ITE Trip Generation and · PDF fileITE Trip Generation and Beyond Growth and Infrastructure...

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