335469 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-19 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 540 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 540 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 542 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 542 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 543 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 543 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 544 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 544 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 545 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 545 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 547 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 547 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 548 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 548 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 549 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 549 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 550 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 550 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 553 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 553 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 556 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 556 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 557 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 557 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 558 Inbound 1.4 OK 1.4 P 2 – 558 Outbound 1.4 OK 1.4 P 2 – 560 Inbound 0.6 OK 0.6 P 2 – 560 Outbound 0.6 OK 0.6 P 2 – 561 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 561 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 562 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 562 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 563 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 563 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 565 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 565 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 566 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 566 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 569 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 569 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 570 Inbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 2 – 570 Outbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 2 – 572 Inbound 5.1 OK 5.1 P 2 – 572 Outbound 5.1 OK 5.1 P 2 – 574 Inbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 2 – 574 Outbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 2 – 575 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 575 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 577 Inbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 577 Outbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 578 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 578 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 336470 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-20 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 580 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 580 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 581 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 581 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 582 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 582 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 583 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 583 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 584 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 584 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 585 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 585 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 586 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 586 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 587 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 587 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 588 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 588 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 590 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 590 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 591 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 591 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 592 Inbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 2 – 592 Outbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 2 – 594 Inbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 594 Outbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 595 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 595 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 596 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 596 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 597 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 597 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 598 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 598 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 599 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 599 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 600 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 600 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 602 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 602 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 604 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 604 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 605 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 605 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 606 Inbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 606 Outbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 607 Inbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 607 Outbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 608 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 608 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 337471 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-21 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 609 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 609 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 610 Inbound 23.1 OK 23.1 P 2 – 610 Outbound 23.1 OK 23.1 P 2 – 611 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 611 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 612 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 612 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 613 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 613 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 614 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 614 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 615 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 615 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 616 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 616 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 617 Inbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 617 Outbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 618 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 618 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 619 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 619 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 620 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 620 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 621 Inbound 17.7 OK 17.7 P 2 – 621 Outbound 17.7 OK 17.7 P 2 – 623 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 623 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 624 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 624 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 625 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 625 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 626 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 626 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 627 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 627 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 628 Inbound 15.1 OK 15.1 P 2 – 628 Outbound 15.1 OK 15.1 P 2 – 629 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 629 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 630 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 630 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 631 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 631 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 632 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 632 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 633 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 633 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 634 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 634 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 338472 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-22 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 635 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 635 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 636 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 636 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 637 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 637 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 640 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 640 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 642 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 642 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 2 – 643 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 643 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 644 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 644 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 645 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 645 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 646 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 646 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 647 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 647 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 648 Inbound 148.4 NO P 2 – 648 Outbound 148.4 NO P 2 – 649 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 649 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 650 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 650 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 651 Inbound 6.6 OK 6.6 P 2 – 651 Outbound 6.6 OK 6.6 P 2 – 653 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 653 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 654 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 654 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 655 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 655 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 656 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 656 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 657 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 657 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 658 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 658 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 660 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 660 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 661 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 661 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 662 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 662 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 663 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 663 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 2 – 664 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 664 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 339473 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-23 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 665 Inbound 4.3 OK 4.3 P 2 – 665 Outbound 4.3 OK 4.3 P 2 – 666 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 666 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 667 Inbound 4.3 OK 4.3 P 2 – 667 Outbound 4.3 OK 4.3 P 2 – 668 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 668 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 669 Inbound 23.1 OK 23.1 P 2 – 669 Outbound 23.1 OK 23.1 P 2 – 670 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 670 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 671 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 671 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 672 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 672 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 673 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 673 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 674 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 674 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 675 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 675 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 676 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 676 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 677 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 677 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 678 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 678 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 679 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 679 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 681 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 681 Outbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 682 Inbound 36.6 NO P 2 – 682 Outbound 36.6 NO P 2 – 683 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 683 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 684 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 684 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 685 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 685 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 688 Inbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 2 – 688 Outbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 2 – 689 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 689 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 690 Inbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 690 Outbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 691 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 691 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 693 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 693 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 340474 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-24 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 694 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 694 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 695 Inbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 695 Outbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 696 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 696 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 697 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 697 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 700 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 700 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 701 Inbound 5.7 OK 5.7 P 2 – 701 Outbound 5.7 OK 5.7 P 2 – 703 Inbound 9.5 OK 9.5 P 2 – 703 Outbound 9.5 OK 9.5 P 2 – 704 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 704 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 705 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 705 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 706 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 706 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 707 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 707 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 708 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 708 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 709 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 709 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 710 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 710 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 711 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 711 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 712 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 712 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 713 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 713 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 714 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 714 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 2 – 715 Inbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 715 Outbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 716 Inbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 716 Outbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 717 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 717 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 718 Inbound 46.3 NO P 2 – 718 Outbound 46.3 NO P 2 – 719 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 719 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 720 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 720 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 721 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 721 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 722 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 722 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 341475 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-25 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 723 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 723 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 724 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 724 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 725 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 725 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 726 Inbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 726 Outbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 727 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 727 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 728 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 728 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 729 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 729 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 730 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 730 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 731 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 731 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 732 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 732 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 733 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 733 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 734 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 734 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 735 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 735 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 736 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 736 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 737 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 737 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 738 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 738 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 739 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 739 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 740 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 740 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 -741 Inbound 6.1 OK 6.1 P 2 -741 Outbound 6.1 OK 6.1 P 2 – 742 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 742 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 743 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 743 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 744 Inbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 744 Outbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 745 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 745 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 746 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 746 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 747 Inbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 747 Outbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 748 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 748 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 342476 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-26 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 749 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 749 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 750 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 750 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 751 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 751 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 752 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 752 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 2 – 753 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 753 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 755 Inbound 17.7 OK 17.7 P 2 – 755 Outbound 17.7 OK 17.7 P 2 – 757 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 757 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 758 Inbound 9.5 OK 9.5 P 2 – 758 Outbound 9.5 OK 9.5 P 2 – 759 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 759 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 760 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 760 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 761 Inbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 2 – 761 Outbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 2 – 762 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 762 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 764 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 764 Outbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 765 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 765 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 766 Inbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 2 – 766 Outbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 2 – 767 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 767 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 768 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 768 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 769 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 769 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 770 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 770 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 771 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 771 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 772 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 772 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 773 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 773 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 774 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 774 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 775 Inbound 9.8 OK 9.8 P 2 – 775 Outbound 9.8 OK 9.8 P 2 – 776 Inbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 776 Outbound 26.7 OK 26.7 343477 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-27 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 777 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 777 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 778 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 778 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 779 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 779 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 780 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 780 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 782 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 782 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 783 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 783 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 784 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 784 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 785 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 785 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 786 Inbound 12.7 OK 12.7 P 2 – 786 Outbound 12.7 OK 12.7 P 2 – 788 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 788 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 790 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 790 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 793 Inbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 793 Outbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 795 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 795 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 796 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 796 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 797 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 797 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 799 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 799 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 800 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 800 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 801 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 801 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 802 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 802 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 803 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 803 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 804 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 804 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 805 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 805 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 806 Inbound 12.7 OK 12.7 P 2 – 806 Outbound 12.7 OK 12.7 P 2 – 807 Inbound 0.2 OK 0.2 P 2 – 807 Outbound 0.2 OK 0.2 P 2 – 808 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 808 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 344478 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-28 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 809 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 809 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 810 Inbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 2 – 810 Outbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 2 – 812 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 812 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 813 Inbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 813 Outbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 814 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 814 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 816 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 816 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 817 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 817 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 818 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 818 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 819 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 819 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 820 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 820 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 821 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 821 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 822 Inbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 822 Outbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 2 – 824 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 824 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 826 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 826 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 828 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 828 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 829 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 829 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 830 Inbound 4.2 OK 4.2 P 2 – 830 Outbound 4.2 OK 4.2 P 2 – 832 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 832 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 833 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 833 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 834 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 834 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 835 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 835 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 836 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 836 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 838 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 838 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 839 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 839 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 840 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 2 – 840 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 345479 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-29 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 841 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 841 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 842 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 842 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 843 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 843 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 844 Inbound 17.7 OK 17.7 P 2 – 844 Outbound 17.7 OK 17.7 P 2 – 845 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 845 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 846 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 846 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 847 Inbound 77.8 NO P 2 – 847 Outbound 77.8 NO P 2 – 848 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 848 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 849 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 849 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 850 Inbound 12.7 OK 12.7 P 2 – 850 Outbound 12.7 OK 12.7 P 2 – 851 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 851 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 2 – 852 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 852 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 853 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 853 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 855 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 855 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 856 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 856 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 857 Inbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 857 Outbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 858 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 858 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 859 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 859 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 860 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 860 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 861 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 861 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 862 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 862 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 863 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 863 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 864 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 864 Outbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 865 Inbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 2 – 865 Outbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 2 – 866 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 866 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 346480 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-30 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 867 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 867 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 869 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 869 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.1 P 2 – 871 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 871 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 872 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 872 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 873 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 873 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 874 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 874 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 875 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 875 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 879 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 879 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 880 Inbound 5.1 OK 5.1 P 2 – 880 Outbound 5.1 OK 5.1 P 2 – 882 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 882 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 884 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 884 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 885 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 885 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 886 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 886 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 887 Inbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 887 Outbound 1.3 OK 1.3 P 2 – 888 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 888 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 889 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 889 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 890 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 890 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 891 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 891 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 892 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 892 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 893 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 893 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 894 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 894 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 895 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 895 Outbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 2 – 896 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 896 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 897 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 897 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 898 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 2 – 898 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 347481 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-31 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 899 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 899 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 900 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 900 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 2 – 901 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 901 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 2 – 902 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 902 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 903 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 903 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 904 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 904 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 905 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 905 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 2 – 906 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 906 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 909 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 909 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 910 Inbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 910 Outbound 7.5 OK 7.5 P 2 – 911 Inbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 911 Outbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 912 Inbound 60.7 NO P 2 – 912 Outbound 60.7 NO P 2 – 913 Inbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 913 Outbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 -914 Inbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 -914 Outbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 915 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 915 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 917 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 917 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 918 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 918 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 919 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 919 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 920 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 920 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 921 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 921 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 922 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 922 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 923 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 923 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 924 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 924 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 2 – 925 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 925 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 926 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 926 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 348482 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-32 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 927 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 927 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 928 Inbound 15.1 OK 15.1 P 2 – 928 Outbound 15.1 OK 15.1 P 2 – 929 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 929 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 931 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 931 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 933 Inbound 10.3 OK 10.3 P 2 – 933 Outbound 10.3 OK 10.3 P 2 – 934 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 934 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 P 2 – 935 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 935 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 936 Inbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 936 Outbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 937 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 937 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 938 Inbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 938 Outbound 5.8 OK 5.8 P 2 – 939 Inbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 939 Outbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 940 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 940 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 942 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 942 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 943 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 943 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 945 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 945 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 947 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 947 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 948 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 948 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 949 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 949 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 2 – 950 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 950 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 954 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 954 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 955 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 955 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 2 – 957 Inbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 957 Outbound 7.1 OK 7.1 P 2 – 958 Inbound 0.3 OK 0.3 P 2 – 958 Outbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 2 – 959 Inbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 2 – 959 Outbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 2 – 960 Inbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 2 – 960 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 349483 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-33 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 961 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 961 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 962 Inbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 962 Outbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 965 Inbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 965 Outbound 4.8 OK 4.8 P 2 – 966 Inbound 4.3 OK 4.3 P 2 – 966 Outbound 4.3 OK 4.3 P 2 – 967 Inbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 967 Outbound 0.7 OK 0.7 P 2 – 969 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 969 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 2 – 970 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 970 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 972 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 972 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 974 Inbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 974 Outbound 13.0 OK 13.0 P 2 – 975 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 975 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 2 – 978 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 978 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 2 – 979 Inbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 979 Outbound 5.6 OK 5.6 P 2 – 981 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 981 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 982 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 982 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 2 – 983 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 983 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 984 Inbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 984 Outbound 26.7 OK 26.7 P 2 – 986 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 986 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 987 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 987 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 2 – 988 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 988 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 2 – 989 Inbound 9.5 OK 9.5 P 2 – 989 Outbound 9.5 OK 9.5 P 2 – 991 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 991 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 992 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 P 2 – 992 Outbound 1.7 OK 1.7 350484 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-34 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-1 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 2 – 993 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 993 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 994 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 994 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 2 – 995 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 995 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 2 – 996 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 2 – 996 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 819 Average3.92Average3.23 Diverted Trips 0 Standard Deviation 9.21 Standard Deviation 3.77 Secondary Trips 0 Average + 3σ 31.55 Average + 3σ 14.54 Captured Trips 0 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:819 Coefficient of Variation 2.349 Coefficient of Variation 1.167 % Captured Trips:0% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 1638 Number of Assessable Trip Ends 1622 % New Trips of Total Surveys:100% Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Trip Length Assessable Trip Length 351485 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-35 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-2 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use – Site #2 Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 5-325 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 5-326 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 P 5-333 12.6 12.6 NO NO P 5-337 4.5 4.5 OK 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5-353 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-354 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 5-356 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-368 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 5-379 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 P 5-380 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5-382 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-392 17.2 17.2 NO NO P 5-398 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-400 6.9 6.9 OK 6.9 OK 6.9 P 5-405 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 5-416 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5-417 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5-421 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-424 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-452 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 5-453 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 5-465 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 P 5-468 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-469 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-470 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 5-477 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5-482 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5-486 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-490 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-491 7.4 7.4 OK 7.4 OK 7.4 P 5-492 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-493 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-494 2.9 2..9 OK 2.9 NO P 5-495 1 1 OK 1 OK 1 P 5-496 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5-497 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 5-505 7.4 7.4 OK 7.4 OK 7.4 P 5-511 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-513 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5-516 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-522 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-523 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-525 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-529 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5-532 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5-533 7.5 7.5 OK 7.5 OK 7.5 P 5-537 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 5-540 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-541 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5-546 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-548 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 5-552 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 5-553 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-557 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-558 4.5 4.5 OK 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5-559 2 2 OK 2 OK 2 P 5-560 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-567 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 5-575 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5-576 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5-590 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5-591 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 5-595 2 2 OK 2 OK 2 352486 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-36 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-2 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 5-609 1 1 OK 1 OK 1 P 5-619 1 1 OK 1 OK 1 P 5-636 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 5-640 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 5-647 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-650 4.5 4.5 OK 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5-652 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 5-655 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 5-658 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 5-662 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 5-672 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-685 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-681 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-690 7.4 7.4 OK 7.4 OK 7.4 P 5-693 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 5-694 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 P 5-695 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-697 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5-706 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 5-712 4.5 4.5 OK 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5-713 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-714 7.4 7.4 OK 7.4 OK 7.4 P 5-716 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 5-722 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-723 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-725 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 5-734 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5-736 4.9 4.9 OK 4.9 OK 4.9 P 5-738 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-741 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5-752 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 5-753 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 5-760 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 5-761 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 5-762 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 5-765 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 5-768 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 5-770 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 5-773 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 5-774 2 2 OK 2 OK 2 P 5-779 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-781 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 5-785 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-787 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5-789 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-791 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-792 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5-793 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-794 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-795 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-797 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-800 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5-801 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-802 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 5-804 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-807 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-808 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-810 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-811 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 5-812 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-815 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-816 7.3 7.3 OK 7.3 OK 7.3 P 5-817 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-819 1.8 1 OK 1.8 OK 1 353487 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-37 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-2 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 5-823 3.2 3.2 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5-829 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-830 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-831 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-833 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5-839 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5-844 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-847 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-848 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-850 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 5-852 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 5-855 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-859 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5-861 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-867 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 5-869 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-877 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5-880 5.5 5.5 OK 5.5 OK 5.5 P 5-882 11.2 11.2 NO NO P 5-883 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-889 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-892 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-893 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-896 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-897 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-908 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 P 5-909 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-910 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-920 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-926 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-927 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-936 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-939 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-946 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-958 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-961 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-982 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-989 6.6 6.6 OK 6.6 OK 6.6 P 5-993 6.2 6.2 OK 6.2 OK 6.2 P 5-1006 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-1009 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-1015 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5-1026 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5-1040 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5-1041 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1042 3.2 3.2 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5-1043 3.7 3.7 OK 3.7 OK 3.7 P 5-1044 3 3 OK 3 OK 3 P 5-1045 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 5-1049 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5-1050 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 5-1051 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-1052 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5-1053 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-1054 2 2 OK 2 OK 2 P 5-1055 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1056 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-1057 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1059 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1060 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1061 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1066 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-1067 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-1069 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 354488 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-38 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-2 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 5-1070 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-1071 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5-1072 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-1077 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1081 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-1083 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-1084 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1086 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1087 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1089 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1091 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1093 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1094 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1095 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 5-1096 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1099 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1100 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1101 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5-1102 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1103 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1108 7.2 7.2 OK 7.2 OK 7.2 P 5-1109 2 2 OK 2 OK 2 P 5-1110 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1112 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-1114 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 5-1115 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1117 8.5 8.5 NO NO P 5-1118 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5-1119 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 5-1120 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1122 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-1123 11.3 11.3 NO NO P 5-1124 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1125 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 5-1128 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1129 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5-1130 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 5-1131 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-1132 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1134 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 5-1136 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 5-1144 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-1156 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-1162 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5-1164 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 5-1171 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 5-1177 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5-1179 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1180 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5-1182 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 5-1184 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1188 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 5-1190 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1194 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 5-1195 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 5-1199 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 5-1200 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 5-1219 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 249 Average1.81 Average1.59 Diverted Trips 0 Standard Deviation 2.17 Standard Deviation 1.55 Secondary Trips 0 Average + 3σ 8.33 Average + 3σ 6.25 Captured Trips 0 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:249 Coefficient of Variation 1.203 Coefficient of Variation 0.973 % Captured Trips:0% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 497 Number of Assessable Trip Ends 487 % New Trips of Total Surveys:100% Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Assessable Trip LengthTrip Length 355489 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-39 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-3 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use – Site #3 Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5*1 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 5*1 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 5*2 Outbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 5*2 Inbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 5*3 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5*3 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5*4 Outbound 3.06 OK 3.06 P 5*4 Inbound 3.06 OK 3.06 P 5*5 Outbound 2.34 OK 2.34 P 5*5 Inbound 2.34 OK 2.34 P 5*6 Outbound 3.48 OK 3.48 P 5*6 Inbound 3.48 OK 3.48 P 5*7 Outbound 0.84 OK 0.84 P 5*7 Inbound 0.84 OK 0.84 P 5*8 Outbound 2.87 OK 2.87 P 5*8 Inbound 2.87 OK 2.87 P 5*9 Outbound 4.45 OK 4.45 P 5*9 Inbound 4.45 OK 4.45 P 5*10 Outbound 2.88 OK 2.88 P 5*10 Inbound 2.88 OK 2.88 P 5*11 Outbound 2.09 OK 2.09 P 5*11 Inbound 2.09 OK 2.09 P 5*12 Outbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*12 Inbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*13 Outbound 2.92 OK 2.92 P 5*13 Inbound 2.92 OK 2.92 P 5*14 Outbound 3.62 OK 3.62 P 5*14 Inbound 3.62 OK 3.62 P 5*15 Outbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 5*15 Inbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 5*17 Outbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*17 Inbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*18 Outbound 147.03 NO P 5*18 Inbound 147.03 NO P 5*20 Outbound 5.12 OK 5.12 P 5*20 Inbound 5.12 OK 5.12 P 5*21 Outbound 4.02 OK 4.02 P 5*21 Inbound 4.02 OK 4.02 P 5*22 Outbound 2.88 OK 2.88 P 5*22 Inbound 2.88 OK 2.88 P 5*23 Outbound 6.03 OK 6.03 P 5*23 Inbound 6.03 OK 6.03 P 5*25 Outbound 3.89 OK 3.89 P 5*25 Inbound 3.89 OK 3.89 P 5*27 Outbound 3.94 OK 3.94 P 5*27 Inbound 3.94 OK 3.94 P 5*28 Outbound 98.73 NO P 5*28 Inbound 98.73 NO P 5*29 Outbound 6.04 OK 6.04 P 5*29 Inbound 6.04 OK 6.04 P 5*30 Outbound 3.86 OK 3.86 P 5*30 Inbound 3.86 OK 3.86 356490 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-40 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-3 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5*31 Outbound 2.91 OK 2.91 P 5*31 Inbound 2.91 OK 2.91 P 5*32 Outbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*32 Inbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*33 Outbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*33 Inbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*34 Outbound 1.76 OK 1.76 P 5*34 Inbound 1.76 OK 1.76 P 5*36 Outbound 6.04 OK 6.04 P 5*36 Inbound 6.04 OK 6.04 P 5*37 Outbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*37 Inbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*38 Outbound 2.09 OK 2.09 P 5*38 Inbound 2.09 OK 2.09 P 5*39 Outbound 1.76 OK 1.76 P 5*39 Inbound 1.76 OK 1.76 P 5*40 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 5*40 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 5*41 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*41 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*42 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*42 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*43 Outbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*43 Inbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*44 Outbound 47.3 OK 47.3 P 5*44 Inbound 47.3 OK 47.3 P 5*45 Outbound 3.02 OK 3.02 P 5*45 Inbound 3.02 OK 3.02 P 5*46 Outbound 3.54 OK 3.54 P 5*46 Inbound 3.54 OK 3.54 P 5*47 Outbound 2.81 OK 2.81 P 5*47 Inbound 2.81 OK 2.81 P 5*48 Outbound 5.41 OK 5.41 P 5*48 Inbound 5.41 OK 5.41 P 5*49 Outbound 2.97 OK 2.97 P 5*49 Inbound 2.97 OK 2.97 P 5*50 Outbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*50 Inbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*51 Outbound 3.27 OK 3.27 P 5*51 Inbound 3.27 OK 3.27 P 5*52 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*52 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*54 Outbound 0.93 OK 0.93 P 5*54 Inbound 0.93 OK 0.93 P 5*55 Outbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*55 Inbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*56 Outbound 5.57 OK 5.57 P 5*56 Inbound 5.57 OK 5.57 P 5*57 Outbound 2.29 OK 2.29 P 5*57 Inbound 2.29 OK 2.29 P 5*58 Outbound 3.02 OK 3.02 P 5*58 Inbound 3.02 OK 3.02 P 5*59 Outbound 1.39 OK 1.39 P 5*59 Inbound 1.39 OK 1.39 357491 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-41 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-3 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5*61 Outbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*61 Inbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*62 Outbound 2.81 OK 2.81 P 5*62 Inbound 2.81 OK 2.81 P 5*63 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*63 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*64 Outbound 4.35 OK 4.35 P 5*64 Inbound 4.35 OK 4.35 P 5*65 Outbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*65 Inbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*66 Outbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*66 Inbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*67 Outbound 5.53 OK 5.53 P 5*67 Inbound 5.53 OK 5.53 P 5*68 Outbound 10.3 OK 10.3 P 5*68 Inbound 10.3 OK 10.3 P 5*69 Outbound 5.94 OK 5.94 P 5*69 Inbound 5.94 OK 5.94 P 5*70 Outbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5*70 Inbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5*71 Outbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*71 Inbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*72 Outbound 3.04 OK 3.04 P 5*72 Inbound 3.04 OK 3.04 P 5*73 Outbound 0.51 OK 0.51 P 5*73 Inbound 0.51 OK 0.51 P 5*74 Outbound 4.88 OK 4.88 P 5*74 Inbound 4.88 OK 4.88 P 5*75 Outbound 4.97 OK 4.97 P 5*75 Inbound 4.97 OK 4.97 P 5*76 Outbound 11.64 OK 11.64 P 5*76 Inbound 11.64 OK 11.64 P 5*77 Outbound 3.54 OK 3.54 P 5*77 Inbound 3.54 OK 3.54 P 5*78 Outbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*78 Inbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*79 Outbound 3.86 OK 3.86 P 5*79 Inbound 3.86 OK 3.86 P 5*80 Outbound 4.79 OK 4.79 P 5*80 Inbound 4.79 OK 4.79 P 5*81 Outbound 6.35 OK 6.35 P 5*81 Inbound 6.35 OK 6.35 P 5*82 Outbound 4.79 OK 4.79 P 5*82 Inbound 4.79 OK 4.79 P 5*83 Outbound 3.49 OK 3.49 P 5*83 Inbound 3.49 OK 3.49 P 5*84 outbound 3.06 OK 3.06 P 5*84 Inbound 3.06 OK 3.06 P 5*85 Outbound 4.96 OK 4.96 P 5*85 Inbound 4.96 OK 4.96 P 5*86 Outbound 4.04 OK 4.04 P 5*86 Inbound 4.04 OK 4.04 P 5*87 Outbound 5.42 OK 5.42 P 5*87 Inbound 5.42 OK 5.42 P 5*88 Outbound 3.11 OK 3.11 P 5*88 Inbound 3.11 OK 3.11 358492 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-42 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-3 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5*91 Outbound 4.69 OK 4.69 P 5*91 Inbound 4.69 OK 4.69 P 5*92 Outbound 2.58 OK 2.58 P 5*92 Inbound 2.58 OK 2.58 P 5*93 Outbound 3.78 OK 3.78 P 5*93 Inbound 3.78 OK 3.78 P 5*95 Outbound 2.98 OK 2.98 P 5*95 Inbound 2.98 OK 2.98 P 5*96 Outbound 1.73 OK 1.73 P 5*96 Inbound 1.73 OK 1.73 P 5*97 Outbound 1.73 OK 1.73 P 5*97 Inbound 1.73 OK 1.73 P 5*98 Outbound 5.88 OK 5.88 P 5*98 Inbound 5.88 OK 5.88 P 5*99 Outbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*99 Inbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*100 Outbound 2.78 OK 2.78 P 5*100 Inbound 2.78 OK 2.78 P 5*101 Outbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*101 Inbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*102 Outbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5*102 Inbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5*104 Outbound 4.94 OK 4.94 P 5*104 Inbound 4.94 OK 4.94 P 5*105 Outbound 4.89 OK 4.89 P 5*105 Inbound 4.89 OK 4.89 P 5*106 Outbound 0.84 OK 0.84 P 5*106 Inbound 0.84 OK 0.84 P 5*107 Outbound 2.88 OK 2.88 P 5*107 Inbound 2.88 OK 2.88 P 5*108 Outbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 5*108 Inbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 5*109 Outbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*109 Inbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*110 Outbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*110 Inbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*111 Outbound 2.85 OK 2.85 P 5*111 Inbound 2.85 OK 2.85 P 5*112 Outbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*112 Inbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*115 Outbound 3.54 OK 3.54 P 5*115 Inbound 3.54 OK 3.54 P 5*116 Outbound 2.99 OK 2.99 P 5*116 Inbound 2.99 OK 2.99 P 5*118 Outbound 3.13 OK 3.13 P 5*118 Inbound 3.13 OK 3.13 P 5*119 Outbound 2.94 OK 2.94 P 5*119 Inbound 2.94 OK 2.94 P 5*120 Outbound 5.63 OK 5.63 P 5*120 Inbound 5.63 OK 5.63 P 5*121 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*121 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*122 Outbound 4.13 OK 4.13 P 5*122 Inbound 4.13 OK 4.13 359493 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-43 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-3 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5*123 Outbound 3.04 OK 3.04 P 5*123 Inbound 3.04 OK 3.04 P 5*124 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*124 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*125 Outbound 5.49 OK 5.49 P 5*125 Inbound 5.49 OK 5.49 P 5*126 Outbound 3.13 OK 3.13 P 5*126 Inbound 3.13 OK 3.13 P 5*127 Outbound 4.31 OK 4.31 P 5*127 Inbound 4.31 OK 4.31 P 5*129 Outbound 2.74 OK 2.74 P 5*129 Inbound 2.74 OK 2.74 P 5*130 Outbound 2.98 OK 2.98 P 5*130 Inbound 2.98 OK 2.98 P 5*131 Outbound 1.39 OK 1.39 P 5*131 Inbound 1.39 OK 1.39 P 5*132 Outbound 0.84 OK 0.84 P 5*132 Inbound 0.84 OK 0.84 P 5*133 Outbound 3.38 OK 3.38 P 5*133 Inbound 3.38 OK 3.38 P 5*134 Outbound 3.06 OK 3.06 P 5*134 Inbound 3.06 OK 3.06 P 5*136 Outbound 3.62 OK 3.62 P 5*136 Inbound 3.62 OK 3.62 P 5*138 Outbound 4.85 OK 4.85 P 5*138 Inbound 4.85 OK 4.85 P 5*139 Outbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*139 Inbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*140 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*140 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*142 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*142 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*143 Outbound 3.06 OK 3.06 P 5*143 Inbound 3.06 OK 3.06 P 5*145 Outbound 2.92 OK 2.92 P 5*145 Inbound 2.92 OK 2.92 P 5*146 Outbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*146 Inbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*147 Outbound 5.49 OK 5.49 P 5*147 Inbound 5.49 OK 5.49 P 5*148 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*148 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*149 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*149 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*150 Outbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*150 Inbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*151 Outbound 3.86 OK 3.86 P 5*151 Inbound 3.86 OK 3.86 P 5*152 Outbound 5.37 OK 5.37 P 5*152 Inbound 5.37 OK 5.37 P 5*154 Outbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*154 Inbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*159 Outbound 7.48 OK 7.48 P 5*159 Inbound 7.48 OK 7.48 360494 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-44 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-3 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5*160 Outbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*160 Inbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*161 Outbound 1.23 OK 1.23 P 5*161 Inbound 1.23 OK 1.23 P 5*163 Outbound 3.05 OK 3.05 P 5*163 Inbound 3.05 OK 3.05 P 5*164 Outbound 5.37 OK 5.37 P 5*164 Inbound 5.37 OK 5.37 P 5*165 Outbound 5.12 OK 5.12 P 5*165 Inbound 5.12 OK 5.12 P 5*166 Outbound 5.37 OK 5.37 P 5*166 Inbound 5.37 OK 5.37 P 5*167 Outbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 5*167 Inbound 5.2 OK 5.2 P 5*168 Outbound 3.05 OK 3.05 P 5*168 Inbound 3.05 OK 3.05 P 5*169 Outbound 3.09 OK 3.09 P 5*169 Inbound 3.09 OK 3.09 P 5*170 Outbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*170 Inbound 5.02 OK 5.02 P 5*171 Outbound 3.04 OK 3.04 P 5*171 Inbound 3.04 OK 3.04 P 5*172 Outbound 4.92 OK 4.92 P 5*172 Inbound 4.92 OK 4.92 P 5*173 Outbound 4.81 OK 4.81 P 5*173 Inbound 4.81 OK 4.81 P 5*175 Outbound 5.76 OK 5.76 P 5*175 Inbound 5.76 OK 5.76 P 5*177 Outbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*177 Inbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*178 Outbound 6.16 OK 6.16 P 5*178 Inbound 6.16 OK 6.16 P 5*179 Outbound 1.73 OK 1.73 P 5*179 Inbound 1.73 OK 1.73 P 5*180 Outbound 2.92 OK 2.92 P 5*180 Inbound 2.92 OK 2.92 P 5*181 Outbound 2.92 OK 2.92 P 5*181 Inbound 2.92 OK 2.92 P 5*182 Outbound 4.26 OK 4.26 P 5*182 Inbound 4.26 OK 4.26 P 5*183 Outbound 5.86 OK 5.86 P 5*183 Inbound 5.86 OK 5.86 P 5*186 Outbound 3.94 OK 3.94 P 5*186 Inbound 3.94 OK 3.94 P 5*187 Outbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*187 Inbound 4.48 OK 4.48 P 5*188 Outbound 5.77 OK 5.77 P 5*188 Inbound 3.13 OK 3.13 P 5*189 Outbound 3.13 OK 3.13 P 5*189 Inbound 5.77 OK 5.77 P 5*192 Outbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*192 Inbound 2.69 OK 2.69 P 5*193 Outbound 3.13 OK 3.13 P 5*193 Inbound 3.13 OK 3.13 361495 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-45 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-3 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5*194 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 5*194 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 5*195 Outbound 93.7 NO P 5*195 Inbound 93.7 NO P 5*196 Outbound 4.04 OK 4.04 P 5*196 Inbound 4.04 OK 4.04 P 5*197 Outbound 7.48 OK 7.48 P 5*197 Inbound 7.48 OK 7.48 P 5*198 Outbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*198 Inbound 3.99 OK 3.99 P 5*199 outbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*199 Inbound 2.82 OK 2.82 P 5*200 Outbound 5.56 OK 5.56 P 5*200 Inbound 5.56 OK 5.56 P 5*201 Outbound 4.88 OK 4.88 P 5*201 Inbound 4.88 OK 4.88 P 5*202 Outbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*202 Inbound 10.5 OK 10.5 P 5*204 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5*204 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5*205 Outbound 6.62 OK 6.62 P 5*205 Inbound 6.62 OK 6.62 P 5*206 Outbound 4.04 OK 4.04 P 5*206 Inbound 4.04 OK 4.04 P 5*207 Outbound 4.26 OK 4.26 P 5*207 Inbound 4.26 OK 4.26 P 5*209 Outbound 2.09 OK 2.09 P 5*209 Inbound 2.09 OK 2.09 P 5*210 Outbound 2.09 OK 2.09 P 5*210 Inbound 2.09 OK 2.09 P 5*211 Outbound 4.88 OK 4.88 P 5*211 Inbound 4.88 OK 4.88 P 5*212 Outbound 4.88 OK 4.88 P 5*212 Inbound 4.88 OK 4.88 P 5*213 Outbound 3.04 OK 3.04 P 5*213 Inbound 3.04 OK 3.04 Trip Length Summary:Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 180 Average6.34Average4.53 Diverted Trips 0 Standard Deviation 14.78 Standard Deviation 3.91 Secondary Trips 0 Average + 3s 50.69 Average + 3s 16.25 Captured Trips 0 Average - 3s 0.00 Average - 3s 0.00 Total Surveys:180 Coefficient of Variation 2.332 Coefficient of Variation 0.862 % Captured Trips:0% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 360 Number of Trip Ends 354 % New Trips of Total Surveys:100% Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Trip Length Assessable Trip Length 362496 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-46 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-4 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Residential Condominium/Townhouse Land Use – Site #4 Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 1-2 9.5 9.5 OK 9.5 OK 9.5 P 1-6 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 1-8 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-9 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 1-11 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-12 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-13 9.5 9.5 OK 9.5 OK 9.5 P 1-14 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 1-15 0.0 0.0 OK 0.0 OK 0.0 P 1-17 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 1-18 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-19 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 1-20 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 1-22 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-23 5.0 5.0 OK 5.0 OK 5.0 P 1-24 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 1-25 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 1-27 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 1-28 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 1-31 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 1-32 4.2 4.2 OK 4.2 OK 4.2 P 1-33 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 1-34 4.2 4.2 OK 4.2 OK 4.2 P 1-36 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-37 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 1-38 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 1-39 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-40 3.0 3.0 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 P 1-41 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 1-42 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-43 3.0 3.0 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 P 1-45 4.0 4.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 P 1-48 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 1-49 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 1-50 9.5 9.5 OK 9.5 OK 9.5 P 1-51 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 1-52 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 1-53 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-55 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 1-56 4.2 4.2 OK 4.2 OK 4.2 P 1-58 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 1-59 6.5 6.5 OK 6.5 OK 6.5 P 1-61 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-62 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 1-64 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 P 1-65 11.0 11.0 OK 11.0 OK 11.0 P 1-66 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 P 1-69 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-72 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 1-73 6.5 6.5 OK 6.5 OK 6.5 P 1-74 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 1-75 3.7 3.7 OK 3.7 OK 3.7 P 1-76 29.4 29.4 NO NO P 1-77 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 1-78 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 1-80 4.3 4.3 OK 4.3 OK 4.3 P 1-82 29.2 29.2 NO NO P 1-83 9.5 9.5 OK 9.5 OK 9.5 P 1-84 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 P 1-85 3.2 3.2 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 P 1-86 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 1-88 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 1-89 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 363497 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-47 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-4 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 1-91 3.0 3.0 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 P 1-92 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 1-93 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 P 1-96 1.5 15.0 OK 1.5 OK 15.0 P 1-98 3.7 3.7 OK 3.7 OK 3.7 P 1-99 3.0 3.0 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 P 1-101 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-102 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-108 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-109 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 P 1-110 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 1-111 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 P 1-112 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 1-113 9.5 9.5 OK 9.5 OK 9.5 P 1-115 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 P 1-117 4.1 4.1 OK 4.1 OK 4.1 P 1-120 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-122 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 P 1-123 4.0 4.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 P 1-125 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 P 1-126 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 1-127 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-128 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 1-129 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 P 1-130 29.4 29.4 NO NO P 1-132 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 1-133 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 P 1-134 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 P 1-136 8.0 8.0 OK 8.0 OK 8.0 P 1-137 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 1-138 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 1-140 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 1-143 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 1-144 4.2 4.2 OK 4.2 OK 4.2 P 1-145 3.2 3.2 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 P 1-146 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 1-148 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 1-150 4.0 4.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 P 1-151 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 1-154 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-155 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-156 4.0 4.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 P 1-157 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-159 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-160 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 P 1-161 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-162 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 1-164 3.0 3.0 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 P 1-165 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 P 1-166 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 P 1-167 4.9 4.9 OK 4.9 OK 4.9 P 1-168 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 1-171 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 1-173 3.7 3.7 OK 3.7 OK 3.7 P 1-174 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 1-175 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-176 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 1-177 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 P 1-178 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-179 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-180 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 1-183 3.2 3.2 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 P 1-185 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 1-186 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 1-187 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 1-189 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-190 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-191 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 364498 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-48 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-4 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 1-193 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 P 1-196 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-199 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 P 1-200 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 1-202 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-203 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 1-206 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-207 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 1-209 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 P 1-214 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-215 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 P 1-216 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-217 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 1-218 4.0 4.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 P 1-220 3.8 3.8 OK 3.8 OK 3.8 P 1-221 6.5 6.5 OK 6.5 OK 6.5 P 1-222 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 1-224 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 1-225 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-226 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-227 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-228 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-230 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 1-232 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 1-233 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-234 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-235 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 1-236 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-237 4.2 4.2 OK 4.2 OK 4.2 P 1-238 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-242 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 P 1-245 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-248 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-249 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-250 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-252 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-256 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-259 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 P 1-260 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-261 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 1-262 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-263 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 1-264 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-266 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-268 3.0 32.0 OK 3.0 NO P 1-269 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-271 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 P 1-272 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 1-274 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 1-275 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 P 1-279 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-280 3.5 3.5 OK 3.5 OK 3.5 P 1-281 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-285 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-286 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-288 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-289 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 1-292 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 1-298 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 365499 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-49 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-4 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 1-299 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 1-301 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-303 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 1-304 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-305 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 P 1-307 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-310 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 1-311 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-312 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 1-313 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 200 Average3.14Average2.67 Diverted Trips 0 Standard Deviation 4.01 Standard Deviation 1.88 Secondary Trips 0 Average + 3σ 15.17 Average + 3σ 8.30 Captured Trips 0 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:200 Coefficient of Variation 1.277 Coefficient of Variation 0.703 % Captured Trips:0% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 400 Number of Assessable Trip Ends 393 % New Trips of Total Surveys:100% Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Assessable Trip LengthTrip Length 366500 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-50 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-5 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Residential Condominium/Townhouse Land Use – Site #5 Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5 – 214 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 5 – 214 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 5 – 215 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 215 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 216 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 216 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 217 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 5 – 217 Outbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 5 – 218 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 5 – 218 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 5 – 219 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5 – 219 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5 – 220 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 220 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 221 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 5 – 221 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 5 – 222 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 222 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 223 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 223 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 224 Inbound 6.7 OK 6.7 P 5 – 224 Outbound 6.7 OK 6.7 P 5 – 225 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 5 – 225 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 5 – 226 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 226 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 227 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 5 – 227 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 5 – 228 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 5 – 228 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 5 – 229 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 5 – 229 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 5 – 230 Inbound 3.8 OK 3.8 P 5 – 230 Outbound 3.8 OK 3.8 P 5 – 231 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 5 – 231 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 5 – 233 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 233 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 234 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5 – 234 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 5 – 235 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 5 – 235 Outbound 3.4 OK 3.4 P 5 – 236 Inbound 6.7 OK 6.7 P 5 – 236 Outbound 6.7 OK 6.7 P 5 – 237 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 237 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 238 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5 – 238 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5 – 239 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 239 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 367501 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-51 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-5 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5 – 240 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 240 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 242 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5 – 242 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5 – 243 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5 – 243 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5 – 244 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 244 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 247 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 247 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 248 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 5 – 248 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 P 5 – 249 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 5 – 249 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 5 – 250 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5 – 250 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5 – 251 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 251 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 252 Inbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 5 – 252 Outbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 5 – 253 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 253 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 254 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 5 – 254 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 5 – 255 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5 – 255 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 5 – 256 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 256 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 257 Inbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5 – 257 Outbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5 – 258 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 258 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 260 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 260 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 261 Inbound 13.5 OK 13.5 P 5 – 261 Outbound 13.5 OK 13.5 P 5 – 262 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 262 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 263 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5 – 263 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5 – 264 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 264 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 265 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 265 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 266 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 266 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 267 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 267 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 268 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 5 – 268 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 5 – 269 Inbound 3.8 OK 3.8 P 5 – 269 Outbound 3.8 OK 3.8 P 5 – 270 Inbound 100.5 NO P 5 – 270 Outbound 100.5 NO 368502 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-52 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-5 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5 – 271 Inbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5 – 271 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 5 – 272 Inbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5 – 272 Outbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5 – 273 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 5 – 273 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 5 – 274 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 5 – 274 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 5 – 275 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 5 – 275 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 5 – 276 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 276 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 278 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 278 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 279 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 279 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 282 Inbound 35.7 NO P 5 – 282 Outbound 35.7 NO P 5 – 283 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 283 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 284 Inbound 6.7 OK 6.7 P 5 – 284 Outbound 6.7 OK 6.7 P 5 – 285 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 285 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 286 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5 – 286 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5 – 287 Inbound 8.8 OK 8.8 P 5 – 287 Outbound 8.8 OK 8.8 P 5 – 288 Inbound 6.8 OK 6.8 P 5 – 288 Outbound 6.8 OK 6.8 P 5 – 289 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 289 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 290 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 5 – 290 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 P 5 – 291 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 291 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 294 Inbound 3.8 OK 3.8 P 5 – 294 Outbound 3.8 OK 3.8 P 5 – 295 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 295 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 296 Inbound 4.0 OK 4.0 P 5 – 296 Outbound 4.0 OK 4.0 P 5 – 297 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 297 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 298 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 5 – 298 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 P 5 – 299 Inbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 5 – 299 Outbound 4.5 OK 4.5 369503 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-53 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-5 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 5 – 300 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 5 – 300 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 5 – 301 Inbound 8.8 OK 8.8 P 5 – 301 Outbound 8.8 OK 8.8 P 5 – 302 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 5 – 302 Outbound 1.2 OK 1.2 P 5 – 303 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 303 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 5 – 304 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 304 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 P 5 – 305 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 5 – 305 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 5 – 307 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5 – 307 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5 – 308 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 5 – 308 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 5 – 309 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 309 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 5 – 310 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 5 – 310 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 5 – 311 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 311 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 312 Inbound 4.3 OK 4.3 P 5 – 312 Outbound 4.3 OK 4.3 P 5 – 313 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5 – 313 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5 – 314 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5 – 314 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 5 – 315 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 315 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 5 – 316 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 316 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 317 Inbound 13.9 OK 13.9 P 5 – 317 Outbound 13.9 OK 13.9 P 5 – 318 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5 – 318 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 5 – 319 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 5 – 319 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 95 Average 4.60 Average 3.58 Diverted Trips 0 Standard Deviation 10.68 Standard Deviation 3.98 Secondary Trips 0 Average + 3σ 36.63 Average + 3σ 15.51 Captured Trips 0 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:95 Coefficient of Variation 2.321 Coefficient of Variation 1.111 % Captured Trips:0% Number of Trip Ends 190 Number of Trip Ends 188 % New Trips of Total Surveys:100% Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Trip Length Assessable Trip Length 370504 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-54 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-6 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Office Land Use – Site #6 Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths C 3 – 3 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 4 Inbound 1.0 OK 2.0 D 3 – 4 Outbound 1.0 OK 2.0 C 3 – 5 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 6 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 3 – 6 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 C 3 – 7 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 8 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 10 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 3 – 10 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 S 3 – 12 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 S 3 – 12 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 D 3 – 15 Inbound 3.3 OK 6.6 D 3 – 15 Outbound 3.3 OK 6.6 D 3 – 16 Inbound 2.6 OK 5.2 D 3 – 16 Outbound 2.6 OK 5.2 C 3 – 18 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 21 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 S 3 – 21 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 D 3 – 22 Inbound 1.0 OK 2.0 D 3 – 22 Outbound 1.0 OK 2.0 S 3 – 23 Inbound 1.6 OK 1.6 S 3 – 23 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 C 3 – 24 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 25 Inbound 4.6 OK 9.2 D 3 – 25 Outbound 4.6 OK 9.2 D 3 – 26 Inbound 1.7 OK 3.4 D 3 – 26 Outbound 1.7 OK 3.4 S 3 – 27 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 S 3 – 27 Outbound 5.8 OK 5.8 C 3 – 28 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 29 Inbound 1.0 OK 2.0 D 3 – 29 Outbound 1.0 OK 2.0 S 3 – 30 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 S 3 – 30 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 C 3 – 34 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 35 Inbound 1.4 OK 1.4 S 3 – 35 Outbound 1.6 OK 1.6 P 3 – 36 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 3 – 36 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 C 3 – 38 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 39 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.2 D 3 – 39 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.2 C 3 – 40 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 43 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 3 – 43 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 3 – 47 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 3 – 47 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 S 3 – 50 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 S 3 – 50 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 371505 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-55 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-6 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths S 3 – 52 Inbound 3.0 OK 3.0 S 3 – 52 Outbound 4.9 OK 4.9 D 3 – 54 Inbound 1.1 OK 2.2 D 3 – 54 Outbound 1.1 OK 2.2 C 3 – 56 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 58 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 S 3 – 58 Outbound 3.0 OK 3.0 P 3 – 62 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 3 – 62 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 3 – 63 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 63 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 64 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 3 – 64 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 3 – 69 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 3 – 69 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 D 3 – 70 Inbound 0.7 OK 1.4 D 3 – 70 Outbound 0.7 OK 1.4 P 3 – 74 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 3 – 74 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 C 3 – 75 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 78 Inbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 3 – 78 Outbound 4.4 OK 4.4 P 3 – 79 Inbound 3.1 OK 3.1 P 3 – 79 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 S 3 – 80 Inbound 3.0 OK 3.0 S 3 – 80 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 S 3 – 85 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 S 3 – 85 Outbound 2.0 OK 2.0 C 3 – 88 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 90 Inbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 3 – 90 Outbound 0.4 OK 0.4 P 3 – 93 Inbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 3 – 93 Outbound 3.6 OK 3.6 P 3 – 94 Inbound 1.8 OK 1.8 P 3 – 94 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 D 3 – 95 Inbound 0.9 OK 1.8 D 3 – 95 Outbound 0.9 OK 1.8 C 3 – 99 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 100 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 3 – 100 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 C 3 – 103 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 105 Inbound 3.4 OK 3.4 S 3 – 105 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 3 – 108 Inbound 1.5 OK 1.5 P 3 – 108 Outbound 1.5 OK 1.5 D 3 – 110 Inbound 1.0 OK 2.0 D 3 – 110 Outbound 1.0 OK 2.0 P 3 – 111 Inbound 2.7 OK 2.7 P 3 – 111 Outbound 2.7 OK 2.7 C 3 – 112 Inbound/Outbound NO 372506 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-56 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-6 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 3 – 113 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 3 – 113 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 D 3 – 117 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.2 D 3 – 117 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.2 C 3 – 118 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 120 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 121 Inbound 0.5 OK 1.0 D 3 – 121 Outbound 0.5 OK 1.0 C 3 – 123 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 124 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 3 – 124 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 3 – 125 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 3 – 125 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 3 – 126 Inbound 2.2 OK 2.2 P 3 – 126 Outbound 2.2 OK 2.2 S 3 – 127 Inbound 1.7 OK 1.7 S 3 – 127 Outbound 5.5 OK 5.5 D 3 – 130 Inbound 1.0 OK 2.0 D 3 – 130 Outbound 1.0 OK 2.0 S 3 – 132 Inbound 2.0 OK 2.0 S 3 – 132 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 S 3 – 135 Inbound 1.2 OK 1.2 S 3 – 135 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 P 3 – 137 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 137 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 139 Inbound 3.2 OK 3.2 P 3 – 139 Outbound 3.2 OK 3.2 C 3 – 140 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 141 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 143 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 3 – 143 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 3 – 146 Inbound 5.5 OK 5.5 P 3 – 146 Outbound 5.5 OK 5.5 C 3 – 147 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 148 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 149 Inbound 4.1 OK 4.1 P 3 – 149 Outbound 4.1 OK 4.1 C 3 – 151 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 152 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 S 3 – 152 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 S 3 – 153 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 S 3 – 153 Outbound 2.6 OK 2.6 C 3 – 154 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 157 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 157 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 C 3 – 160 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 161 Inbound 1.0 OK 1.0 P 3 – 161 Outbound 1.0 OK 1.0 C 3 – 162 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 163 Inbound 1.9 OK 1.9 P 3 – 163 Outbound 1.9 OK 1.9 373507 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-57 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-6 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths C 3 – 164 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 165 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 3 – 165 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 C 3 – 167 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 168 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 S 3 – 168 Outbound 3.5 OK 3.5 D 3 – 169 Inbound 0.2 OK 0.4 D 3 – 169 Outbound 0.2 OK 0.4 D 3 – 170 Inbound 0.2 OK 0.4 D 3 – 170 Outbound 0.2 OK 0.4 D 3 – 171 Inbound 1.0 OK 2.0 D 3 – 171 Outbound 1.0 OK 2.0 P 3 – 172 Inbound 4.7 OK 4.7 P 3 – 172 Outbound 4.7 OK 4.7 P 3 – 174 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 P 3 – 174 Outbound 2.3 OK 2.3 C 3 – 175 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 176 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 177 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 178 Inbound 6.8 OK 6.8 P 3 – 178 Outbound 6.8 OK 6.8 C 3 – 179 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 180 Inbound 1.4 OK 2.8 D 3 – 180 Outbound 1.4 OK 2.8 C 3 – 181 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 182 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 183 Inbound 4.1 OK 4.1 S 3 – 183 Outbound 3.0 OK 3.0 D 3 – 186 Inbound 2.7 OK 5.4 D 3 – 186 Outbound 2.7 OK 5.4 S 3 – 187 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 S 3 – 187 Outbound 3.0 OK 3.0 D 3 – 188 Inbound 3.0 OK 6.0 D 3 – 188 Outbound 3.0 OK 6.0 D 3 – 189 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.2 D 3 – 189 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.2 C 3 – 191 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 192 Inbound 2.1 OK 4.2 D 3 – 192 Outbound 2.1 OK 4.2 P 3 – 193 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 193 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 194 Inbound 3.9 OK 3.9 P 3 – 194 Outbound 3.9 OK 3.9 C 3 – 196 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 198 Inbound 4.6 OK 4.6 P 3 – 198 Outbound 4.6 OK 4.6 S 3 – 200 Inbound 3.5 OK 3.5 S 3 – 200 Outbound 5.3 OK 5.3 C 3 – 201 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 202 Inbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 3 – 202 Outbound 3.3 OK 3.3 P 3 – 203 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 203 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 374508 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-58 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-6 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Direction Trip Length LIMIT CHECK Assessable Lengths P 3 – 204 Inbound 2.1 OK 2.1 P 3 – 204 Outbound 2.1 OK 2.1 C 3 – 205 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 207 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.2 D 3 – 207 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.2 D 3 – 208 Inbound 1.1 OK 2.2 D 3 – 208 Outbound 1.1 OK 2.2 C 3 – 210 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 213 Inbound 6.9 OK 6.9 P 3 – 213 Outbound 6.9 OK 6.9 C 3 – 214 Inbound/Outbound NO D 3 – 217 Inbound 0.6 OK 1.2 D 3 – 217 Outbound 0.6 OK 1.2 P 3 – 218 Inbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 218 Outbound 2.8 OK 2.8 P 3 – 219 Inbound 41.4 NO P 3 – 219 Outbound 41.4 NO D 3 – 220 Inbound 1.2 OK 2.4 D 3 – 220 Outbound 1.2 OK 2.4 S 3 – 221 Inbound 4.9 OK 4.9 S 3 – 221 Outbound 1.8 OK 1.8 C 3 – 223 Inbound/Outbound NO P 3 – 224 Inbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 3 – 224 Outbound 4.5 OK 4.5 P 3 – 226 Inbound 1.1 OK 1.1 P 3 – 226 Outbound 1.1 OK 1.1 S 3 – 227 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 S 3 – 227 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 D 3 – 229 Inbound 1.6 OK 3.2 D 3 – 229 Outbound 1.6 OK 3.2 D 3 – 232 Inbound 0.1 OK 0.2 D 3 – 232 Outbound 0.1 OK 0.2 C 3 – 233 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 234 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 235 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 S 3 – 235 Outbound 3.0 OK 3.0 C 3 – 237 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 238 Inbound 2.9 OK 2.9 S 3 – 238 Outbound 3.1 OK 3.1 D 3 – 241 Inbound 0.5 OK 1.0 D 3 – 241 Outbound 0.5 OK 1.0 S 3 – 243 Inbound 2.3 OK 2.3 S 3 – 243 Outbound 2.9 OK 2.9 S 3 – 244 Inbound 3.7 OK 3.7 S 3 – 244 Outbound 2.5 OK 2.5 P 3 – 248 Inbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 3 – 248 Outbound 2.4 OK 2.4 P 3 – 249 Inbound 3.8 OK 3.8 P 3 – 249 Outbound 3.8 OK 3.8 C 3 – 252 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 253 Inbound/Outbound NO C 3 – 256 Inbound/Outbound NO S 3 – 259 Inbound 2.5 OK 2.5 S 3 – 259 Outbound 3.7 OK 3.7 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 47 Average2.85 Average2.83 Diverted Trips 30 Standard Deviation 4.07 Standard Deviation 1.63 Secondary Trips 28 Average + 3σ 15.06 Average + 3σ 7.72 Captured Trips 48 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:153 Coefficient of Variation 1.428 Coefficient of Variation 0.575 % Captured Trips:31% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 210 Number of Trip Ends 208 % New Trips of Total Surveys:69% Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Trip Length Assessable Trip Length 375509 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-59 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-7 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Office Land Use – Site #7 Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 6-1 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 C6-13 NO NO P 6-14 4.0 4.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 C6-16 NO NO P 6-18 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C6-21 NO NO C6-22 NO NO C6-31 NO NO C6-32 NO NO P 6-41 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 6-42 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 6-47 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 6-49 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 6-69 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 D 6-72 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 6-87 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 S 6-89 0.8 1.5 OK 0.8 OK 1.5 S 6-106 11.4 8.8 NO NO D 6-103 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 6-107 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 6-112 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 6-116 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 6-118 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 C6-124 NO NO P 6-125 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 D 6-136 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 6-154 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 D 6-160 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C6-170 NO NO D 6-171 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 6-175 2.3 1.4 OK 2.3 OK 1.4 C6-180 NO NO P 6-183 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 6-196 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 C6-197 NO NO S 6-199 2.3 0.9 OK 2.3 OK 0.9 S 6-200 1.7 2.8 OK 1.7 OK 2.8 D 6-207 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 6-223 2.0 2.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 P 6-231 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 6-232 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 C6-241 NO NO D 6-243 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 6-251 3.0 3.0 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 C6-252 NO NO P 6-254 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 D 6-255 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C6-259 NO NO D 6-268 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P6-2699.59.5NO NO D 6-271 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 S 6-273 2.0 1.7 OK 2.0 OK 1.7 P 6-274 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 P 6-275 6.5 6.5 OK 6.5 OK 6.5 P 6-276 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 P 6-277 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C6-280 NO NO P 6-287 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 P 6-305 8.7 8.7 OK 8.7 OK 8.7 D 6-306 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 376510 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-60 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-7 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 6-315 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 6-341 4.8 4.8 OK 4.8 OK 4.8 S 6-344 1.4 1.9 OK 1.4 OK 1.9 D 6-352 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 6-354 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 S 6-356 2.2 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 1.1 C6-362 NO NO D 6-372 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 6-373 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C6-378 NO NO D 6-380 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 6-381 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C6-388 NO NO C6-389 NO NO P 6-393 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 6-394 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 S 6-396 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 C6-397 NO NO D 6-401 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 6-402 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 S 6-404 1.1 1.0 OK 1.1 OK 1.0 C6-405 NO NO P 6-406 13.0 13.0 NO NO D 6-407 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 6-410 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C6-411 NO NO S 6-414 0.3 0.5 OK 0.3 OK 0.5 P 6-416 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 6-417 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C6-418 NO NO C6-420 NO NO C6-422 NO NO D 6-424 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C6-427 NO NO P 6-434 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 S 6-447 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 D 6-460 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 6-463 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 6-470 0.7 0.9 OK 0.7 OK 0.9 D 6-476 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 6-477 6.8 6.8 OK 6.8 OK 6.8 D 6-478 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 6-479 3.0 3.0 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 P 6-480 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 D 6-482 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 D 6-486 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 S 6-487 0.8 1.9 OK 0.8 OK 1.9 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 38 Average1.75Average1.64 Diverted Trips 30 Standard Deviation 2.34 Standard Deviation 1.49 Secondary Trips 14 Average + 3σ 8.78 Average + 3σ 6.10 Captured Trips 25 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:107 Coefficient of Variation 1.338 Coefficient of Variation 0.906 % Captured Trips:23% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 164 Number of Assessable Trip Ends 158 % New Trips of Total Surveys:77% Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Trip Length Assessable Trip Length 377511 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-61 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-8 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Office Land Use – Site #8 Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C 8-1 NO NO C 8-6 NO NO S8-91.9 2.6OK 1.9 OK 2.6 S 8-11 1.1 1.0 OK 1.1 OK 1.0 P 8-16 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 C8-19 NO NO S 8-20 1.9 1.6 OK 1.9 OK 1.6 D 8-21 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 8-25 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C8-26 NO NO C8-27 NO NO D 8-28 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 8-29 3.5 3.5 OK 3.5 OK 3.5 D 8-30 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 8-31 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 8-32 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 8-33 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 8-34 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 8-36 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 8-39 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 8-40 3.9 3.9 OK 3.9 OK 3.9 C8-41 NO NO C 8-42 NO NO D 8-47 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 8-49 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 8-51 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 8-52 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 8-53 145.8 145.8 NO NO P 8-55 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 S 8-56 0.8 1.2 OK 0.8 OK 1.2 P 8-60 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 S 8-63 0.3 0.6 OK 0.3 OK 0.6 P 8-64 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 8-66 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 P 8-69 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 D 8-71 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 8-72 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 8-76 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 P 8-90 3.9 3.9 OK 3.9 OK 3.9 P 8-91 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 8-92 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 D 8-97 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 8-99 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 8-100 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 8-101 5.6 5.6 OK 5.6 OK 5.6 P 8-102 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 S 8-110 2.1 4.2 OK 2.1 OK 4.2 P 8-111 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 D 8-112 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 8-116 NO NO S 8-118 0.2 0.4 OK 0.2 OK 0.4 P 8-119 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 8-122 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 C 8-123 NO NO D 8-131 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 8-133 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 378512 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-62 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-8 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths D 8-134 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 8-140 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 8-141 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 D 8-143 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 8-145 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 8-146 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 8-147 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 8-149 5.8 5.8 OK 5.8 OK 5.8 P 8-150 5.8 5.8 OK 5.8 OK 5.8 D 8-153 1.4 1.4 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C 8-154 NO NO S 8-157 0.5 0.2 OK 0.5 OK 0.2 D 8-159 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 8-160 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 8-161 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 S 8-162 0.5 0.3 OK 0.5 OK 0.3 C 8-163 NO NO P 8-164 7.1 7.1 OK 7.1 OK 7.1 C 8-166 NO NO S 8-167 2.2 3.4 OK 2.2 OK 3.4 P 8-168 6.9 6.9 OK 6.9 OK 6.9 D 8-169 1.6 1.6 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 C 8-170 NO NO P 8-171 12.4 12.4 OK 12.4 OK 12.4 C 8-172 NO NO D 8-173 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 8-176 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 S 8-177 7.4 6.7 OK 7.4 OK 6.7 P 8-178 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 D 8-180 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 8-182 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C 8-188 NO NO S 8-189 2.9 3.1 OK 2.9 OK 3.1 D 8-191 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 C 8-192 NO NO P 8-195 6.6 6.6 OK 6.6 OK 6.6 C 8-199 NO NO S 8-204 1.8 3.0 OK 1.8 OK 3.0 D 8-205 1.4 1.4 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C 8-207 NO NO D 8-208 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 8-210 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 D 8-211 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 C 8-213 NO NO D 8-214 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 S 8-218 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 8-220 NO NO S 8-221 1.7 2.0 OK 1.7 OK 2.0 S 8-223 0.5 0.7 OK 0.5 OK 0.7 P 8-225 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C 8-229 NO NO P 8-232 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 8-233 5.7 5.7 OK 5.7 OK 5.7 C 8-234 NO NO C 8-236 NO NO C 8-237 NO NO P 8-240 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 8-244 3.7 3.7 OK 3.7 OK 3.7 D 8-251 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 379513 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-63 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-8 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C 8-255 NO NO P 8-253 6.2 6.2 OK 6.2 OK 6.2 P 8-254 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 8-257 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 8-258 5.7 5.7 OK 5.7 OK 5.7 D 8-259 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 8-260 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 8-262 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C 8-263 NO NO D 8-264 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 8-266 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 8-267 NO NO C 8-268 NO NO D 8-269 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 8-271 NO NO C 8-272 NO NO S 8-273 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 D 8-274 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 8-275 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 8-276 NO NO D 8-277 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C 8-278 NO NO D 8-280 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 8-281 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 8-287 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 8-288 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 S 8-289 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 8-290 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 8-291 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 C 8-292 NO NO D 8-293 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 8-295 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 C 8-298 NO NO C 8-299 NO NO P 8-300 3.7 3.7 OK 3.7 OK 3.7 S 8-301 1.1 1.8 OK 1.1 OK 1.8 P 8-302 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 D 8-303 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 8-305 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 8-306 NO NO C 8-307 NO NO C 8-308 NO NO C 8-309 NO NO D 8-310 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 8-311 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 8-313 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 S 8-315 1.9 4.2 OK 1.9 OK 4.2 C 8-318 NO NO P 8-319 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C 8-322 NO NO D 8-323 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 8-324 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 P 8-325 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 D 8-326 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 8-327 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 S 8-330 3.3 1.7 OK 3.3 OK 1.7 C 8-331 NO NO S 8-332 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 380514 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-64 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-8 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C 8-333 NO NO D 8-334 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 8-337 1.4 1.4 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C 8-338 NO NO C 8-339 NO NO D 8-440 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 8-342 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 8-343 NO NO D 8-347 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 8-348 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 S 8-349 2.0 5.6 OK 2.0 OK 5.6 P 8-350 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 8-352 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 S 8-353 1.5 3.1 OK 1.5 OK 3.1 P 8-354 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 8-358 5.7 5.7 OK 5.7 OK 5.7 P 8-360 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 8-361 NO NO C 8-364 NO NO S 8-366 2.8 2.5 OK 2.8 OK 2.5 S 8-367 0.7 1.0 OK 0.7 OK 1.0 C 8-372 NO NO P 8-373 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 8-376 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 8-377 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 8-378 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 8-380 NO NO D 8-381 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 8-382 NO NO P 8-383 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 C 8-384 NO NO C 8-385 NO NO D 8-386 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 S 8-387 0.7 1.0 OK 0.7 OK 1.0 P 8-389 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 8-390 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 C 8-391 NO NO D 8-392 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 8-393 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 C 8-394 NO NO D 8-395 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 C 8-396 NO NO S 8-398 3.0 3.4 OK 3.0 OK 3.4 S 8-404 2.5 1.9 OK 2.5 OK 1.9 D 8-407 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 8-408 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 8-409 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 8-410 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 8-414 NO NO C 8-418 NO NO D 8-420 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 C 8-421 NO NO C 8-422 NO NO P 8-423 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 8-427 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 8-429 NO NO C 8-430 NO NO 381515 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-65 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-8 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C 8-432 NO NO C 8-434 NO NO P 8-435 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 8-438 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 8-440 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 C 8-441 NO NO D 8-442 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C 8-443 NO NO P 8-445 6.8 6.8 OK 6.8 OK 6.8 P 8-446 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 S 8-447 2.0 1.9 OK 2.0 OK 1.9 C 8-448 NO NO C 8-452 NO NO C 8-454 NO NO D 8-456 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 8-457 NO NO D 8-458 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 8-463 NO NO D 8-465 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C 8-466 NO NO D 8-467 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 8-469 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C 8-472 NO NO P 8-473 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 D 8-475 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 8-476 NO NO P 8-477 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 D 8-479 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 8-481 1.3 1.3 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 8-482 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 D 8-485 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 C 8-486 NO NO P 8-487 6.2 6.2 OK 6.2 OK 6.2 D 8-490 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 8-493 NO NO P 8-496 5.3 5.3 OK 5.3 OK 5.3 D 8-499 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 8-501 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 D 8-504 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 71 Average2.23 Average1.74 Diverted Trips 92 Standard Deviation 10.53 Standard Deviation 1.75 Secondary Trips 30 Average + 3σ 33.82 Average + 3σ 6.98 Captured Trips 76 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:269 Coefficient of Variation 4.722 Coefficient of Variation 1.003 % Captured Trips:28% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 386 Number of Assessable Trip Ends 384 % New Trips of Total Surveys:72% Trip Length Assessable Trip Length Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check 382516 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-66 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-9 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Shopping Center Land Use – Site #9 Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths D 4-2 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-3 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 4-4 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 4-7 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 4-9 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-10 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C4-13 NO NO D 4-15 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-16 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-18 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 4-19 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 4-21 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-22 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 4-23 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 D 4-24 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-28 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C4-29 NO NO D 4-30 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-31 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C4-32 NO NO D 4-33 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-34 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-35 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C4-37 NO NO C4-38 NO NO P 4-40 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C4-41 NO NO D 4-42 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C4-43 NO NO D 4-44 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C4-45 NO NO P 4-47 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 C4-48 NO NO C4-49 NO NO D 4-53 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 C4-54 NO NO C4-55 NO NO D 4-56 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-57 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 4-59 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 4-60 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 6-62 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 4-63 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C4-65 NO NO C4-66 NO NO C4-67 NO NO D 4-68 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C4-69 NO NO D 4-70 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-71 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 D 4-72 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C4-73 NO NO P 4-74 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 D 4-76 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 4-77 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 D 4-79 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 4-80 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 4-82 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-83 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C4-85 NO NO 383517 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-67 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-9 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 4-86 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C4-87 NO NO C4-88 NO NO P 4-91 17.1 17.1 OK 17.1 OK 17.1 P 4-92 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 C4-93 NO NO S 4-94 1.4 1.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.7 C4-95 NO NO C4-96 NO NO C4-97 NO NO C4-99 NO NO D 4-100 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 4-104 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 C 4-105 NO NO D 4-106 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-108 83.4 83.4 NO NO D 4-110 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 4-112 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-113 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 4-115 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-116 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-118 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 4-121 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 4-124 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 4-125 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 D 4-128 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-129 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 C 4-130 NO NO P 4-132 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 4-133 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 4-134 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C 4-135 NO NO P 4-136 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C 4-137 NO NO P 4-138 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C 4-139 NO NO D 4-140 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 S 4-141 1.4 1.5 OK 1.4 OK 1.5 P 4-145 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-146 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 4-148 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 4-150 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-151 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-152 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-156 8.7 8.7 OK 8.7 OK 8.7 P 4-157 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 4-160 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 4-162 NO NO D 4-163 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 S 4-164 1.5 2.0 OK 1.5 OK 2.0 D 4-165 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 4-167 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 D 4-168 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 4-169 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C 4-170 NO NO P 4-173 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 4-174 NO NO D 4-176 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-177 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 4-178 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-180 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 P 4-184 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 D 4-185 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-187 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 384518 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-68 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-9 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C 4-188 NO NO C 4-189 NO NO C 4-191 NO NO C 4-192 NO NO P 4-193 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 4-195 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-196 4.3 4.3 OK 4.3 OK 4.3 P 4-198 3.2 3.2 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 S 4-200 3.3 2.5 OK 3.3 OK 2.5 D 4-201 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 4-202 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 4-203 NO NO C 4-204 NO NO C 4-205 NO NO P 4-208 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 4-209 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 4-210 NO NO P 4-211 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 4-212 NO NO P 4-235 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 D 4-237 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 D 4-238 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 S 4-240 3.8 2.6 OK 3.8 OK 2.6 P 4-241 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 C 4-242 NO NO P 4-243 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-245 4.5 4.5 OK 4.5 OK 4.5 C 4-246 NO NO C 4-247 NO NO P 4-248 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 4-250 2.8 2.2 OK 2.8 OK 2.2 P 4-252 11.7 11.7 OK 11.7 OK 11.7 D 4-253 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 4-254 NO NO D 4-255 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-258 3.0 3.0 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 D 4-259 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 4-261 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 4-262 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C 4-265 NO NO P 4-267 8.5 8.5 OK 8.5 OK 8.5 S 4-269 2.9 1.8 OK 2.9 OK 1.8 C 4-270 NO NO D 4-272 1.5 1.5 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 P 4-276 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 S 4-277 0.8 1.9 OK 0.8 OK 1.9 S 4-279 2.9 1.7 OK 2.9 OK 1.7 P 4-281 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 D 4-283 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 S 4-284 1.8 1.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.9 D 4-286 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-287 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 4-289 NO NO P 4-290 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-301 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 4-304 NO NO D 4-305 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 4-307 NO NO D 4-312 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-335 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 P 4-338 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 4-347 NO NO P 4-352 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 4-355 NO NO 385519 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-69 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-9 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 4-357 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 4-360 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-362 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 4-363 NO NO C 4-365 NO NO D 4-367 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-368 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 D 4-370 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 C 4-372 NO NO C 4-374 NO NO P 4-376 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 D 4-378 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 4-379 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 D 4-380 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 4-382 1.8 3.1 OK 1.8 OK 3.1 C 4-384 NO NO P 4-385 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 P 4-386 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 4-387 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-388 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 S 4-389 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 D 4-391 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 S 4-392 1.8 0.8 OK 1.8 OK 0.8 C 4-393 NO NO D 4-395 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-396 2.3 2.3 OK 4.6 OK 4.6 P 4-398 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-401 3.7 3.7 OK 3.7 OK 3.7 D 4-402 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C 4-403 NO NO D 4-404 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 4-408 NO NO S 4-409 1.5 1.4 OK 1.5 OK 1.4 D 4-411 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 4-413 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 4-419 NO NO C 4-421 NO NO P 4-427 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 4-428 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 C 4-430 NO NO S 4-432 3.9 4.8 OK 3.9 OK 4.8 C 4-433 NO NO P 4-435 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 4-437 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 4-438 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-439 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 P 4-441 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-442 5.2 OK 5.2 OK 0.0 C 4-443 NO NO S 4-445 1.9 2.0 OK 1.9 OK 2.0 D 4-447 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 4-448 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 4-449 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 4-450 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 4-451 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 4-452 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-453 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 C 4-456 NO NO P 4-458 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-459 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 4-460 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 4-461 NO NO D 4-462 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 386520 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-70 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-9 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths S 4-463 3.2 1.4 OK 3.2 OK 1.4 C 4-464 NO NO C 4-466 NO NO C 4-467 NO NO S 4-470 2.5 1.5 OK 2.5 OK 1.5 C 4-472 NO NO D 4-478 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 S 4-480 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 S 4-481 2.2 2.8 OK 2.2 OK 2.8 C 4-486 NO NO P 4-488 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 C 4-489 NO NO D 4-490 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-491 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 4-495 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 D 4-497 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 4-499 NO NO D 4-500 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 D 4-501 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 4-502 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-503 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-504 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 4-505 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-508 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 D 4-509 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 4-510 NO NO D 4-512 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-516 1.4 1.4 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 P 4-517 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C 4-518 0.2 0.2 NO NO D 4-519 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 4-520 3.6 3.6 OK 3.6 OK 3.6 S 4-521 1.6 1.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.8 P 4-522 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 4-523 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 4-524 NO NO D 4-529 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 4-530 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 C 4-532 NO NO D 4-533 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 C 4-535 NO NO D 4-537 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 4-538 NO NO P 4-539 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 D 4-540 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 4-541 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-542 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 C 4-543 NO NO D 4-544 1.5 1.5 OK 3.0 OK 3.0 D 4-546 0.1 ..1 OK 0.2 NO C 4-547 NO NO S 4-548 2.0 3.8 OK 2.0 OK 3.8 D 4-549 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 4-550 NO NO C 4-551 NO NO P 4-552 3.6 3.6 OK 3.6 OK 3.6 D 4-553 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 4-554 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 4-555 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 387521 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-71 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-9 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 4-556 2.9 2.9 OK 2.9 OK 2.9 D 4-558 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 S 4-560 2.8 4.7 OK 2.8 OK 4.7 D 4-561 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 4-566 2.0 2.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 P 4-567 4.3 4.3 OK 4.3 OK 4.3 C 4-568 NO NO D 4-569 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 S 4-571 1.5 3.1 OK 1.5 OK 3.1 S 4-572 1.4 3.6 OK 1.4 OK 3.6 C 4-573 NO NO D 4-575 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 S 4-576 2.0 1.2 OK 2.0 OK 1.2 D 4-579 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 S 4-582 3.4 2.5 OK 3.4 OK 2.5 S 4-583 1.8 1.3 OK 1.8 OK 1.3 P 4-584 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 4-585 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 S 4-587 4.3 2.8 OK 4.3 OK 2.8 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 99 Average 1.52 Average 1.39 Diverted Trips 114 Standard Deviation 5.56 Standard Deviation 1.75 Secondary Trips 29 Average + 3σ 18.21 Average + 3σ 6.63 Captured Trips 87 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:329 Coefficient of Variation 3.661 Coefficient of Variation 1.257 % Captured Trips:26% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 484 Number of Assessable Trip Ends 481 % New Trips of Total Surveys:74% Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Assessable Trip LengthTrip Length 388522 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-72 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-10 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Shopping Center Land Use – Site #10 Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths D 7 – 2 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 S 7 – 3 2.8 1.5 OK 2.8 OK 1.5 S 7 – 4 3.5 3.2 OK 3.5 OK 3.2 D 7 – 6 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 C 7 – 7 NO NO P 7 – 8 3.8 3.8 OK 3.8 OK 3.8 S 7 – 9 4.6 2.6 OK 4.6 OK 2.6 D 7 – 10 1.9 1.9 OK 3.8 OK 3.8 D 7 – 11 1.8 1.8 OK 3.6 OK 3.6 C 7 – 13 NO NO S 7 – 14 5.6 1.8 OK 5.6 OK 1.8 C 7 – 15 NO NO S 7 – 17 2.4 2.0 OK 2.4 OK 2.0 D 7 – 19 1.3 1.3 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 D 7 – 20 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 7 – 21 1.2 1.2 OK OK 2.4 2.4 S 7 – 22 2.4 2.9 OK 2.4 OK 2.9 D 7 – 23 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 7 – 24 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 C 7 – 25 OK OK P 7 – 26 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 C 7 – 27 NO NO D 7 – 28 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C 7 – 30 NO NO C 7 – 31 NO NO P 7 – 32 8.4 8.4 OK 8.4 OK 8.4 P 7 – 33 5.3 5.3 OK 5.3 OK 5.3 C 7 – 34 NO NO C 7 – 36 NO NO D 7 – 37 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 C 7 – 39 NO NO C 7 – 40 NO NO S 7 – 41 3.8 4.2 OK 3.8 OK 4.2 C 7 – 42 NO NO C 7 – 43 NO NO C 7 – 44 NO NO D 7 – 45 2.3 2.3 OK 4.6 OK 4.6 P 7 – 46 0.6 0.6 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 7 – 47 5.3 5.3 OK 5.3 OK 5.3 C 7 – 48 NO NO P 7 – 49 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 P 7 – 50 5.3 5.3 OK 5.3 OK 5.3 C 7 – 51 NO NO C 7 – 52 NO NO C 7 – 54 NO NO S 7 – 57 1.2 3.0 OK 1.2 OK 3.0 C 7 – 58 NO NO S 7 – 59 2.3 2.2 OK 2.3 OK 2.2 S 7 – 60 1.7 3 OK 1.7 OK 3 P 7 – 62 4.7 4.7 OK 4.7 OK 4.7 P 7 – 63 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 7 – 64 4.3 4.3 OK 4.3 OK 4.3 C 7 – 65 NO NO S 7 – 66 3.3 1.9 OK 3.3 OK 1.9 S 7 – 67 3.1 4.0 OK 3.1 OK 4.0 C 7 – 68 NO NO C 7 – 70 NO NO P 7 – 71 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C 7 – 73 NO NO S 7 – 76 2.6 3.3 OK 2.6 OK 3.3 S 7 – 77 2.0 3.2 OK 2.0 OK 3.2 C 7 – 78 NO NO C 7 – 80 NO NO 389523 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-73 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-10 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C 7 – 181 NO NO C 7 – 183 NO NO P 7 – 184 3.5 3.5 OK 3.5 OK 3.5 P 7 – 185 4.3 4.3 OK 4.3 OK 4.3 P 7 – 188 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 C 7 – 189 NO NO S 7 – 190 4.6 1.3 OK 4.6 OK 1.3 S 7 – 192 19.4 3.1 OK 19.4 OK 3.1 P 7 – 193 5.8 5.8 OK 5.8 OK 5.8 C 7 – 195 NO NO C 7 – 196 NO NO D 7 – 197 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 7 – 199 28.9 28.9 NO NO P 7 – 201 8.0 8 OK 8 OK 8 C 7 – 203 NO NO C 7 – 205 NO NO C 7 – 206 NO NO C 7 – 208 NO NO C 7 – 210 NO NO P 7 – 212 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 C 7 – 213 NO NO C 7 – 214 NO NO C 7 – 217 NO NO S 7 – 218 4.6 2.0 OK 4.6 OK 2.0 C 7 – 219 NO NO S 7 – 220 4.1 4.8 OK 4.1 OK 4.8 S 7 – 221 2.4 1.9 OK 2.4 OK 1.9 C 7 – 223 NO NO P 7 – 224 2.0 2 OK 2 OK 2 C 7 – 225 NO NO P 7 – 230 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 C 7 – 232 NO NO C 7 – 234 NO NO C 7 – 235 NO NO S 7 – 236 2.5 2.8 OK 2.5 OK 2.8 S 7 – 238 1.3 1.1 OK 1.3 OK 1.1 C 7 – 240 OK OK D 7 – 248 0.5 0.5 OK 1 OK 1 P 7 – 249 51.6 51.6 NO NO C 7 – 251 NO NO C 7 – 252 NO NO C 7 – 255 NO NO C 7 – 256 NO NO C 7 – 257 NO NO C 7 – 258 NO NO D 7 – 259 2.6 2.6 OK 5.2 OK 5.2 D 7 – 260 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C 7 – 262 NO NO C 7 – 263 NO NO S 7 – 264 4.6 1.3 OK 4.6 OK 1.3 C 7 – 265 OK OK D 7 – 266 1.3 1.3 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 7 – 267 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 D 7 – 268 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 7 – 270 11.1 11.1 OK 11.1 OK 11.1 C 7 – 275 NO NO C 7 – 276 NO NO C 7 – 277 NO NO C 7 – 278 NO NO C 7 – 279 NO NO P 7 – 280 5.0 5 OK 5 OK 5 P 7 – 281 2.0 2 OK 2 OK 2 C 7 – 282 NO NO P 7 – 283 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 P 7 – 284 2.0 2 OK 2 OK 2 390524 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-74 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-10 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths S 7 – 81 19.4 1.8 OK 19.4 OK 1.8 C 7 – 84 NO NO S 7 – 85 2.4 2.1 OK 2.4 OK 2.1 P 7 – 86 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 7 – 87 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 7 – 89 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 C 7 – 91 NO NO C 7 – 92 NO NO P 7 – 93 4.3 4.3 OK 4.3 OK 4.3 D 7 – 95 2.0 2 OK 4 OK 4 C 7 – 98 NO NO S 7 – 99 3.6 1.8 OK 3.6 OK 1.8 S 7 – 100 2.7 5.0 OK 2.7 OK 5.0 C 7 – 101 NO NO S 7 – 103 2.3 3.2 OK 2.3 OK 3.2 P 7 – 104 5.1 5.1 OK 5.1 OK 5.1 S 7 – 105 4.5 4.4 OK 4.5 OK 4.4 C 7 – 107 NO NO S 7 – 109 2.3 5.4 OK 2.3 OK 5.4 D 7 – 111 3.9 3.9 OK 7.8 OK 7.8 C 7 – 112 NO NO S 7 – 115 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 S 7 – 116 4.6 3.4 OK 4.6 OK 3.4 D 7 – 118 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 7 – 120 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C 7 – 121 NO NO C 7 – 122 NO NO C 7 – 123 NO NO S 7 – 128 2.4 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 1.2 D 7 – 129 2.0 2 OK 4 OK 4 C 7 – 130 NO NO C 7 – 131 NO NO C 7 – 132 NO NO P 7 – 133 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 P 7 – 134 3.7 3.7 OK 3.7 OK 3.7 C 7 – 135 NO NO S 7 – 136 3.7 4.0 OK 3.7 OK 4.0 S 7 – 137 1.7 3.6 OK 1.7 OK 3.6 C 7 – 138 NO NO C 7 – 139 NO NO C 7 – 140 NO NO D 7 – 142 2.4 2.4 OK 4.8 OK 4.8 C 7 – 144 NO NO C 7 – 145 NO NO P 7 – 146 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 C 7 – 147 NO NO S 7 – 148 3.5 2.2 OK 3.5 OK 2.2 C 7 – 149 NO NO S 7 – 150 4.5 2.0 OK 4.5 OK 2.0 C 7 – 151 NO NO C 7 – 153 NO NO C 7 – 155 NO NO C 7 – 156 NO NO C 7 – 157 NO NO C 7 – 158 NO NO C 7 – 159 NO NO C 7 – 162 NO NO P 7 – 163 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 C 7 – 165 NO NO C 7 – 167 NO NO C 7 – 173 NO NO C 7 – 176 NO NO C 7 – 177 NO NO P 7 – 179 3.6 3.6 OK 3.6 OK 3.6 S 7 – 180 2.9 3.1 OK 2.9 OK 3.1 391525 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-75 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-10 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C 7 – 285 NO NO S 7 – 286 4.6 1.3 OK 4.6 OK 1.3 C 7 – 287 NO NO C 7 – 288 NO NO P 7 – 290 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 7 – 292 1.5 1.5 OK 3 OK 3 C 7 – 293 NO NO D 7 – 297 2.0 2 OK 4 OK 4 C 7 – 298 NO NO P 7 – 299 11.1 11.1 OK 11.1 OK 11.1 S 7 – 301 2.4 2.1 OK 2.4 OK 2.1 P 7 – 303 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 C 7 – 308 NO NO C 7 – 312 NO NO D 7 – 313 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 C 7 – 314 NO NO C 7 – 316 NO NO C 7 – 317 NO NO S 7 – 320 5.9 8.1 OK 5.9 OK 8.1 C 7 – 322 NO NO C 7 – 323 NO NO C 7 – 324 NO NO C 7 – 325 NO NO D 7 – 326 1.0 1 OK 2 OK 2 D 7 – 327 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 C 7 – 328 NO NO C 7 – 329 NO NO C 7 – 330 NO NO P 7 – 331 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 S 7 – 332 0.8 0.7 OK 0.8 OK 0.7 C 7 – 337 NO NO S 7 – 343 1.3 3.3 OK 1.3 OK 3.3 P 7 – 344 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 C 7 – 345 NO NO C 7 – 347 NO NO C 7 – 348 NO NO P 7 – 349 3.1 3.1 OK 3.1 OK 3.1 C 7 – 350 NO NO D 7 – 351 1.3 1.3 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 C 7 – 352 NO NO P 7 – 353 28.4 28.4 NO NO C 7 – 354 NO NO C 7 – 356 NO NO C 7 – 357 NO NO C 7 – 358 NO NO C 7 – 363 NO NO C 7 – 365 NO NO C 7 – 366 NO NO C 7 – 367 NO NO C 7 – 368 NO NO C 7 – 369 NO NO C 7 – 370 NO NO C 7 – 371 NO NO D 7 – 372 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 C 7 – 373 NO NO D 7 – 376 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 C 7 – 378 NO NO C 7 – 381 NO NO S 7 – 384 1.9 2.0 OK 1.9 OK 2.0 C 7 – 385 NO NO D 7 – 387 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 C 7 – 388 NO NO D 7 – 389 2.0 2 OK 4 OK 4 C 7 – 390 NO NO 392526 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-76 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-10 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 7 – 394 2.0 2 OK 2 OK 2 S 7 – 398 2.3 2.6 OK 2.3 OK 2.6 S 7 – 399 3.6 4 OK 3.6 OK 4 C 7 – 400 NO NO C 7 – 401 NO NO C 7 – 403 NO NO S 7 – 404 3.9 4.0 OK 3.9 OK 4.0 D 7 – 405 1.0 1 OK 2 OK 2 C 7 – 406 NO NO C 7 – 407 NO NO P 7 – 408 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 7 – 409 NO NO C 7 – 410 NO NO C 7 – 415 NO NO S 7 – 416 0.8 0.7 OK 0.8 OK 0.7 C 7 – 419 NO NO P 7 – 420 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 7 – 422 P 7 – 423 4.3 4.3 OK 4.3 OK 4.3 S 7 – 424 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 7 – 426 NO NO P 7 – 428 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 7 – 429 NO NO D 7 – 431 1.0 1 OK 2 OK 2 S 7 – 432 2.4 4.4 OK 2.4 OK 4.4 C 7 – 433 NO NO C 7 – 434 NO NO C 7 – 435 NO NO C 7 – 436 NO NO P 7 – 437 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 7 – 439 NO NO C 7 – 440 NO NO C 7 – 442 NO NO C 7 – 443 NO NO C 7 – 444 NO NO P 7 – 445 5.2 5.2 OK 5.2 OK 5.2 C 7 – 447 NO NO C 7 – 448 NO NO C 7 – 449 NO NO C 7 – 452 NO NO D 7 – 453 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 S 7 – 454 1.1 2.0 OK 1.1 OK 2.0 P 7 – 455 16.7 16.7 OK 16.7 OK 16.7 C 7 – 456 NO NO C 7 – 457 NO NO P 7 – 458 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 C 7 – 461 NO NO P 7 – 463 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C 7 – 464 NO NO P 7 – 465 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 C 7 – 466 NO NO P 7 – 467 8.3 8.3 OK 8.3 OK 8.3 S 7 – 468 1.2 2.1 OK 1.2 OK 2.1 D 7 – 469 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P 7 – 470 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 C 7 – 474 NO NO C 7 – 476 NO NO C 7 – 478 NO NO C 7 – 480 NO NO C 7 – 482 NO NO C 7 – 484 NO NO D 7 – 486 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C 7 – 488 NO NO P 7 – 490 2.5 2.5 OK 2.5 OK 2.5 393527 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-77 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-10 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C) Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths S 7 – 494 0.7 0.8 OK 0.7 OK 0.8 S 7 – 495 2.3 4.2 OK 2.3 OK 4.2 S 7 – 496 0.7 0.8 OK 0.7 OK 0.8 D 7 – 497 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 P 7 – 501 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 P 7 – 503 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 C 7 – 504 NO NO C 7 – 505 NO NO C 7 – 506 NO NO D 7 – 507 7.0 7 OK 14 OK 14 S 7 – 509 3.8 5.0 OK 3.8 OK 5.0 D 7 – 510 1.0 1 OK 2 OK 2 P 7 – 513 11.1 11.1 OK 11.1 OK 11.1 S 7 – 514 13.8 2.3 OK 13.8 OK 2.3 P 7 – 515 0.3 0.3 OK 0.3 OK 0.3 C 7 – 516 NO NO C 7 – 517 NO NO C 7 – 518 NO NO P 7 – 519 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 P 7 – 520 2.8 2.8 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C 7 – 522 NO NO C 7 – 523 NO NO P 7 – 525 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 P 7 – 526 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C 7 – 527 NO NO P 7 – 529 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 7 – 530 3.3 3.3 OK 3.3 OK 3.3 P 7 – 533 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C 7 – 535 NO NO P 7 – 536 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 7 – 537 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 7 – 538 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 7 – 539 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 7 – 540 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 S 7 – 541 0.8 1.0 OK 0.8 OK 1.0 P 7 – 542 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C 7 – 543 NO NO P 7 – 544 4.3 4.3 OK 4.3 OK 4.3 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check Trip Type Count Primary Trips 79 Average 3.58 Average 3.35 Diverted Trips 40 Standard Deviation 5.70 Standard Deviation 2.99 Secondary Trips 57 Average + 3σ 20.68 Average + 3σ 12.32 Captured Trips 183 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:359 Coefficient of Variation 1.592 Coefficient of Variation 0.892 % Captured Trips:51% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 352 Number of Trip Ends 346 % New Trips of Total Surveys:49% Trip Length Assessable Trip Length 394528 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-78 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-11 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Shopping Center Land Use – Site #11 Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C9-2 NO NO P9-52.61.6OK2.6 OK1.6 S9-71.80.9OK1.8 OK0.9 D9-80.30.3OK0.6 OK0.6 C9-11 NO NO P 9-14 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 9-15 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 C9-17 NO NO C9-19 NO NO S 9-20 4.5 2.7 OK 4.5 OK 2.7 D 9-24 1.2 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 P9-267.1 7.1NO NO C9-27 NO NO C9-28 NO NO P 9-31 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C9-32 NO NO C9-33 NO NO C9-34 NO NO C9-35 NO NO C9-37 NO NO C9-38 NO NO S 9-39 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P9-415.7 5.7NO NO C9-43 NO NO C9-45 NO NO P 9-47 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C9-48 NO NO C9-50 NO NO P 9-51 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C9-52 NO NO D 9-53 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 C9-54 NO NO P 9-55 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 C9-56 NO NO P 9-58 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 C9-59 NO NO C9-61 NO NO C9-63 NO NO C9-64 NO NO P 9-66 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 9-67 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 C9-68 NO NO C9-69 NO NO C9-71 NO NO C9-74 NO NO C9-77 NO NO C9-78 NO NO C9-80 NO NO D 9-81 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C9-83 NO NO C9-84 NO NO S 9-85 1.1 3.0 OK 1.1 OK 3.0 C9-93 NO NO C9-94 NO NO C9-95 NO NO C9-96 NO NO C9-99 NO NO C9-101 NO NO C9-102 NO NO P 9-103 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 C9-104 NO NO C9-105 NO NO 395529 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-79 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-11 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 9-109 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 C9-112 NO NO P 9-113 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 C9-115 NO NO C9-116 NO NO P 9-123 5.1 5.1 OK 5.1 OK 5.1 P 9-124 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 9-130 4.7 4.7 OK 4.7 OK 4.7 C9-132 NO NO P 9-142 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C9-152 NO NO C9-157 NO NO C9-158 NO NO D 9-159 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C9-160 NO NO D 9-162 1.6 1.6 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 S 9-164 1.2 0.5 OK 1.2 OK 0.5 C9-165 NO NO D 9-168 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C9-172 NO NO P 9-173 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 S 9-174 1.8 1.0 OK 1.8 OK 1.0 C9-175 NO NO D 9-178 2.3 2.3 OK 4.6 OK 4.6 D 9-181 1.4 1.4 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C9-183 NO NO D 9-184 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C9-185 NO NO D 9-186 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 9-190 0.8 1.7 OK 0.8 OK 1.7 P 9-191 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 D 9-192 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C9-193 NO NO C9-194 NO NO P 9-195 0.8 2.6 OK 0.8 OK 2.6 S 9-197 2.7 1.9 OK 2.7 OK 1.9 S 9-198 2.7 2.4 OK 2.7 OK 2.4 C9-200 NO NO C9-202 NO NO C9-203 NO NO C9-205 NO NO D 9-206 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C9-207 NO NO D 9-210 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C9-212 NO NO D 9-213 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C9-214 NO NO C9-215 NO NO C9-216 NO NO C9-217 NO NO D 9-220 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 S 9-221 2.5 3.7 OK 2.5 OK 3.7 S 9-222 3.6 3.7 OK 3.6 OK 3.7 C9-231 NO NO C9-232 NO NO C9-235 NO NO C9-236 NO NO S 9-237 1.6 1.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.8 D 9-238 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 9-239 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C9-240 NO NO D 9-244 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 9-245 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C9-247 NO NO C9-248 NO NO C9-252 NO NO S 9-254 1.1 1.0 OK 1.1 OK 1.0 C9-255 NO NO 396530 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-80 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-11 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths D 9-257 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C9-258 NO NO D 9-259 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 9-260 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C9-263 NO NO S 9-266 1.0 2.5 OK 1.0 OK 2.5 C9-267 NO NO C9-268 NO NO D 9-270 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 9-272 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C9-277 NO NO P 9-279 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 P 9-281 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 C9-282 NO NO P 9-283 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 C9-284 NO NO P 9-285 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 S 9-287 1.0 1.7 OK 1.0 OK 1.7 P 9-288 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 9-294 1.0 0.4 OK 1.0 OK 0.4 C9-298 NO NO D 9-299 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C9-300 NO NO P 9-301 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C9-303 NO NO D 9-304 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 9-306 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 S 9-307 1.7 0.8 OK 1.7 OK 0.8 P 9-308 3.5 3.5 OK 3.5 OK 3.5 P 9-310 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 D 9-311 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 9-313 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P 9-314 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 S 9-315 1.8 1.7 OK 1.8 OK 1.7 P 9-316 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P9-3177.1 7.1NO NO P 9-320 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 D 9-324 1.3 1.3 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 9-325 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 S 9-326 1.7 1.0 OK 1.7 OK 1.0 P 9-327 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 C9-3280.0 0.0NO NO P 9-400 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 9-403 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 P 9-404 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 C9-405 NO NO C9-406 NO NO P 9-407 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 C9-409 NO NO D 9-410 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 9-411 1.9 1.9 OK 3.8 OK 3.8 C9-413 NO NO P 9-416 1.4 1.4 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 9-417 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 9-419 3.2 3.2 OK 3.2 OK 3.2 P 9-420 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 9-422 7.1 1.4 NO OK 1.4 C9-424 NO NO P 9-429 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 C9-431 NO NO D 9-435 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C9-437 NO NO S 9-439 0.9 0.8 OK 0.9 OK 0.8 P 9-443 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 9-446 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C9-448 NO NO C9-452 NO NO C9-454 NO NO D 9-455 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 397531 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-81 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-11 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C9-457 NO NO D 9-458 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 9-459 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 9-460 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P 9-461 3.4 3.4 OK 3.4 OK 3.4 D 9-464 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 9-466 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 C9-467 NO NO C9-468 NO NO C9-471 NO NO C9-473 NO NO D 9-474 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C9-475 NO NO D 9-476 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 9-482 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 9-483 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 C9-488 NO NO C9-489 NO NO P 9-490 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 D 9-491 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 9-492 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 9-494 4.0 4.0 OK 4.0 OK 4.0 C9-499 NO NO S 9-500 2.7 1.7 OK 2.7 OK 1.7 P 9-503 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 9-506 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 C9-507 NO NO P 9-510 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 C9-513 NO NO D 9-514 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C9-517 NO NO C9-519 NO NO C9-520 NO NO C9-526 NO NO C9-530 NO NO D 9-533 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 9-534 1.3 1.3 OK 1.3 OK 1.3 C9-536 NO NO C9-537 NO NO C9-538 NO NO C9-540 NO NO D 9-543 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 9-545 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 9-546 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C9-547 NO NO D 9-548 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 S 9-551 1.6 2.7 OK 1.6 OK 2.7 D 9-554 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 9-556 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 9-563 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C9-569 NO NO P 9-572 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 P 9-573 4.5 4.5 OK 4.5 OK 4.5 P 9-577 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 9-578 2.0 2.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 C9-579 NO NO C9-580 NO NO C9-581 NO NO C9-583 NO NO C9-585 NO NO C9-586 NO NO C9-589 NO NO P 9-590 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 9-591 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 D 9-592 1.3 1.3 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 C9-594 NO NO C9-597 NO NO C9-598 NO NO C9-600 NO NO 398532 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-82 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-11 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths D 9-601 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C9-603 NO NO C9-604 NO NO P 9-605 9.7 1.6 NO OK 1.6 C9-612 NO NO C9-613 NO NO S 9-620 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C9-628 NO NO C9-633 NO NO C9-635 NO NO P 9-637 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 P 9-638 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 C9-640 NO NO C9-641 NO NO D 9-644 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 9-648 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 9-649 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C9-654 NO NO C9-656 NO NO C9-657 NO NO D 9-659 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C9-660 NO NO P 9-662 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 P 9-664 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C9-668 NO NO P 9-673 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 C9-674 NO NO C9-680 NO NO C9-684 NO NO D 9-686 3.2 3.2 OK 6.4 OK 6.4 P 9-687 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C9-688 NO NO P 9-689 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C9-691 NO NO C9-702 NO NO C9-703 NO NO D 9-704 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C9-710 NO NO P 9-711 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 D 9-714 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 9-717 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 9-727 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C9-731 NO NO C9-741 NO NO C9-746 NO NO C9-750 NO NO C9-754 NO NO P 9-755 0.9 0.9 OK 0.9 OK 0.9 D 9-760 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 C9-763 NO NO P 9-768 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 C9-773 NO NO D 9-777 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 P 9-780 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 9-781 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 9-782 1.1 1.1 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 9-794 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C9-797 NO NO D 9-803 1.4 1.4 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C9-808 NO NO C9-814 NO NO D 9-815 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C9-830 NO NO C9-847 NO NO C9-848 NO NO C9-849 NO NO C9-850 NO NO 399533 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-83 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-11 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths P 9-853 4.2 4.2 OK 4.2 OK 4.2 D 9-854 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 9-856 1.9 1.9 OK 1.9 OK 1.9 C9-860 NO NO C9-862 NO NO C9-863 NO NO C9-864 NO NO P 9-867 0.2 0.2 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 C9-870 NO NO C9-871 NO NO C9-875 NO NO S 9-876 1.8 1.7 OK 1.8 OK 1.7 D 9-879 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 P 9-880 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C9-882 NO NO C9-883 NO NO C9-884 NO NO C9-885 NO NO C9-886 NO NO D 9-887 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 9-888 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 P9-8917.1 7.1NO NO C9-893 NO NO C9-897 NO NO C9-898 NO NO D 9-900 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 9-902 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 9-904 2.3 2.3 OK 2.3 OK 2.3 C9-905 NO NO P 9-906 2.2 2.2 OK 2.2 OK 2.2 P 9-907 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 C9-908 NO NO C9-910 NO NO S 9-911 2.6 2.2 OK 2.6 OK 2.2 P 9-912 0.7 0.7 OK 0.7 OK 0.7 D 9-914 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 S 9-915 0.8 2.2 OK 0.8 OK 2.2 D 9-916 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 D 9-920 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 S 9-922 1.7 0.9 OK 1.7 OK 0.9 C9-924 NO NO S 9-926 1.0 1.7 OK 1.0 OK 1.7 D 9-927 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 C9-930 NO NO C9-931 NO NO S 9-933 2.1 1.5 OK 2.1 OK 1.5 P9-9346.3 6.3NO NO C9-938 NO NO P 9-941-1 1.6 1.6 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 P 9-941-2 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 9-947 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 S 9-949 0.8 0.9 OK 0.8 OK 0.9 S 9-950 2.1 2.3 OK 2.1 OK 2.3 D 9-952 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 9-953 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 S 9-957 1.0 1.6 OK 1.0 OK 1.6 P 9-958 0.4 0.4 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 P 9-959 0.5 0.5 OK 0.5 OK 0.5 C9-961 NO NO P 9-964 1.1 1.1 OK 1.1 OK 1.1 C9-966 NO NO C9-969 NO NO P 9-970 0.1 0.1 OK 0.1 OK 0.1 D 9-971 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 P 9-972 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 P 9-973 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 9-974 0.9 1.5 OK 0.9 OK 1.5 C9-975 NO NO 400534 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-84 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-11 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C9-980 NO NO P 9-982 0.8 0.8 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 D 9-984 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 P9-9895.6 5.6NO NO D 9-990 1.3 1.3 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 S 9-991 1.5 1.4 OK 1.5 OK 1.4 P 9-993 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 9-997 2.6 2.6 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 P 9-1000 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 P 9-1001 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 P 9-1004 1.2 1.2 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 D 9-1007 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C9-1008 NO NO D 9-1009 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 9-1011 3.1 1.9 OK 3.1 OK 1.9 S 9-1012 1.7 1.7 OK 1.7 OK 1.7 C9-1013 NO NO C9-1014 NO NO C 9-1016-1 NO NO C 9-1016-2 NO NO S 9-1023 1.3 0.9 OK 1.3 OK 0.9 C9-1024 NO NO S 9-1025 2.6 2.4 OK 2.6 OK 2.4 D 9-1028 0.3 0.3 OK 0.6 OK 0.6 C9-1029 NO NO D 9-1030 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C9-1031 NO NO D 9-1032 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 S 9-1033 3.1 1.6 OK 3.1 OK 1.6 C9-1034 NO NO C9-1035 NO NO C9-1038 NO NO C9-1050 NO NO D 9-1051 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 C9-1052 NO NO D 9-1054 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 9-1056 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 9-1059 0.1 0.1 OK 0.2 OK 0.2 D 9-1060 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 9-1062 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C9-1064 NO NO S 9-1065 2.1 0.9 OK 2.1 OK 0.9 C 9-1066 0.0 0.0 NO NO P 9-1068 2.1 2.1 OK 2.1 OK 2.1 C9-1069 NO NO P 9-1070 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 D 9-1071-1 1.3 1.3 OK 2.6 OK 2.6 S 9-1071-2 3.1 2.6 OK 3.1 OK 2.6 P 9-1072 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 C9-1074 NO NO D 9-1075 0.8 0.8 OK 1.6 OK 1.6 D 9-1077 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 C9-1078 NO NO D 9-1082 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 C9-1083 NO NO S 9-1087 2.7 1.8 OK 2.7 OK 1.8 C9-1089 NO NO P 9-1090 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 D 9-1091 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 P 9-1092 1.0 1.0 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 D 9-1093 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 C9-1094 NO NO C9-1095 NO NO D 9-1096 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 D 9-1097 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 C9-1101 NO NO S 9-1102 2.4 1.2 OK 2.4 OK 1.2 S 9-1103 1.4 1.8 OK 1.4 OK 1.8 401535 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. City of Bozeman September 2007 A-85 Trip Characteristics Study Table A-11 (continued) Trip Type (P,S,D,C)Survey # Inbound Trip Length Outbound Trip Length INBOUND LIMIT CHECK Inbound Assessable Lengths OUTBOUND LIMIT CHECK Outbound Assessable Lengths C9-1104 NO NO C9-1106 NO NO P 9-1107 2.7 2.7 OK 2.7 OK 2.7 D 9-1108 0.5 0.5 OK 1.0 OK 1.0 C9-1110 NO NO C9-1114 NO NO C9-1117 NO NO C9-1118 NO NO D 9-1119 0.6 0.6 OK 1.2 OK 1.2 C9-1120 NO NO C9-1121 NO NO C9-1122 NO NO D 9-1123 0.2 0.2 OK 0.4 OK 0.4 D 9-1125 1.0 1.0 OK 2.0 OK 2.0 S 9-1126 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 C9-1127 NO NO D 9-1128 0.9 0.9 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 9-1130 0.4 0.4 OK 0.8 OK 0.8 S 9-1138 2.7 1.8 OK 2.7 OK 1.8 S 9-1142 2.3 2.9 OK 2.3 OK 2.9 P 9-1147 1.5 1.5 OK 1.5 OK 1.5 C9-1151 NO NO P 9-1152 1.8 1.8 OK 1.8 OK 1.8 D 9-1154 1.4 1.4 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C9-1156 NO NO D 9-1158 0.7 0.7 OK 1.4 OK 1.4 D 9-1161 1.4 1.4 OK 2.8 OK 2.8 C9-1165 NO NO C9-1166 NO NO S 9-1168 2.4 2.4 OK 2.4 OK 2.4 Trip Length Summary: Trip Type Summary: Trip Type Count Primary Trips 114 Average1.43Average1.56 Diverted Trips 110 Standard Deviation 1.31 Standard Deviation 1.01 Secondary Trips 48 Average + 3σ 5.37 Average + 3σ 4.59 Captured Trips 230 Average − 3σ 0.00 Average − 3σ 0.00 Total Surveys:502 Coefficient of Variation 0.918 Coefficient of Variation 0.646 % Captured Trips:46% Number of Trip Length Sample Ends 548 Number of Assessable Trip Ends 530 % New Trips of Total Surveys:54% Trip Length Assessable Trip Length Combined Inbound/Outbound Limit Check 402536 Impact Fee Authorizing Statute Montana Codes Annotated 2005 7-6-1601. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply: (1) (a) "Capital improvements" means improvements, land, and equipment with a useful life of 10 years or more that increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility. (b) The term does not include consumable supplies. (2) "Connection charge" means the actual cost of connecting a property to a public utility system and is limited to the labor, materials, and overhead involved in making connections and installing meters. (3) "Development" means construction, renovation, or installation of a building or structure, a change in use of a building or structure, or a change in the use of land when the construction, installation, or other action creates additional demand for public facilities. (4) "Governmental entity" means a county, city, town, or consolidated government. (5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected. (b) The term does not include: (i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection costs associated with a permit required for development; (ii) a connection charge; (iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7 for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or (iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity. (6) "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost of capital system improvements that reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. A proportionate share must take into account the limitations provided in 7-6-1602. (7) "Public facilities" means: (a) a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility; (b) a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility; (c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights-of-way, traffic signals, and landscaping; (d) a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposal facility or a flood control facility; (e) a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and (f) other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6-1602 that have been approved as part of an impact fee ordinance or resolution by: (i) a two-thirds majority of the governing body of an incorporated city, town, or 403537 consolidated local government; or (ii) a unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners of a county government. History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 299, L. 2005. 7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and approve documentation that: (a) describes existing conditions of the facility; (b) establishes level of service standards; (c) forecasts future additional needs for service for a defined period of time; (d) identifies capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service; (e) identifies those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility; (f) makes 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; (g) makes 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; (h) establishes 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; (i) establishes the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee; (j) establishes the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and (k) has 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 2 years. (2) The data sources and methodology supporting adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the public upon request. (3) 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. (4) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating the documentation required under subsection (1). (5) 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 of infrastructure improvements made 404538 necessary by the new development. (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 improvements costs: (i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and (ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding the system improvements. (c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee. (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. (e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility. History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005. 7-6-1603. Collection and expenditure of impact fees -- refunds or credits -- mechanism for appeal required. (1) The collection and expenditure of impact fees must comply with this part. The collection and expenditure of impact fees must be reasonably related to the benefits accruing to the development paying the impact fees. The ordinance or resolution adopted by the governmental entity must include the following requirements: (a) Upon collection, impact fees must be deposited in a special proprietary fund, which must be invested with all interest accruing to the fund. (b) A governmental entity may impose impact fees on behalf of local districts. (c) If the impact fees are not collected or spent in accordance with the impact fee ordinance or resolution or in accordance with 7-6-1602, any impact fees that were collected must be refunded to the person who owned the property at the time that the refund was due. (2) All impact fees imposed pursuant to the authority granted in this part must be paid no earlier than the date of issuance of a building permit if a building permit is required for the development or no earlier than the time of wastewater or water service connection or well or septic permitting. (3) A governmental entity may recoup costs of excess capacity in existing capital facilities, when the excess capacity has been provided in anticipation of the needs of new development, by requiring impact fees for that portion of the facilities constructed for future users. The need to recoup costs for excess capacity must have been documented pursuant to 7-6-1602 in a manner that demonstrates the need for the excess capacity. This part does not prevent a governmental entity from continuing to assess an impact fee that recoups costs for excess capacity in an existing facility. The impact fees imposed to recoup the costs to provide the excess capacity must be based on the governmental 405539 entity's actual cost of acquiring, constructing, or upgrading the facility and must be no more than a proportionate share of the costs to provide the excess capacity. (4) Governmental entities may accept the dedication of land or the construction of public facilities in lieu of payment of impact fees if: (a) the need for the dedication or construction is clearly documented pursuant to 7-6- 1602; (b) the land proposed for dedication for the public facilities to be constructed is determined to be appropriate for the proposed use by the governmental entity; (c) formulas or procedures for determining the worth of proposed dedications or constructions are established as part of the impact fee ordinance or resolution; and (d) a means to establish credits against future impact fee revenue has been created as part of the adopting ordinance or resolution if the dedication of land or construction of public facilities is of worth in excess of the impact fee due from an individual development. (5) Impact fees may not be imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or for rebuilding a damaged structure unless there is an increase in units that increase service demand as described in 7-6-1602(1)(j). If impact fees are imposed for remodeling, rehabilitation, or other improvements to an existing structure or use, only the net increase between the old and new demand may be imposed. (6) This part does not prevent a governmental entity from granting refunds or credits: (a) that it considers appropriate and that are consistent with the provisions of 7-6-1602 and this chapter; or (b) in accordance with a voluntary agreement, consistent with the provisions of 7-6- 1602 and this chapter, between the governmental entity and the individual or entity being assessed the impact fees. (7) An impact fee represents a fee for service payable by all users creating additional demand on the facility. (8) An impact fee ordinance or resolution must include a mechanism whereby a person charged an impact fee may appeal the charge if the person believes an error has been made. History: En. Sec. 3, Ch. 299, L. 2005. 7-6-1604. Impact fee advisory committee. (1) A governmental entity that intends to propose an impact fee ordinance or resolution shall establish an impact fee advisory committee. (2) An impact fee advisory committee must include at least one representative of the development community and one certified public accountant. The committee shall review and monitor the process of calculating, assessing, and spending impact fees. (3) The impact fee advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the governmental entity. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 299, L. 2005. 406540 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 8, 2007 1 AGENDA THE CITY OF BOZEMAN IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2007 6:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chair Tim Dean called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m., in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, Montana. Members Present Staff Present Tim Dean, Chair Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Rick Hixson Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service Ron Kaiser, Vice Chair Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary Anna Rosenberry Debra Becker Randy Carpenter Bill Simkins Members Absent Ken Eiden Nick Lieb Visitors Present Sean Becker, City Commission Liaison Bob Wallace Jason Delmue Adrian Vaughn, SWMBIA Representative ITEM 2. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11TH, 2007 and OCTOBER 25th, 2007. MOTION: Chair Dean moved, City Engineer Hixson seconded, to approve the minutes of October 11, 2007 as presented. The motion carried 7-0. The minutes of October 25, 2007 were continued to the next meeting. ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and not scheduled on this agenda. (Three-minute time limit per speaker.} Adrian Vaughn stated SWMBIA had sent a letter regarding alleged flaws in the road impact fee study. Ms. Becker asked if a transportation expert had reviewed the report. Mr. Vaughn responded there had been two experts reviewing the document, but he was unsure which ones. Assistant Director Saunders responded he had provided the Committee a copy of the letter SWMBIA had sent by e-mail and a hard copy was provided on the dias. 407541 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 8, 2007 2 Chair Dean stated an email had been sent by Ken Eiden regarding proxy’s being disallowed. He suggested the Committee adopt a by-law to allow voting by proxy. The committee concurred that a by-law should be adopted. Mr. Simkins added that sometimes a Committee member must be absent. Ms. Becker presented a proposed by-law for telephone participation and the use of proxy’s. Chair Dean suggested written response and e-mail be added to the proposed by-laws. Ms. Becker responded there was no reason people could not participate in whatever fashion they wish. City Engineer Hixson added that it would be concern if there had been changes added at the time the motion was adopted as the person would not know for certain what they were voting on. Chair Dean responded a proxy would have to be specific to what was being voted on. Ms. Becker added the agenda items would be limited. Ms. Rosenberry added she supported voting by proxy and it would be helpful if the minutes reflected that a vote had been made by proxy. Assistant Director Saunders suggested that if someone was going to delegate a proxy, it should be in some form of written notice. Ms. Becker suggested she could add that language to the proposed by-law. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the written vote would have a deadline by which the votes were to be given to the clerk. Ms. Becker responded the vote would need to be presented at the meeting; suggesting language be included that “no votes shall be recorded after the completion of the meeting”. MOTION: Ms. Becker moved, Mr. Simkins seconded, to approve the proposed by-law to allow vote by proxy with Committee additions. The motion carried 7-0. Vice Chair Kaiser stated he had some pause if the instance arose that only two members attended the meeting and the rest voted by proxy; adding the item could change significantly during discussion. He suggested it would be prudent to consider if a quorum needs to be established in person. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would inquire about the matter with the City Attorney. ITEM 4. CITY COMMISSION LIAISON {A standing item to be used as needed} Commissioner Becker stated that often the recommendations from this Committee were specific and by the time the recommendation came to the City Commission it had been differently shaped; suggesting the Committee could include a phasing plan for implementation with their recommendations. He stated the information being voted on had iterations and raised some confusion with the final calculations and the level of certainty with the cost of service numbers. He suggested the Committee articulate the level of uncertainty pertaining to the calculations to lessen the confusion. Chair Dean responded he was uncertain the City Commission would want to hear the minority report. Commissioner Becker responded the level of research and amount of time was not clearly expressed in the minutes and could be better presented. Ms. Becker responded the function of the Committee was pertinent only to the statutory requirements, not the level at which the item would be adopted. Commissioner Becker stated it was important that any element that the Committee felt strongly about was clearly expressed to the City Commission. Assistant Director Saunders explained the procedure for expressing specific concerns. None of the members were cut out of the standard public comment process because they serve on an advisory board. Ms. Becker noted she felt the minutes well reflected any contentious items. Chair Dean stated the level of service being presented would be quite nice and asked if impact fees should pay for that level of service, or only what is beyond the normal existing level of service in the City of Bozeman. Commissioner Becker responded there were many issues regarding level of service and many developers in the community were feeling the pinch due to that. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the City Commission would be interested in the 408542 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 8, 2007 3 Committee’s suggestions on how to lessen the amount of the impact fees. Commissioner Becker responded those adjustments had already been established. Assistant Director Saunders added that individual traffic impact studies were included and analyzed with each plat as part of the subdivision process. Each development would have to be accountable for meeting the level of service established by ordinance. The level of service standard has not changed. Ms. Becker stated one standard could not be used for every street constructed in the future; adding if the level of service could not be discussed by the Committee, the amount of the impact fees could not be specifically assessed. City Engineer Hixson added that the Transportation Plan would need to be revised if the level of service on streets were modified. Mr. Simkins stated the impact fee statute was clear on whether or not a new development could be held to a higher standard for impact fees. Assistant Director Saunders responded the statute and the Transportation Plan were not in conflict and explained how the two worked in concert. He cited the Lowe’s PUD and how they had been reimbursed for the installation of a widened street and a traffic light modification that would support more traffic. Commissioner Becker noted it was unusual to have proxy’s as approved with the previously proposed by-laws; he suggested absent members would degrade the vote as the discussion portion of the motion would be important. ITEM 5. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION A. Approval of the 2009 – 2013 water impact fee Capital Improvements Program. Assistant Director Saunders updated the Committee on the status of the traffic light at South 7th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard. He had inquired of the Staff planner for the South Towne Square proposal. As a result of the change to state law requirements for condominium review, the development had decided not to subdivide and there would be structures erected before the signal was installed. Chair Dean stated that the study indicated 12 to 24 inch lines were most likely to be built and asked why it had been included in the CIP if it was uncertain. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was no development proposal in hand for that location, but Staff wanted to make those funds available and be in a position to be supportive of development in that area. Ms. Becker asked why the impact fees would need to be so high if the summary for the projected cash balance was equal. Ms. Rosenberry responded the Water Treatment Plant would be a very large project and the City did not want to over commit those funds due to not knowing the true cost of the Water Treatment Plant. Ms. Becker stated the money present in the fund could be used to lessen the amount of impact fees. Ms. Rosenberry responded the Water Treatment Plant was not shown in its entirety as it would be completed in phases and not within the next five years. City Engineer Hixson responded some projects could come up that had not been scheduled and there would need to be funds reserved to provide for items such as those. He added that in terms of a Capital project for water services, the projected fee was not much. He stated the facilities plan identified millions of dollars that would be needed to provide for future growth. Ms. Rosenberry added projects would be eligible for impact fee credits which would impact the available cash flow. Assistant Director Saunders added the study planned for an expected 4% increase in revenues and it would be more cost effective to construct some things as one project instead of in phases; adding there would be some unknowns that could cause significant problems. Ms. Becker stated the use of impact funds could not be allowed if 409543 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 8, 2007 4 development did not occur. Assistant Director Saunders responded capital advancements could be made using those funds and the City would later be reimbursed; adding the new development could not be charged for all of the expense. He stated the water/wastewater impact fees had been assessed on an individual usage basis. Ms. Becker stated the impact fees could not be used for growth that had not yet occurred. Assistant Director Saunders responded that it was the intent of the facility plans and the expenditure of the fees was based on the information in the facility plans; adding money would not be spent if there were no expectation of future users. City Engineer Hixson stated a facility could not be built incrementally; adding it would be inefficient and a waste of money. Ms. Becker responded the excess capacity should be carried by the City until such a time as new development occurred; adding the impact fees should not be put into a reserve fund. Assistant Director Saunders responded the new development would only be buying back the excess capacity the City had already paid for with initial plant construction. Chair Dean noted which items the committee had discussed at length at the last meeting. Ms. Rosenberry stated she had reviewed the reason for the proposed 33% increase in cost for the plant expansion and explained that it had come about over a two year period before the final facility plan had been adopted. Chair Dean responded he had just compared the current information with the year prior. Vice Chair Kaiser noted the membrane plant was the only item not completely eligible for impact fees. MOTION: Vice Chair Kaiser moved, City Engineer Hixson seconded, to approve the 2009- 2013 water impact fee Capital Improvements Program as presented. The motion carried 6-1 with Ms. Becker voting in opposition. Chair Dean noted he had an issue with not knowing the actual cost of the membrane and that the cost had been inflated for protection. B. Approval of the 2009 – 2013 sewer impact fee Capital Improvements Program. Chair Dean noted sludge dewatering had been added to the sewer plant and had caused an increase to 33.6 million and the Graf Street extension had been added. Ms. Becker stated there were significant reserves and suggested the reserves should be spent before additional fees were charged. Chair Dean concurred. MOTION: City Engineer Hixson moved, Mr. Carpenter seconded, to approve the 2009-2013 sewer impact fee Capital Improvements Program as presented. The motion carried 4-3 with Ms. Becker, Mr. Simkins, and Chair Dean voting in opposition. C. Recommendations to City Commission regarding street impact fees. Assistant Director Saunders directed the Committee’s attention to the handout provided by Staff from SWMBIA and himself; explaining those items and their intents. Chair Dean asked where the costs had ended up on the signal at Oak Street and Rouse Avenue. Assistant Director Saunders responded he had not yet seen final documentation and it would be scrutinized once presented. 410544 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 8, 2007 5 Bob Wallace stated his goal was to help the committee understand why changes had been made to the street impact fee report and the effects of those changes. He added a written response would be provided to SWMBIA regarding errors within the study; adding he would be glad to meet with anyone to explain those changes and the different approach. He noted he was satisfied the report conformed to the statute. He stated the committee knew about the population, growth, and key concepts and the new growth was directly proportionate to the expected capacity. He listed items that had been requested be included in the report; adding a County project within the City list had been identified and that had been corrected. He stated information had been updated based on Staff and Committee comments within the appendices and definitions; adding the cost information had also been reviewed and recalculated. He stated the sequence of changes came from the meeting of the IFAC he had attended, comments from Staff, and comments from SWMBIA; noting the credit calculations might need to be modified at a later date if other funds were committed to streets. He stated the demand component did not change, but the cost and credit components had changed and the localized data always provided a more accurate estimate; adding the references would be tied back to the report. He stated the cost component had been assessed using recent bids the City and State had received for projects; adding they were lucky to have three bids to use. He explained the issue was the cost to make the additional capacity available; adding all the projects looked at came from the 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan and represented the best available data. He noted that if the updated Transportation Plan altered the costs significantly, the report would need to be revised. He explained the classification of some of the roads had been modified so that the offset construction could benefit the report and reduce the fee. He stated they had reviewed the bids and data and modified the report to reflect the reduction in cost per lane mile. He summarized the total cost including design, right of way, etc. which were all impact fee eligible costs. He stated the 2-3 lane cost calculations had been reduced; adding that the distribution of City improvements and State improvements was 84% City to 16% State. He stated the major reason for the significant increase in impact fees was the difference in cost per lane mile from 1996 to 2007; he added that the costs of materials had also substantially increased from 1995. He stated that capacity was level of service; adding that in this case, between the 1996 to 2007 impact fee studies there had been a higher capacity pre lane achieved that reflected the enhancements and optimization of the arterial streets in Bozeman. Mr. Wallace stated the credit was the safeguard that there would be a reduction in the impact fee and a credit had been applied for funds that would be used for Capital expansion. He stated the credit had dropped roughly 10% overall due to removal of projects; including the one identified as being outside the City. He noted the vehicle miles were greater for credits than for cost due to part of the trip length not being calculated for costs. The calculation had been corrected to reflect fewer credit projects. He noted that averages indicated larger homes with more people and cars would generate greater demand; adding this method of estimation had been widely adopted. He stated there would need to be administrative requirements made for the affordable housing portions of the report and those qualifications. Mr. Carpenter asked why CBD and non- CBD were not being tiered for residential. Mr. Wallace responded there would not be as the intent was to provide for pedestrians and generating fewer new trips than the same corresponding retail/office establishments outside the CBD; residences do not show the same interchange of trips. Ms. Becker asked if there were any economic benefits being reflected in the transportation rates. Mr. Wallace explained there was no way to give credit for intangible economic benefit and it was reflected in tax increases and Ad Valorum contributions. Mr. Simkins explained it was a policy decision and commercial was a big benefit for the City; adding the benefits should be offset. Mr. Wallace responded the fundamental flaw was the difference between the gross cost per lane mile and the replacement of revenue. Mr. Simkins suggested borrowing the money 411545 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 8, 2007 6 for Capital improvements and paying it back through increased tax revenues; adding only the cost side was being analyzed in the study. Mr. Wallace explained that cash flow would not be present to build capacity if the difference between revenues was not collected. Ms. Becker suggested another revenue source be dedicated for that purpose. Mr. Wallace responded that in many circumstances, tax monies barely covered fire and police costs. Mr. Kaiser noted State law would need to be revised to make revenues available. Mr. Carpenter added it would get complicated due to other services being provided by the City. Assistant Director Saunders explained the averaging of trip demand was an effort to account for the different levels of user for the life of the building. Mr. Wallace added that a reconstruction of a new residence or commercial use would not require new payment of impact fees. Mr. Simkins asked the reason for the 3.5 times greater fees established for restaurants outside the CBD. Mr. Wallace responded more trips would be generated outside the CBD; adding that the characteristics of a large and small CBD had a relative chaining of trips that were the same; adding it was a pro- active approach to multiple land-uses working together. Ms. Rosenberry asked if the City encouraged the redevelopment of an area to be more like the central business district, could the lower impact fees be adopted. Mr. Wallace responded the ordinance would need to be revised to provide safeguards to require that mix of development; suggesting the residential development be tempered with commercial development. Mr. Carpenter asked how Bozeman could move into this type of development practices. Assistant Director Saunders explained how the mixed use could be attained in an area such as the Story Mill Neighborhood site. Mr. Wallace explained the comparison between Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade with a maximum fee recommendation. Ms. Becker noted that Belgrade had consolidated use categories at their recent meeting and had a percentage of the calculated fee. Mr. Wallace responded he would review the most current information and make any necessary modifications, but was concerned that the changes might not charge a proportional share of the cost of the capacity that would be consumed. Mr. Simkins asked why banks were being charged three times more in Bozeman than in Gallatin County. Mr. Wallace responded he would provide an answer at a later date, but he thought it was due to trip generation. He reiterated the legalities of the report and how the statutes had been met with a sound, defensible methodology. He stated the trip data had changed slightly from the previous report; adding that larger homes generated more trips. He stated there had been a misunderstanding that this had been a “needs” based impact fee; noting it had been “consumption” based methodology that would be fairer whether or not growth occurred. Vice Chair Kaiser added that correcting existing deficiencies had been a major concern of SWMBIA. Assistant Director Saunders responded that as design proceeded it became necessary to start doing survey and design work, every item on that corridor could be mapped and specified to adjust the eligible portion of the impact fees that would be capacity related; adding that every project would be followed up on to avoid using impact fees for non- capacity items. Mr. Wallace stated the long range plan had been used to prioritize projects and identify deficiencies. He suggested safeguards had been put in the process to ensure that projects are properly using impact fees. He stated there had been an increase in level of service capacity from 1996 and the proposed estimates of 8,658 were conservative. City Engineer Hixson responded it required controlled access to achieve those numbers and still carry that kind of traffic; suggesting the impact fee was based on a very high number and a median break would diminish that number. Mr. Wallace explained that local studies had been done with regard to vehicle miles of travel as opposed to trip lengths; adding that actual data studying trip characteristics had been used instead 412546 Impact Fee Advisory Committee Meeting– November 8, 2007 7 of land use models. He presented vehicle mile travel comparison data for different land-uses; adding that rural travel was expected to be higher than in urban areas. He stated he had compared the data and was comfortable defending the vehicle travel miles. Chair Dean suggested Mr. Wallace respond in writing to SWMBIA and the Committee delay the vote on the proposal to provide time for a more thorough review of the report. Ms. Becker noted it was the most important recommendation the Committee would make. Assistant Director Saunders responded he did not think there would need to be a material change to the methodology of the report. Mr. Simkins stated he thought SWMBIA had addressed some fundamental issues and there should be some revisions made. The Committee concurred to continue the item until after Thanksgiving to provide time for Committee members to review the information. Mr. Simkins suggested the street impact fee study report be continued until Tuesday, November 27, 2007. The majority of the Committee present concurred. ITEM 6. OLD BUSINESS No issues were raised under this agenda item. ITEM 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS No issues were raised under this agenda item. ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chair Tim Dean adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m. _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Tim Dean, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Impact Fee Advisory Committee Dept of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman City of Bozeman 413547