Upload
hoangkhanh
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ITE Trip Generation and Beyond
Growth and Infrastructure Consortium Conference
Jonathan Young, Project Manager November 4, 2010
0
About Willdan and its O l d C lti TOrlando Consulting Team•• Utility Rate and Impact Fee StudiesUtility Rate and Impact Fee Studies•• Utility Rate and Impact Fee StudiesUtility Rate and Impact Fee Studies
•• Over 30 Transportation Fee StudiesOver 30 Transportation Fee Studies
•• Special Assessments/Utility UndergroundingSpecial Assessments/Utility Undergrounding
•• Cost Allocation Plans and User Fee StudiesCost Allocation Plans and User Fee Studies
•• Energy Conservation and Homeland Security Energy Conservation and Homeland Security Planning Planning
1
IntroductionIntroduction• Adjustments commonly applied to ITE j y pp
Trip Generation rates to determine impact fee schedules
• Additional adjustments to address economic developmenteconomic development concerns, especially for retail and industrial development
• New research on trip generation rates
2
Trip Generation RatesTrip Generation Rates
• Average Daily TripsAverage Daily Trips– (per dwelling unit / per 1,000 sq. ft.)
ITE TripITE Code
Trip Rate
Single Family 210 9.57
Multifamily (Apartment) 220 6 65
Trips
Multifamily (Apartment) 220 6.65
Retail (Shopping Ctr.) 820 42.94
Office (Gen. Office. Bldg.) 710 11.01
Industrial (Gen. Light Ind.) 110 6.97
0 10 20 30 40
3
Moving toward VMT:T i L th Adj t tTrip Length Adjustments• Trip Rate * Trip Length / 2 = VMTTrip Rate Trip Length / 2 = VMT
ADT TripLength
(mi )
VMT EDUs –Relative to ADT*(mi.) to ADT*
Single Family 9.57 7.9 37.80 1.09
Multifamily 6.65 7.9 26.54 0.76
EDUs
Retail 42.94 3.6 77.29 2.23
Office 11.01 8.8 48.44 1.40
Industrial 6 97 9 0 64 73 0 90Industrial 6.97 9.0 64.73 0.90
0 1 2 3 4 5* 1.00 EDU corresponds to the single family ADT rate with no trip length adjustment.
4
Causality: Pass by TripsCausality: Pass-by Trips
ADT Primary Trips
Daily Primary
EDUs –Relative
Trips to ADT*Single Family 9.57 86% 8.23 1.14
Multifamily 6.65 86% 5.72 0.80
EDUs
Retail 42.94 47% 20.18 2.79
Office 11.01 77% 8.48 1.17
Industrial 6.97 79% 5.51 0.76
0 1 2 3 4 5* 1.00 EDU corresponds to the single family ADT rate with no trip length adjustment.
5
Trip Length + Pass-by Trips: Travel Demand Factors
ADT TripLength
Primary Trips
EDUs –Relative
(mi.) to ADT*Single Family 9.57 7.9 86% 1.18
Multifamily 6.65 7.9 86% 0.82
EDUs
Retail 42.94 3.6 47% 1.32
Office 11.01 8.8 77% 1.36
Industrial 6.97 9.0 79% 0.90
0 1 2 3 4 5* 1.00 EDU corresponds to the single family ADT rate with no trip length adjustment.
6
E i D l t Adj t tEconomic Development Adjustments• Adjustments commonly applied to ITE j y pp
Trip Generation rates to determine impact fee schedules
• Additional adjustments to address economic developmenteconomic development concerns, especially for retail and industrial development
• New research on trip generation rates
7
1. Adjust Trip Causality: “Retail Follows Rooftops?”
• Costs for local-serving retailCosts for local serving retail development shifted to residential
• Reduces retail fees only – no benefit f i d t i lfor industrial.
8
1 “Retail Follows Rooftops?”• Study estimated that 63% of retail sales
1. “Retail Follows Rooftops?”y
are to local households; 37% of sales to businesses and visitors.
EDUs –Before
Retail Shift
EDUs –After Retail
ShiftSi l F il 1 00 1 30
EDUsSingle Family 1.00 1.30
Multifamily 0.80 1.04
Retail 2.51 0.99
Office 2.20 2.20
Industrial 0.92 0.92
9
0 1 2 3
1 “R t il F ll R ft ?”1. “Retail Follows Rooftops?”
TechnicalDefensibility
Revenue Sufficiency
Economic Development GoalsGoals
☺☺
10
2. Adjust Trip Causality: Population Serving vs. Export Based
• One agency identified employmentOne agency identified employment sectors as “population serving” or “export based”export based
SectorPopulationServing
Export Based
Retail TradeEducation/HealthFinance/Insurance/Real EstateManufacturing
11
2 Population Serving vs Export Based
• Traffic modeling estimated 60%
2. Population Serving vs. Export Based
Traffic modeling estimated 60% residential trip ends and 40% nonresidentialnonresidential.
Fi l ll ti i d 94% f f• Final allocation assigned 94% of fee burden to residential and 6% to
id ti lnonresidential.
12
2 P l ti S i E t B d2. Population Serving vs. Export Based
EDUs –60/40 Cost
EDUs –94/6 Cost60/40 Cost
Allocation94/6 Cost Allocation
Single Family 1.00 1.56
Multifamily 0 65 1 02
EDUs
Multifamily 0.65 1.02
Retail 3.18 0.48
Office 0.81 0.12
Industrial 0.52 0.08
0 1 2 3 4
13
2 Population Serving vs Export Based
• Requires judgment calls for which
2. Population Serving vs. Export Based
Requires judgment calls for which sectors are population-serving and which are export basedwhich are export based.
I lit t d i f l l d• In reality, sectors do a mix of local and export business.
14
2 P l ti S i E t B d
• More sophisticated analysis of
2. Population Serving vs. Export Based
More sophisticated analysis of population serving vs. export based development could sharpen the pencildevelopment could sharpen the pencil.
Wh t d i id ti l d l t?• What drives residential development? Job opportunities?
15
2 Population Serving vs Export Based2. Population Serving vs. Export Based
TechnicalDefensibility
Revenue Sufficiency
Economic Development GoalsGoals
☺ ☺☺ ☺
16
3. Adjust Trip Causality: j p yAssign all Home-Based Trips to Residential Development
• Traffic model classifies trips as:p– Home-Work– Home-Shop– Home-OtherHome-Other– Other-Work– Other-Other
B i h ll t h t i d t it• Basic approach allocates each trip-end to its land use.
• Alternative approach allocates all trips with at pp pleast one “home” end to residential, all non-home based trips to nonresidential.
17
3. Assign all Home-Based T i t R id ti l D l tTrips to Residential Development
EDUs – EDUs –EDUs Trip Ends
EDUs Trips
Single Family 1.00 2.00
Multifamily 0 70 1 38
EDUs
Multifamily 0.70 1.38
Retail 5.06 2.35
Office 3.14 1.46
Industrial 0.94 0.43
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
18
3. Assign all Home-Based T i R id i l D lTrips to Residential Development
TechnicalDefensibility
Revenue Sufficiency
Economic Development G lGoals
☺ ☺ ☺☺ ☺ ☺
19
4. Adjust Trip Causality: E l d C t i L d U
• One agency allocates all costs to
Exclude Certain Land Uses
One agency allocates all costs to residential development.
EDUs – EDUs –EDUs Including Nonresid.
EDUs Residential
OnlySingle Family 1.00 2.00
EDUs
g y
Multifamily 0.69 1.38
Retail 1.12 0.00
Offi 1 15 0 00Office 1.15 0.00
Industrial 0.76 0.00
20
0 1 2
4 E l d C t i L d U4. Exclude Certain Land Uses
TechnicalDefensibility
Revenue Sufficiency
Economic Development GoalsGoals
☺ ☺☺ ☺
21
5. Allocate Certain Projects to Certain Land Uses
• Arterials costs allocated to allArterials costs allocated to all development based on trip demand
• Residential collector costs allocated to id ti l d l t lresidential development only
– In the end, collectors were moved out of f d t ti i i dfee program and construction is required by developers.
22
5. Allocate Certain
• Residential collectors were approx 50%Projects to Certain Land UsesResidential collectors were approx. 50% of the total fee-eligible project costs.
EDUs –C ll
EDUs –C llCollectors
Allocated Evenly
Collectors Allocated
to Res.Single Family 1 00 1 51 EDUsSingle Family 1.00 1.51
Multifamily 0.62 0.93
Retail 1.37 0.66
Office 1.63 0.78
Industrial 1.12 0.53
23
0 1 2
5. Allocate Certain Projects to Certain Land Uses
TechnicalDefensibility
Revenue Sufficiency
Economic Development GoalsGoals
☺☺
24
6 Targeted Non Fee Funding6. Targeted Non-Fee Funding• Nexus study sets maximum justifiedNexus study sets maximum justified
fees, but you don’t have to charge maximum feemaximum fee.
F i i ht t l i• Fairness might suggest applying non-fee funding evenly, but economic d l t id ti ldevelopment considerations are also important.
25
6 Targeted Non Fee Funding6. Targeted Non-Fee Funding• Discretionary revenue incorporated toDiscretionary revenue incorporated to
reduce fees from maximum justified amount:amount:– 50% as a “general offset”
50% for “targeted offsets” for uses with– 50% for targeted offsets for uses with perceived economic development benefits
26
6 Targeted Non Fee Funding6. Targeted Non-Fee Funding
EDUs –Before Offsets
EDUs –With
OffsetsSingle Family 1.00 0.93
Multifamily 0.70 0.65
Retail 1 65 1 53
EDUs
Retail 1.65 1.53
Office 1.28 1.03
Industrial 0.50 0.32
0 1 2
27
6 Targeted Non Fee Funding6. Targeted Non-Fee Funding• Consider using:Consider using:
– Redevelopment fundingTransportation sales tax (if not allocated– Transportation sales tax (if not allocated to specific projects)
28
6 Targeted Non Fee Funding6. Targeted Non-Fee Funding
TechnicalDefensibility
Revenue Sufficiency
Economic Development GoalsGoals
☺☺
29
7 “Arbitrarily” Reduce Certain Fees7. Arbitrarily Reduce Certain Fees
• Fees imposed below maximum justifiedFees imposed below maximum justified levels for some land uses to “foster economic development”economic development .
• Study identified need for other funding sources to complete improvementssources to complete improvements.
• Did not identify other funding sources.
30
7 “Arbitrarily” Reduce Certain Fees7. Arbitrarily Reduce Certain Fees
EDUs –Maximum Justified
EDUs –Adopted
FeesFees
Single Family 1.00 0.99
Multifamily 0.61 0.60
EDUs
y
Retail 1.85 0.40
Office 0.85 0.50
Industrial 0.85 0.30
0 1 2
31
7 “Arbitrarily” Reduce Certain Fees7. Arbitrarily Reduce Certain Fees
TechnicalDefensibility
Revenue Sufficiency
Economic Development GoalsGoals
☺☺
32
New Research on Trip RatesNew Research on Trip Rates• Adjustments commonly applied to ITE j y pp
Trip Generation rates to determine impact fee schedules
• Additional adjustments to address economic developmenteconomic development concerns, especially for retail and industrial development
• New research on trip generation rates
33
New Research on Trip RatesNew Research on Trip Rates• ITE trip rates predominantly based onITE trip rates predominantly based on
traffic studies from single-use suburban developmentdevelopment.
• New research is attempting to estimate trip generation in other settingstrip generation in other settings.
• Can be used in fees for development th t b d i bl i fill TODthat may be desirable, e.g. infill, TOD.
34
TOD Trip Rates• Cervero & Arrington (2008)
TOD Trip RatesCervero & Arrington (2008)– Survey of trip rates at 17 rail-served TOD
housing projects in 5 citieshousing projects in 5 cities– Found average weekday trip rates 44%
lower than ITE rateslower than ITE rates
35
Urban Infill Trip RatesUrban Infill Trip Rates• Daisa & Parker (2009)Daisa & Parker (2009)
– Pilot study to establish a database of trip generation rates for common urban infillgeneration rates for common urban infill land use categories
– Intercept survey during AM and PM peakIntercept survey during AM and PM peak periods for 26 sites
– All sites within 1/3 mile of rail or bus transit
36
InfillInfill• Daisa & Parker (2009)Daisa & Parker (2009)
– “Not statistically significant” – small sample sizesample size
Average percent difference between observed rate and ITE rateLand Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourMid-Rise Apartments -27% -28%Office -50% -50%Bakery & Café -93% -70%Coffee Shop -57% -78%Quality Restaurant -35% -26%
37
8 TOD or Infill Trip Rate Adjustments8. TOD or Infill Trip Rate Adjustments
TechnicalDefensibility
Revenue Sufficiency
Economic Development GoalsGoals
☺ ☺☺ ☺
38