The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 01/13/2009 Item #10CAgenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 1 of 187 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request that the Board of County Commissioners accepts the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study" (Study) dated December 2008 and directs staff to bring back an Ordinance amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by reference of the Study to either implement the corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule or consider an option to delay the adoption of the corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule for a period of one (1) year and consider an economic incentive by adjusting the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect the rates in effect as of .June 30, 2006 with staff direction to prepare measures to reduce trip lengths. OBJECTIVE: Request that the Board of County Commissioners accepts the Study dated December 2008 and directs staff to bring back an Ordinance amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances providing for the incorporation by reference of the Study to either implement the corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule or consider an option to delay the adoption for a period of one (1) year and consider an economic incentive by adjusting the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect the rates in effect as of June 30, 2006 with staff direction to prepare measures to reduce trip lengths. CONSIDERATIONS: Since 1985, Collier County has used impact fees as a funding source for growth- related capital improvements related to Transportation Facilities. On April 25, 2006, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2006 -19 thereby amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Code, and establishing the County's then current Road Impact Fee rates. Further, on June 26, 2007, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2007 -57 incorporating the "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" through which Road Impact Fees were indexed in accordance with the prescribed methodology, thereby establishing the rates that are currently in effect. Pursuant to Section 74 -502 of the Code which states that impact fee studies should be reviewed "at least every three years ", the County retained Tindale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. (the Consultant) to review the existing Road Impact Fees and recommend changes to the fees where appropriate. The Consultant has also completed an updated "Trip Length" study which considered recent sampling, prior local studies and additional data throughout the state. Collier County's updated recommended residential trip lengths are consistent with the average residential trip lengths within the state. However, it should be noted that the recent trip length study sampling indicated that a majority of trip lengths east of CR -951 are longer due to the lack of destinations such as retail, employment and medical. The establishment of destinations east of CR -951 would have a more permanent positive effect on impact fees by lowering the trip length component and thus reducing the rate. The attached studies represent an actual review of the current local costs and describe the technical and legal framework and methodology used to complete this update. Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 2 of 187 Due to the economic downturn and the possible further degradation of costs, staff is recommending that Board adopts the submitted studies and considers an option for a one (1) year delay in the effective date and during that period implements the rate schedule in effect as of June 30, 2006. The 2006 rate schedule would represent a 29.7% across the board reduction from the current rate. The submitted Study contains rate reductions, a few minimal net changes and some rate increases. The attached rate comparison sheet provides a detailed comparison of the options. Staff is also recommending that the Board directs staff to promote destinations east of CR -951 in order to reduce trip lengths and to provide a review of any benefits from the rate reduction to the development industry and the community and negative revenue impacts, if any, to the Board within one (1) year of the adoption of a new effective rate. Exceptionally high vacancy rates continue to exasperate the perception that roadway capacity is available and that capital construction can be delayed or is not needed. It should be noted that impact fee rate adjustments that differ from the December 2008 study may have a negative revenue impact; and, therefore, a corresponding detrimental impact to the County's Capital Improvement Element (CIE). Failure to maintain funding for capacity improvements will eventually revert to a back log environment experienced in the late 1990s. PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: The Productivity Committee recommended that the Study be adopted but the new rates not be implemented for a period of two (2) years and that Road Impact Fees be rolled back to the rates effective June 30, 2006. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: As indicated by the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan, the new proposed impact fee study rates are designed to assess new development a pro rata share of the costs required to finance transportation improvements necessitated by such development. The application of the rate revisions and indexing is also consistent with Objective 1.2 of the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan which states: "Future development will hear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by growth." The proposed impact fee rates ensure that Road Impact Fee assessments consistently reflect a pro rata share of the costs of growth - necessitated capital improvements. Lower than anticipated impact fee revenues may impact the financial feasibility of the CIE. FISCAL IMPACT: Based upon collections of Road Impact Fees and commercial and residential permitting activity, as well as from current permitting activity and forecasts, the change in Road Impact Fee revenue associated with a decision to roll back to the June 2006 rate revision is estimated to be a 29.7% per year reduction; however, this does not factor any additional decreases in permitting associated with the current economic downturn. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The County Attorney will work with staff to implement Board direction on this item. —JAK RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners directs staff to bring back an Ordinance amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee Study entitled "Collier County Transportation Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 3 of 187 Impact Fee Update Study" dated December 2008 and either implement the corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule or as an option, delay the adoption for a period of one (1) year and consider an economic incentive by adjusting the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect the rates in effect as of June 30, 2006, understanding that such a roll back will reduce the ability to address the full costs of growth, direct staff to report back at the end of one year on the effect of the rate decision and on specific efforts taken to support land use decisions that reduce the geospatial imbalance that has increased the trip lengths. This would be accomplished by facilitating the development of destinations east of CR -951. Prepared By: Nick Casalanguida, Director, Transportation Planning Attachments: 1) Tindale- Oliver Road Impact Fee Study; 2) Trip Length Study; 3) Comparison Rate Chart (Existing Rates -2008 Study Rates -June 30, 2006 Rates) Page I of 2 Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 4 of 187 file: / /C:AAgendaTest\ Export\ 121- .lanuary %2013, %202009\1 0 %2000UNTY %20MANAC E... 1/7/2009 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 10C Item Summary: This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Request that the Board of County Commissioners accepts the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study (Study) dated December 2008 and directs staff to bring back an Ordinance amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by reference of the Study to either implement the corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule or consider an option to delay the adoption of the corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule for a period of one (1) year and consider an economic incentive by adjusting the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect the rates in effect as of June 30, 2006 with staff direction to prepare measures to reduce trip lengths- (Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director) Meeting Date: 1/13/2009 9:00.00 AM Prepared By Nick Casalanguida MPO Director Date Transportation Services Transportation Planning 12/1812008 4:53:47 PM Approved By Brian Hancock Operations Support Manager Date Transportation Division Transportation Administration 12/1912008 8:03 AM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin. 12119/2008 1:15 PM Approved By Community Development & Joseph K. Schmitt Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Community Development & 1211912008 5:14 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Jeff Klatzkow Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 12/2212008 8:30 AM Approved By Gloria Herrera ManagemenUBudget Analyst Date Transportation Services Stormwater Management 12/22/2008 10:26 AM Approved By Amy Patterson Impact Fee Manager Date Community Development & Financial Admin. & Housing 1212212008 10:54 AM Environmental Services Approved By -- Pat Lehnhard Executive Secretary Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin 1212212008 11:13 AM Approved By file: / /C:AAgendaTest\ Export\ 121- .lanuary %2013, %202009\1 0 %2000UNTY %20MANAC E... 1/7/2009 Marklsackson Budget Analyst County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 5 of 187 Date 1212312008 9:24 AM Approved By Susan Usher Senior Management/Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 12/23/2008 12:48 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County County Manager's Office 12123/2008 1:26 PM Commissioners file: / /C:AAgendaTest \Export\ 121- January %2013, %202009\ 10. %2000UNTY %20MANAGE... 1/7/2009 Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 6 of 187 COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY FINAL REPORT 01tter (- OUrt1N" i' 101,1011 December 17, 2008 Prepared,for: Collier County Transportation Planning Department 2885 S. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Prepared by: Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 N Ashley Dr., #100 Tampa, Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224- 8862,,fax (813) 226 -2106 t Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 7 of 187 M, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Planuiug and Fliginccring December 17, 2008 Mr. Nick Casalanguida Director Collier County Transportation Planning Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Dear Mr. Casalanguida: Enclosed is the Final Technical Report for the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study. As you know, there are several primary components of the impact fee, including cost, credit, and demand. The studies primary findings in terms of these variables are summarized below: • The cost component reflects the recent decrease in construction costs, and results in a lower cost per lane mile figure than what is currently adopted. In comparison to other communities, the County's overall cost is slightly higher than the average due to the additional costs related to building interchanges, mitigation, and utilities. • In terms of the credit component, Collier County is above average compared to other jurisdictions, reflecting a higher level of non - impact fee investment in roadway capacity expansion projects. This relatively high credit reduces the impact fee. The demand component is measured in terms of vehicle miles of travel (VMT), which is obtained by multiplying trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips. The updated demand component reflects the additional studies included in the database for various land uses_ More specifically; o As part of the update study, TOA conducted trip characteristics studies for single family land use. The study results indicated that the VMT is higher than what was used for the adopted fee and the average of TOA's Florida studies database. To be conservative, this study combined local studies conducted in Collier County with studies completed in other jurisdictions and used the database average in the impact fee calculations, which resulted in a lower impact fee figure than what the potential fee would have been with a VMT based solely on local data. 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa. Florida 33602 • Phone. (813) 224 -8862 • Fax (813) 226 -2106 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540, Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax (407) 657 -9106 195 South Central Avenue. Bartow. Florida 33830 • Phone. (863) 533 -8454 • Fax (863) 533 -8481 Tisdale- Oliver & Plat ing and Engiuccrn Mr. Nick Casalanguida December 17, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Inc. Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 8 of 187 o There were several studies added to the retail land use, which increased the overall VMT for the retail category. o Similarly, additional studies and analyses resulted in either increase or decrease of the VMT for several other uses (increase in VMT for approximately 10 land uses and a decrease in VMT for about eight land uses). Table 2 in the report provides a summary of these changes. o Finally, after the issuance of the Collier County Transportation hnpact Fee Update Study Final Report dated December 8, 2008, TOA received the new edition (8th) of the Trip Generation reference report prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). A comparison of data in the 7" Edition (which is used in this study) and the 8th Edition suggested that the trip generation rate for the "banks with drive -thru" land use decreased significantly. This decrease is incorporated into the study. • Overall, the calculated fee is $11,760 for midsize single family home compared to the current fee of $11,523. Table 11 of the report provides a comparison of Collier County's current and proposed fees as well as those in other counties for several land uses. If you should have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me or Nilgun Kamp. It has been our pleasure to have worked with County staff on this important project. Sincerely, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Steven A. Tindale, P.E., AICP President 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 100, Tampa, Florida 33602 • Phone'. (813) 224 -8862 • Fax: (813) 226 -2106 1595 South Semoran Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 1540. Winter Park, Florida 32792 • Phone: (407) 657 -9210 • Fax: (407) 657 -9106 195 South Central Avenue. Bartow, Florida 33830 • Phone: (863) 533 -8454 • Fax (863) 533 -8481 Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 9 of 187 COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY Table of Contents INTRODUCTION..................................................................... ............................... 1 DEMANDCOMPONENT ....................................................... ............................... 2 Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor ................... ............................... 9 COSTCOMPONENT .............................................................. ............................... 9 CountyCosts ................................................................... ............................... 10 StateCosts ....................................................................... ............................... 12 Summary of Costs (Blended Cost Analysis) .................. ............................... 15 Capacity Added per Lane Mil e ....................................... ............................... 15 Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity Added ...................... ............................... 16 CREDITCOMPONENT .......................................................... ............................... 17 Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit ...................................... ............................... 17 AdValorem Credit .......................................................... ............................... 19 Present Worth Variabl es ................................................. ............................... 20 FuelEfficiency ................................................................ ............................... 20 Effective Days per Year .................................................. ............................... 21 CALCULATED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ................ 21 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE, COMPARISON ................ 23 APPENDICES Appendix A — Demand Component Calculation Appendix B — Cost Component Calculation Appendix C — Credit Component Calculation Appendix D — Ad Valorem Credit Appendix E — Single Family Tiering Analysis Appendix F — Calculated Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 i Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 10 of 187 COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY Introduction Collier County's Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance was originally adopted in January 1985, to assist the County in providing adequate transportation facilities for expected growth. Section 74- 335(a) of the current ordinance requires the fee to be reviewed and, if appropriate, updated every three years. t As part of this process, Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. (TOA) has been retained to conduct the 2008 transportation impact fee update study. Following the introduction, this report consists of the following sections: • Demand Component • Cost Component • Credit Component • Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule • Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison The methodology used for the transportation impact fee study follows a standards -driven approach. In the standards -driven approach, also known as a consumption -based impact fee, new development is charged based upon the proportion of the vehicle miles of travel, that each unit of new development is expected to consume of a lane mile of roadway network. Included in this document is the necessary support material utilized in the calculation of the transportation impact fees. The general equation used to compute the impact fee for a given land use is: [Demand x Cost] - Credit = Fee The demand for travel placed on the transportation system is expressed in units of vehicle miles of travel (daily trip generation rate times the trip length times the percent new trips (of total trips)) 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 consumes 'Source: Collier County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 74, Section 74- 335(a), "Review Requirement' Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 11 of 187 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 future non- impact fee revenues generated by new development that are allocated to roadway capacity expansion construction projects. 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 that is not paid for by future tax revenues generated by the development. It should be noted that the information used to develop the impact fee schedule was based upon the most recent, reliable and localized data available. There are 10 input variables used in the fee equation: Demand Variables: • Trip generation rate • Trip length • Percent new trips • Interstate and toll facility discount factor Cost Variables. • Cost per lane mile • Capacity added per lane mile Credit Variables: • Equivalent gas tax credit (pennies) • Present Worth • Fuel efficiency • Effective days per year A review of these variables and corresponding recommendations are presented in the following sections. Demand Component The amount of road system consumed by a unit of new land development is calculated using the following variables and is a measure of the vehicle miles of new travel a unit of development places on the existing roadway system: Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2009 2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 12 of 187 • Number of daily trips generated; • Length of those trips; and • Proportion of travel that is new travel, rather than travel that is already traveling on the road system. As part of this update, the trip characteristic variables are obtained primarily from three sources: (1) similar studies previously conducted throughout Florida and in Collier County (Florida Studies Database), (2) 2008 Collier County Single Family Residential Trip Characteristics Studies, and (3) the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (7a' edition). The Florida Trip Characteristics Studies Database is included in Appendix A. This database was used to determine vehicle miles of travel which is developed from trip length, percent new trips, and trip rate for most land uses. In addition, trip generation data from the ITE 7`h edition report is used. In all instances where trip generation rate data was available from both the ITE reference report and the Florida Studies database, a blend calculation was used to increase sample size. Residential As part of the 2008 Update study, Collier County conducted a single family trip characteristics study at four residential sites. The Collier County Single Family Trip Characteristics Studies Final Report, May 23, 2008 documents the results of the study including the trip generation rate (TGR), trip length (TL), and percent new trips (PNT) of the four sites. This information was used to calculate the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) for existing and future single family residential subdivisions in Collier County. As shown in Table 1, the VMT ranged from 39.07 to 104.86 for the studies sites, with a weighted average value of 60.64. Based on discussion with County staff and to have a larger sample size, the data from the four sites studies was blended with the TOA Florida Studies database which resulted in a conservative VMT value of 51.70. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 13 of 187 Table 1 Collier County Single Family Residential VMT Summary l'1 Site 1 74 du 12.81 3.05 100% 39.07 1 19.54 Site 2 42 du 9.55 10.98 100% 104.86 52.43 Site 3 97 du 8.78 11.29 100% 99.13 49.56 Site 4 315 du 6.97 6.55 100% 45.65 22.83 Weighted Average (4 sites) 8.33 7.28 100% 60.64 30.32 Weighted Average (FL Studies) 7.81 6.62 100% 51.70 25.85 (1) Source: Collier County Single Family Trip Characteristics Studies, May 23, 2008, Table 1 (2) VMT is calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate by the trip length and by the percent new trips variables for each respective land use studied. (3) To allocate the assessment for a trip evenly between origin -end development and destination- end development, the VMT (Item 2) is divided in half. (4) Source: Appendix A, Singe Family Land Use Summary Table Non - Residential As part of the 2008 update study, TOA updated the retail (ITE LUC 820) trip length and percent new trips curves. The trip length and percent new trips curves use data from Florida Studies Database and ITE to develop a regression equation that predicts trip lengths for each tier. For the update, 14 Florida studies were added to the trip length regression analysis (to the existing 1 I studies) and 40 studies (9 from Florida and 31 nationwide studies) were added to the percent new trips regression analysis (to the existing 82 studies). The updated percent new trips and trip length curves with this additional data resulted in an average increase in VMT of 27 percent for all tiers. In addition to changes in the retail (LUC 820) trip lengths and percent new taps, demand data (TGR, TL, and PNT) for other land uses were updated based on additional data included in the Florida Studies Database since the 2006 Study. Table 2 presents the percent changes in VMT (TGR, 'fL and PNT) for each land use where the demand component was updated. Note that only the land uses that are included in the adopted impact fee schedule are shown. Appendix A provides additional detail for the demand component calculations for each land use. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study oar �o n� a) mo> Ica CM N Q y d w A A d CD LL V ca TG V N V d y w 0 N C R t a To i C d IL O � J � a o � U N w A a a` O O a F F m ti n N O Q o O �o N N U � C y F C — m A .,m. m m m c c ro 9 F .6 N N 9 ❑ �.,�O 9_ WO t�7� �I � w F F F F `� .+�^•� c c c F F �y � Y N N N SJ N`�dy2 O ro p) y al+ O W W �, 0 0 0 •n N � N G� N �_ v, Di T 9 T'O W m� m o c v v v �. o o v O o o c v ❑ w = y � L ° m° M� W C N o� N a N N� �^ •`r ry' F U N yr �y 9 b A 9 y rz c r o C 9 U U r U F FU- a u. FU- u. C O ro a+ y — o a O O T -- CC c c i O � J � a o � U N w A a a` O O a F F m ti n N O Q o O �o N N U � C y F C UCDM oom moo, 0 o Z`i E>� `m m mcd om C � N Q N m 01 t0 U d d LL V R Q E d C N v d N y d O B W C R t U F c d d a T t� 7 O N x. .j °3 a o � U � w m a G O ro O 4 G F n 0 ro u 0 d vo � o Ni ov v� N v a U E N F � ku T .�1� ` y. s v u a °J �„ w o W ti. v � c Wks 4 � v F c a n N q p yr ?. eo „= a _ e CI a G C v O L 7 9 O = O 0 v 0 v Y o v Z Z = c R N � D m W y 4 v v > y a T t� 7 O N x. .j °3 a o � U � w m a G O ro O 4 G F n 0 ro u 0 d vo � o Ni ov v� N v a U E N F � oom N -0 C �N � m C: EL m Q N d O ai W U N d LL V M Q tp C c C 41 V �r N N d w � N 4) G A t U F- 4) v d Q T U'' 7 o `n U =� 6 O � w ❑a a O 0 a K r r1 U O Q � O O `v m � b U C v F Q ° O ° O o O O k C G C J C L 9 r,� e y m m m y m m eCi d F o > a m MM c° "O c° c `° c c e o p a x`QVx•.. � .L. y .L. E'Oi Z y .C„ 'O � � .S, N X 9 � N N N y 'm p ro m ro m a ro ro v W C U o v U yN O Z F U F U F U F U F U F U F U F U FF a a F v F F o no's e y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ali' L O a J ^ Pro G C4 C C Z — y:. T U'' 7 o `n U =� 6 O � w ❑a a O 0 a K r r1 U O Q � O O `v m � b U C v F Q Um� ooro N 0 O Z m � T� n m C C d - 0 c -@i N Q N d O m U d 01 LL V R Q. d E _ d C V d N N N O R d C W t U H C 01 V d a T 'O 7 � o «' U m F F m O. ... O T w S m m n v y y 9 Op c ` 1... ttpp O � ❑ O 9 ._ cp u 0 ` U a U c Y 9 F O C L N m iy'rij y C � v 7 � � c m a� w ` Q � x c ccn .. O v W a c .o v m v � o � n y „ ro v � F x N o n n C Oyu v ` 'o i--i . a W Fy W cb o0 I� 0 va z �= Q z E o F F v❑ ai .y. o o a w v a 7 � o K v F a T 'O 7 � o «' U m O. O w m O. C O ro 0 a c l^ N m � v 7 � � c m a� w ` Q � x c ccn v W a c .o v m v � o � n y „ ro v � F x N o n n C Oyu v ` 'o i--i . a W Fy W cb o0 I� va z �= Q Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 18 of 187 Interstate and Toll Facility Discount Factor This variable is used to recognize that Interstate highway and toll facility 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 travel occurring on the interstate /toll facility system is usually eliminated from the total travel for each use. Currently,) -75 is the only interstate running through the County. As shown in Table 3, based on the data from the 2030 Lee /Collier Transportation Planning model, the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) on I -75 relative to the total VMT on the entire functionally classified roadway network was calculated using the base year 2000 model output and projected growth in terms of new development from the 2030 Financially Feasible Plan FSUTMS Model output. The 2008 interpolated VMT resulted in an adjustment factor of approximately 8 percent due to travel on I -75, which was consistent with the 2000 and 2030 model output. Thus, an interstate and toll facility discount factor of 8.4 percent will be applied to the impact fee calculation. The adjustment factor excludes external -to- extemal trips, which represent traffic that goes through Collier County, but does not stop in the County. This traffic is excluded from the calculations since it does not come from the development within the County. Table 3 shows the calculation of this figure. This factor is used to reduce vehicle miles of travel that the impact fee charges for each land use. Table 3 Interstate/Toll Facility Discount Factor ('1 Facility }' VMT exclu8in EE Tri s 2000: 2008 w'- 2030 Interstate 75 425,154 690,895 1,353,310 Other Roads 5,207,475 7,485,682 14,567,991 All Roads 5,632,629 8,176,577 15,921,301 % of Travel (1-75) 7.5% 8.4% 8.5% (1) Source: 2030 Lee /Collier Transportation Planning FSUTMS Model Cost Component Construction costs increased significantly in Florida and in Collier County between 2005 and 2007 due to additional construction demand caused by hurricanes, the housing market growth, and other factors. Appreciation in land values also resulted in higher right -of -way (ROW) costs over the last several years. In early 2008, costs started to stabilize, and most recently, some communities started to experience a decrease in costs. Information from Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 9 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 19 of 187 Collier County, roadway cost information from other counties in Florida, and from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was used to develop a unit cost for all phases involved in the construction of one lane mile of roadway capacity. The following subsections summarize the methodology and findings of the total unit cost analysis for county and state roads. Appendix B provides the data and other support information utilized in these analyses. County Costs This section examines the ROW and construction costs associated with county roads with respect to transportation capacity improvements in Collier County. For this purpose, recent bid data for on -going projects provided by the county and recent construction bid data from county roadway projects in Florida were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for county roadway improvements. The cost for each roadway capacity project was separated into eight phases: design, ROW, construction, construction engineering/inspection (CEI), utilities, mitigation, interchange, and carrying costs. Based on recent trends for completed projects in Collier County, design costs were estimated at seven percent and CBI costs were estimated at six percent of construction costs. Appendix B, Table B -6 presents the results of the review conducted to recommend these percentages. Right -of -Way (ROW) The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along the corridor that was necessary to have sufficient cross - section width to widen or in the case of new construction to build the road. Based on the local data, a ROW cost of $1.3 million per lane mile was used for county roadway projects with urban design characteristics. Appendix B, Table B- 1 provides a detailed description of the projects analyzed. Based on discussions with County staff, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the County will build in the future will have urban design characteristics. Construction A review of recent construction cost data for Collier County shows that the County had two urban roadway design projects bid in 2007. A review of recent projects let in 2007 and 2008 in other Florida counties identified 12 urban design bid projects ranging from approximately $1.7 to $4.2 million per lane mile. Based on the local and statewide Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 10 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. IOC January 13, 2009 Page 20 of 187 project data, a construction cost per lane mile of $3.1 million was used for urban design roadway projects. By only using data points from the past two years, the cost per lane mile reflects the recent trend of decreased costs. Appendix B, Table B -2 provides a detailed description of the projects analyzed. Based on discussions with County Staff, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the County will build in the future will have urban design characteristics. Other Cost Components The unit cost per lane mile for county roads in Collier County also includes updated utilities, mitigation, interchange and carrying costs associated with capacity expansion projects. Utilities and mitigation cost estimates were developed based on four recently bid lane widening projects in Collier County. As shown in Appendix B, Table B -3, the utilities cost is approximately $455,000 per lane mile and as shown in Table B -4, the mitigation cost is approximately $99,000 per lane mile for county roads. Interchange cost estimates were developed based on two (2) planned interchange/grade separation projects in Collier County that are expected to be completed by 2030. These projects consist of improvements at the intersection of 1 -75, CR 951 and Davis Boulevard and where the US 41 (Tamiami Trail) meets CR 951. The total interchange cost provided by the Collier County Transportation Planning Department is $283.36 million. This figure was then divided by the total lane miles being built in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan (434.7 lane miles). As shown in Table 4, the interchange cost per lane mile is approximately $652,000. The lane mile cost includes an update to the carrying cost that tends to occur while a roadway is being built (approximately a 6 -year process for County projects). As presented in Table 4, the carrying cost per lane mile is estimated at $259,000 based on the time table provided by the county for each phase. This figure takes into consideration the fact that the County receives some of the impact fees up front. As shown in Table 4, the total cost per lane mile for county roadway projects is estimated at approximately $6.3 million. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 11 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 21 of 187 Table 4 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile by County Project Phase Cost Phase ti Cost Per Lane ,- Mile DesignM $217,000 Right -of -Ways" $1,300,000 Construction (3) $3,100,000 CE1141 $186,000 Utilities (5) $455,000 Mitigation (6) $99,000 Interchange(') $652,000 Carrying (8) $259,000 Total Cost 1 $6,268,000 (1) Design percentage from Appendix B, Table B -6 multiplied by construction cost (Item 3) (2) Source: Appendix B, Table B -1 (3) Source: Appendix B, Table B -2 (4) CEI percentage from Appendix B, Table B -6 multiplied by construction cost (Item 3) (5) Source: Appendix B, Table B -3 (6) Source: Appendix B, Table 13-4 (7) Source: Appendix B, Table B -7 (8) Source: Appendix B. Table B -8 State Costs This section examines the ROW and construction costs associated with state roads related to transportation capacity improvements in Collier County. For this purpose, the District I FDOT Work Programs provided local ROW acquisition and cost estimates. In addition, recent construction bid and ROW acquisition data from state roadway projects elsewhere in Florida were used to identify and provide supporting cost data for roadway improvements. Similar to the county cost analysis, the cost for each state roadway capacity project was separated into seven phases: design, ROW, construction, CEI, mitigation, interchange, and carrying costs. Based on a review of the design and CEI costs for state roads, it was determined that the relationship between design, CEI and construction costs have not changed since the 2006 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 12 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 22 of 187 update study. Therefore, the design and CEI costs were estimated at ten percent of construction costs. Ri¢ht -of- Way (ROW) FDOT has not recently acquired ROW for any lane widening projects in Collier County. Based on discussions with FDOT and Collier County, it has been determined that the ROW acquisition cost for state roads is equivalent to that of county roads. Therefore, a ROW acquisition cost of $1.3 million is used to calculate the unit cost per lane mile of an urban design state road. Based on discussions with FDOT, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the State will build in the future in Collier County will have urban design characteristics. A review of the lane widening projects along SR 84 in the 5 -year plan confirmed that only urban design projects are being considered. Construction A review of construction cost data for state roads in Collier County shows two future estimates for urban design lane widening projects. However, at approximately $4.9 million per lane mile, these projects do not reflect the current downward trend in costs. Because there were not any recent local bids to reflect more accurate cost estimates, a review of recent bid projects in other Florida counties was conducted. Based on this review, a total of nine recently bid urban design roadway projects were identified, with an average cost of $3.2 million per lane mile. Appendix B, Table B -5 provides a detailed description of the projects analyzed. Based on discussions with FDOT, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the State will build in the future will have urban design characteristics. Other Cost Components The unit cost per lane mile for state roads in Collier County also includes updated utilities, mitigation, interchange, and carrying costs associated with capacity expansion projects. Since no data was available for mitigation costs of state roads, the mitigation cost for county roads was used (Appendix B, Table B -4). Also, the state road construction cost estimate presented in Table 5 does not include utility cost due to the fact that the Collier County Water -Sewer District pays for utility relocation costs associated with state facilities. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 13 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 23 of 187 As with county roads, the interchange cost per lane mile is approximately $652,000 for state roads. Appendix B, Table B -7 provides more detail. In addition, the lane mile cost includes carrying cost that tends to occur while a roadway is being built (approximately a 7- or 8 -year process for State projects). As presented in Table 5, the carrying cost per lane mile is approximately $264,000 based on the cost components associated with constructing a state roadway. This figure takes into consideration the fact that the County receives some of the impact fee revenues (that charge for travel on all roads) up front. As shown in Table 5, the total cost per lane mile for is estimated at approximately $6.2 million. Table 5 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile by State Project Phase Cost Phase Cost Per Lane Mile Design (1) $ 320,000 Right-of-Way (2) $1,300,000 Construction' 3) $3,200,000 CEO' $320,000 Utilities('[ $0 Mitigation (6) $99,000 Interchange") $652,000 Carrying's) $264,000 Total Cost $6,155,000 (1) Design is estimated at 10% of construction costs based on the 2006 update study and recent statewide trends. (2) Source: Appendix B, Table B -1 (3) Source: Appendix B, Table B -5 (4) CEI is estimated at 10% of construction costs based on the 2006 update study and recent statewide trends. (5) Note that the Collier County Water - Sewer District pays for utility relocation costs associated with state projects. (6) Since state data on mitigation cost was not available, to be conservative, the mitigation cost for county roads was used. (7) Source: Appendix B, Table B -7 (8) Source: Appendix B, Table B -9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 14 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 24 of 187 Summary of Costs Blended Cost Analvsis) The weighted average cost per lane mile for county and state roads is calculated and presented in Table 6. The resulting weighted average cost of approximately $6.3 million per lane mile will be utilized in the calculation of the impact fee schedule. This weighted average cost per lane mile includes county and state projects and is based on weighting the lane miles of programmed future roadway improvements included in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan. As noted previously, the project information and methodology used in these calculations are included in Appendix B. Table 6 Estimated Cost per Lane Mile for County and State Roadway Projects in Collier County Cost Type 4 CountjZ � Ro dstr� State �Roads(2)- ,., County and;; State Roads,, Design $217,000 $320,000 $228,330 Right -of -Way $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 Construction $3,100,000 $3,200,000 $3,111,000 CEI $186,000 $320,000 $200,740 Utilities $455,000 $0 $404,950 Mitigation $99,000 $99,000 $99,000 Interchange $652,000 $652,000 $652,000 Carrying $259,000 $264,000 $259,550 Total $6,268,000 $6,155,000 $6,255,570 Lane Mile Distribution (4) 89% 11% 100% (1) Source: Table 4 (2) Source: Table 5 (3) Lane mile distribution (Item 4), multiplied by the design, ROW, construction, CEI, utilities, mitigation, interchange and carrying phase costs by jurisdiction to develop a weighted average cost per lane mile (4) Source: Appendix B, Table B -10, Items (a) and (b) Capacitv Added per Lane Mile An additional component of the impact fee equation is the capacity added per lane mile (also known as maximum service volume added per lane mile) of roadway constructed. An analysis of 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan projects (see Appendix B, Table B -10 for the list of projects) was conducted to reflect the mix of improvements that Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 15 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 25 of 187 will yield the vehicle miles of capacity (VMC) that will be built in Collier County. The resulting weighted average capacity per lane mile calculated based on these projects is 10,217, which is consistent with the capacity figure in the 2006 Update Study (10,901). Table 7 Weighted Average Capacity per Lane Mile Source Lane Miles , Added j�, Vehtele Miles of , Ca aci llddedt2� „ VMC Added per: ? `j LaneMile« * ` County 388.20 3,762,928 9,693 State 46.50 678,546 14,592 Total 434.70 4,441,474 Weighted Average Capacity Added (4) 10,217 (1) Appendix B, Table B -10, Items (a) and (b) and for the lane miles added column (2) Appendix B, Table B -10, Items (c) and (d) (3) Vehicle miles of capacity added (Item 2) divided by lane miles added (Item 1) (4) Total vehicle miles of capacity added for county and state roads (item 2) divided by total lane miles added (Item 1) Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity Added The impact fee cost per unit of development is assessed based on the cost per vehicle mile of capacity. As shown in Tables 4, 5, and 7, the cost and capacity for county 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 VMC for county and state roads was weighted by the lane mile distribution of projects in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan. As shown in Table 8, the cost per vehicle mile of capacity for travel on all roads within Collier County is $612.27. This weighted average cost per vehicle mile of capacity figure is used in the impact fee calculation to determine the total impact cost per unit of development based on the vehicle miles of travel consumed. For each vehicle mile of travel that is added to the road system, over $610 of roadway capacity is consumed. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 16 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 26 of 187 Table 8 Weighted Average Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity Added for County and State Roadways in Collier County 5 INK r x GYL°an ver a Gtapad 'X31?. t 2007 Collier(Indexed)t'l $750.60 2008 Collier County Report(2) $612.27 � K,ffi� 'Fd °PAi��{iQN ka�'�', h 4 }!. °YMlte A , r h *• County Roads $6,268,0001 9,693 $646.65 State Roads $6,155,0001 14,592 $421.81 Weighted Average $6,255,5701 10,217 $612.27 (1) Source: Table 4 for county roads and Table 5 for state roads (2) Source: Table 7 (3) Cost per lane mile (Item 1) divided by average capacity added per lane mile (Item 2) for county and state roads respectively Table 9 compares the calculated cost per vehicle mile of level of capacity added to the VMC from the January 1, 2008 adopted value. As shown in the table, the cost per VMC has decreased primarily because of the decrease total cost per lane mile. Table 9 Cost per Vehicle Mile of Capacity Added Comparison Source Cost per VMC" 2007 Collier(Indexed)t'l $750.60 2008 Collier County Report(2) $612.27 (1) Source: 2006 Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study with an approximate 30 percent increase applied through the indexed fee schedule adopted January 1, 2008. (2) Source: Table 8 Credit Component Gasoline Tax Equivalent Credit The present value of the portion of gasoline taxes generated by a new development over a 25 -year period that is expended on capacity expansion projects is credited against the cost of the system consumed by travel associated with new development. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 17 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 27 of 187 County In the current impact fee calculation, the credit calculation estimated 13.3 pennies from the county managed gas tax revenues that were used for roadway capacity adding improvements. For purposes of the Update Study, a review of the County's FY 2009 -2013 Transportation Work Program indicates that a combination of gas tax revenues, impact fees, grants, and ad valorem taxes are used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. Collier County receives a credit of 4.9 pennies for the portion of gas tax revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects in the 5 -year work program and 9.6 pennies for debt service payments on the 2005 gas tax revenue bond. Based on discussion with County staff, all bond proceeds were expended on roadway capacity expansion projects. In addition to the gas tax and debt service, approximately $20 million of grant funds (totaling 2.8 equivalent pennies) are being used to fund roadway expansion projects. Thus, a credit of 17.3 equivalent pennies will be given for the allocation of funds the county collects in gas tax revenues and grants. State In addition, state expenditures on state roads were reviewed and a credit for the capacity expansion portion attributable to state projects was provided. The equivalent number of pennies allocated to fund state projects was determined using information for a 17 -year period of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Work Program (1997 through 2013). A list of capacity - adding roadway projects was developed including lane additions, new road construction, intersection improvements, interchanges, traffic signal projects, and other capacity- addition projects. Major roadway expansion projects along US 41, SR 84, SR 951, and CR 951 were included in this list as well as the major interchange improvements at I -75 and the Golden Gate Parkway. This review (which is summarized in Appendix C, Table C -3) indicates that FDOT spending generates an equivalent gas tax credit of 13.5 pennies of gas tax revenue annually. The use of a 17- year period for purposes of developing a state credit for roadway capacity - adding projects results in a conservative credit for Collier County. The state gas tax credit is also reflected in Table 10. In summary, the County contributes approximately 17.3 pennies toward roadway capacity expansion projects, while state spending is equivalent to an average of 13.5 pennies for state roadway projects in Collier County. Therefore, a total of 30.8 pennies of credit is included in the impact fee equation to recognize the future capital revenue that is expected to be generated by new development from all non - impact fee revenues. All non - impact fee Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 18 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 28 of 187 revenues have been converted to equivalent gas tax pennies for purposes of estimating the revenue credit per unit of development. Table 10 Equivalent Pennies of Gas Tax Revenue Credtt sr X u Egincalenit ,'.''Penn►es`t State Gas Tax Credit(() $0.135 County Gas Tax Credit (2) $0.173 Total $0.308 (1) Source: Appendix C, Table C-3 (2) Source: Appendix C, Table C -2 Ad Valorem Credit The financing plan developed for the next five years (FY 2009 -2013 Five Year Work Program) includes the use of a portion of the ad valorem revenues to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. Of the ad valorem revenues available for transportation, approximately $29.9 million will be used to fund capacity - adding projects over the next five years. This is equivalent to approximately $6.0 million of ad valorem revenues being dedicated to roadway capacity expansion annually. The value per 1 -mil provided by Collier County Transportation Department Staff is $82.8 million. Thus the percent mileage used towards capacity expansion annually is seven (7) percent ($6.0 million divided by $82.8 million). It should be noted that, based on discussions with County representatives, the total ad valorem revenues used towards transportation capacity projects will be fixed at $6.0 million per year. As such, as the tax base increases, the percent used for capacity projects will decrease. Since ad valorem revenues are going to be used to fund a portion of the five -year program, a credit is given. Credit due to ad valorem tax revenues for residential uses is calculated based on a review of recent sale prices of single family homes in Collier County from the Property Appraiser's database. The ad valorem tax revenues for non - residential uses are based on recent sale prices and taxable values of office, industrial, and commercial properties in Collier County and 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. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 19 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 29 of 187 Present Worth Variables Facility Life The roadway facility life used in the impact fee analysis is 25 years, which represents the reasonable life of the roadway. Interest Rate This is the discount rate at which gasoline tax revenues might be bonded. It is used to compute the present value of the gasoline taxes generated by new development. The discount rate of 4.5 percent was determined based on recent bonds used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. Fuel Efficiency The fuel efficiency (i.e., the average miles traveled per gallon of fuel consumed) of the fleet of motor vehicles was estimated using the quantity of gasoline consumed by travel associated with a particular land use. Appendix C, Table C -9, documents the calculation of fuel efficiency value, based on the following equation, where "VMT" is vehicle miles of travel and "MPG" is fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon. Fuel E { �MVMPG T�P.e- eh;��erwe� hldeTpe (Y RonYTcye HoaduvY Tye 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 2006. Based on the calculation completed Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 20 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 30 of 187 in Appendix C, Table C -9, the fuel efficiency rate to be used in the updated impact fee equation is 17.85 miles per gallon. Effective Days per Year An effective 365 days per year of operation was assumed for all land uses in the proposed fee. However, this will not be the case for all land uses since some uses operate only on weekdays (e.g., office buildings) and/or only seasonally (e.g., schools). The use of 365 days per year, therefore, provides a "conservative" element, ensuring that gasoline taxes are adequately credited against the fee. As a result, no changes to the effective days per year are proposed in this update. Calculated Transportation Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee calculations for each land use (by impact fee district) 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 Collier County impact fee, and the percent difference between the calculated impact fee and the current impact fee. It should be noted that the net impact fee illustrated in Appendix F is not necessarily a recommended fee, but instead represents the most reasonable and legally defensible impact fee per unit of land use that could be charged in Collier County. As discussed throughout the report, the impact fee analysis has been completed using a conservative approach to develop the impact fee per unit of land use. 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 residential detached (1,501 to 2,499 s.f.) land use category (ITE LUC 210) using information from the proposed impact fee schedule included in Appendix F, Table F -1. For each land use category, the following equations are utilized to calculate the net impact fee: Net Impact Fee = Total Impact Cost — Gas Tree Credit Where: Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 21 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 31 of 187 Total Impact Cost = ((Trip Rate x Assessable Trip Length x %New Trips) / 2) x (1 — interstate/Toll Facility Adj. Factor) x (Cost per lane Mile /Avg. Capacity Added per Lane Mile) Gas Tax Credit = Present Value (Annual Gas Tax), given 4.5% interest rate & 25 -year facility life Annual Gas Tax = (((Trip Rate x Total Trip Length x %New Trips) 12) x Effective Days per Year x $ /Gallon to Capital) /Fuel Effcleney Each of the inputs has been discussed previously in this document; however, for purposes of this example, brief definitions for each input are provided in the following paragraphs, along with the actual inputs used in the calculation of the single- family detached (1,501 to 2,499 s.f) residential land use category: • Trip Rate = the average daily trip generation rate, in vehicle -trips /day (7.81) • Assessable Trip Length = the actual average trip length for the category, in vehicle-miles (6.62) • Total Trip Length = the recommended trip length plus an adjustment factor of half a mile, which is added to the trip length to account for the fact that gas taxes are collected for travel on all roads including local roads (6.62 + 0.50 = 7.12) • % 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 *length *% new trips) is divided by two to prevent the double - counting of travel generated among land use codes since every trip has an origin and a destination. • Interstate/Toll Facility Discount Factor= discount factor to account for the travel demand occurring on interstate highways and/or toll facilities (8.4 %) • Cost per Lane Mile = unit cost to construct one lane mile of roadway, in $ /lane -mile ($6,255,570) • Average Copaciry 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 (10,217) • Present Value = calculation of the present value of a uniform series of cash flows, gas tax payments in this case, given an interest rate, "%" and a number of periods, "n ;' for 4.5 % interest and a 25 -year facility life, the uniform series present worth factor is 14.8282 • 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 ($0.308) • Fuel Efficiency= average fuel efficiency of vehicles, in vehicle - miles /gallon (17.85) Using these inputs, a net impact fee can be calculated for the single- family residential detached (1,501 to 2,499 s.f) land use category as follows. Total Impact Cost = ((7.81 * 6.62 * 1.0) /2) * (1 - 0.084) * ($6,255,570 /10,217) = $14,498 Annual Gas Tax = (((7.81 * 7.12 * 1.0) /2) * 365 * $0.308) /17.85 = $175 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2009 22 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No, 10C January 13, 2009 Page 32 of 187 Gas Tax Credit= $175 * 14.8282 = $2,595 Ad Valorem Credit = $143 Net Impact Fee = $14,498 - $2,595 - $143 = $11,760 The complete fee schedule by land use is included in Appendix F, Table F -1 Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Comparison As part of the work effort in developing the Collier County transportation impact fee program, a comparison of other transportation impact fee schedules was completed. Table 11 presents the comparison of transportation impact fees in the surrounding jurisdictions and other peer jurisdictions in Florida. Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 23 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Umn 000ro �N0 O ZMM M TO r M M (p C d C� Q c O N a E O U d d L �N v d d {L V� V a E c O C O a N C H '(�jy1 M Q w P p- 'z O N M YN W ✓ M. O O $p e p Co m C O O N Y' ✓' � M y1 �ff.. P D O — J O - V M�rr C` V — D N c0 m vN a _ - v n o w Uw 0 L O N O V o O O N O W c � 0 m _ � � O K 9 9 O � j A Q L � LL 9 � C a c 6 f � L � 6 c _ s � = F e i - c � Z - _ e v i - o U 5 � v G C a LL 6 L� F N Q C o Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 34 of 187 APPENDIX A Demand Component Calculation Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 35 of 187 Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non - residential land uses collected over the last 19 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. TOA estimates trip generation rates for all land uses in a transportation impact fee schedule using data from studies in the Florida Studies Database and the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (7"' edition). In instances, when both Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation reference report (7's edition) and Florida Studies trip generation rate (TGR) data are available for a particular land use, the data is blended together to increase the sample size and provide a more valid estimate of the average number of trips generated per unit of development. If no Florida Studies data is available, only TGR data from the ITE reference report is used in the fee calculation. The trip generation rate for each respective land use is calculated using machine counts that record daily traffic into and out of the site studied. The traffic count hoses are set at entrances to residential subdivisions for the residential land uses and at all access points for non - residential land uses. The trip length information is obtained through origin- destination surveys that ask respondents where they came from prior to arriving at the site and where they intended to go after leaving the site. The results of these surveys were used to estimate average trip length by land use. The percent new trip variable is based on assigning each trip collected through the origin - destination survey process a trip type (primary, secondary, diverted, and captured). The percent new trip variable is then calculated as I minus the percentage of trips that are captured. TOA has published an article entitled, Measuring Travel Characteristics for Tranvportation Impact Fees, ITE Journal, April 1991 on the data collecting methodology for trip characteristics studies. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 36 of 187 Single - Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) L .lw Sire /llnYr bete T-1 Inerv'xns #TnI.Inh 1Mervlews TrIP (%en Rme Tlwe PerloJ Mp lenph Pereem Nen Trips VMT Souris Gwoan('ucn IlU ld'N3 111 S.I NA il]1 mn9 (e, tiA (Smnve I`JIVIXPIt I. CU n' ro !M I'A lllX mr('u A_ 16 1 11 14r HIA 4199 Amrnn fr .YUw C,nR 115 IS 71 1 1p, SW XIA <lJll Wmuxx Crnw v Ymmrn r,r.R Ill 6xs III xle xvu'u. rNR Y) AM 93 nwn un A WvnxnP tivuMnl'u. l'L }d'} 1-11 661 XM N/A SSSI Xrrawrn(vwl 311f 171 kmwM(('n. Ft lfi MoyM 1114 N/A 1-155 '1'dlegrvc A AVrcw,v 1Wmwhr('u, R. Nl5 "1 1 11 6N N/A 1')'] l'mMblllNV@AW <u,v I Mavwdu('o. PL "I __ M Nfi IX1 IXI "1 5A4 WA II,JY tin &IMIIVV AAwcvnv Illvuwbr('n. Pr. �YS _ WA bL' imJrlMlhv @Awuur,v YL IX5 11 Y] 1mdtlNllivvA Amw,v _ 711 1 _ ll]} ('LerMnc('u - P lk,M INr .Ni Iny N/A lI Ill. I.&I Mliap@AAmnm- ('bNmfre4l, _ Iku41 NIA imrh1et11bvv 1 (Clhueryrinxrut 4Fl UnH7 _ 1 N11.96 1 A (b0 " ll17 I1 .LI A.-I. ('u L Ill Ik✓Jl IGr 1. 5 i9A3 fWrM¢fa.11. 5Xl In91 "I IIlr S.UI NIA <IAMr ImJek(llrvv @Axp+runv Chv4xp('aEL WI IXY19 -1N1 I 1.911 IA 1851 ImMIMIrvorA A-- kttfn PL t(ltllie('(111 Lvx nrvinleOlnn A li,.v 91 91 1111 NIA 141 InYVi ImYAplllrver@MwcnreF A,—... i, ail 1x4 nmrMONV.rAM.rtnrv. 01L 19 A,101 51u 11,21, 1 nwn.UUVerm n � 11 A,.112 IµlXl i @Ar—wcn1r. 121, Al—Il _ nt . A-11 u vel 11 fa FL _ u ] 5� }l IiMl"lI— I A, 112 rb ]P 61 '1 IrnrHlMlrvu 6 Arvwcnry wufo. Yl. IXX lXll A]IC IrnrlvleOlivu A Mwwru xofu. PL A 11} IXY N/A 1xb] irnlln4y M4a k Amcury 112 :fit x/N NIA Ill "I rW4fM1.6Awvnlu Mwx1('n'pL _ A 112 )> 1ill NIA Nfi90 llrruA'kI- Mum (u PI I `} vm l'o. FL 124 _ I)n _ Mlli k IMm AAnncwry Ilmrk IL Mxnq(L pl. `"1 )mfi �YSfi ('nnu(r�11 tkrLi _ uNIMInak Aa r�anru RrAI II _ IMIrvwk Awa'unu r1W1 II, ]ice 191 Id)Irvm k Amaunv At111 )SU u uYilMlmi k A.wu'unu 114 1)0 1A101 _ Ill0 1,v )IMrleUlrvmk AVVavr. _ 1111. I,, `61 MIUOlrvn k Anuuurw 'a FL 51 _ 116 Ix l° IYL16 ^IW WUlivcrtl Anucnru N4(dFL t9 111 I]071 IrnWbUMnAMCVanru In4e ('a I'L IYwM IYe DM1 lh 7 11 X11 WA fi]!N LeOlrvo'k nw vvrru IlwrmrN ('u. Vl. __ Nrl AIfi rJfi L11 1mr41kMllnn'A Mnmm� Immm6r (n. Vl "1 11.51 1�mInlMlnv @Mewwrn mrrm}r (lili n 11l 111X •ail Mu�1x ]rM r _ _ H MxNIX im6 _ M1}5 IA n4rM`(llnilk no'rwmrn MvWtl IuNX unm.avw rv:.v W bM1tl Aver 6R] AvrnFV VRii. N.II Wu.4u rpx nrJUV nrtnrn nGrJW m.mmrry umurua WmpnW MwrryVRll. 51 )II Explanation: A notable exception to the blending process is the single family residential land use. With over 55 study sites, the sample size for the single family land use is rather large and representative of current trip generating characteristics of single family residential developments in Florida. Since the data has been collected from sites over the past 10 to 20 years, it is more current than ITE data and reflects more recent demographic changes. For example, the average person per household has decreased from 3.14 in 1970 to 2.59 in the year 2000, indicating a reduction in the number of average daily trips generated per dwelling unit. Tindale -Cliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 37 of 187 Apartment ❑TE LUC 2201 Locition Sir, I Until i I londle ."I—, I Trip Lerni In'-.— Trip Gen ine ore, periled Trip Lenin p ... in N.. Trips I'llino rce kiw t I M �. -I I1 -1 11 12 Wa I I I I Wnl. 5 J1 / r - 1n rv.LL1MMCk Al, T Tan II t Ta r T I alp T wlen en.xn,r.. a",, h1111 IinN�IMInv A A�m�mn Ill �, � I I ll Ill .11 1 of ... Li W hYl Awv T„ Glenn,5]1 lier"untl _161 W eD1 All, _ R1 ll,,I— Imuavinn 31 Yil.hl.ifin— Jnl:.l rnap, IHy lon—ell. Nate. I Ili Nm, iM.LM SCnimlx ... 11 �vv ll. vc, culu4J loon WnIJnM n rogclry,lur.0 uloblwn. v WovMenvnrvµcVMY. +,55 Explanation: For the LUC 210 trip generation rate, a total of 13 sites (shown above) were blended with data from 86 sites in the ITE 7a' Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 6.44 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Residential Condominium/Townhouse CITE LUC 230) ii— Ilene pi I I Inlerv11n, II myLerelh Inlerelew1 ran cep hale nme poi lily Lene1M1 Peranl N- III. VMT Ynuroe kiw t I M �. -I I1 -1 11 12 Wa I I I I Wnl. 5 J1 / r - 1n rv.LL1MMCk Al, T Tan II t Ta r T I alp T wlen en.xn,r.. a",, h1111 IinN�IMInv A A�m�mn •• 'Levi lkJAm 111rntlW 1nlvl y,rlX K Vh,^ w:l lnllfrmniml I14nn nl fl.,lvJxr autl 111 n ape TriV <:eurnlixn lt— 111 Explanation: For the LUC 230 trip generation rate_ a total of four (4) sites- (shown above) were blended with data from 54 sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size ofdata. the resulting TGR of 5.81 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate Mnhile Hnme Park 117E LHC 2401 I—re. I'll klee inr l.i 9 Ill, Lenin Trip Gen one Trip Per—, p— Voin I ..... a",, h1111 Ill �, � I I ll Ill .11 11 eNl n xri WtlMad l.rm vT,f lu h 111mJUl iniul 11191,1 Wv4M1iul mv'nM"Inyf:rnminw Nmv' JIl Explanation: For LUC 240, a total of nine (9) sites (shown above) were used to calculate the trip generation rate. This data was not blended with the ITE 7" Edition Handbook because the ITE data is measured per "occupied dwelling unit," while the Florida Studies data is measured per "dwelling unit." Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 38 of 187 Retirwmant CommunitulAae•Reatricted Sinale Famllv UTE LUC 2511 Lanlbv Slae /IIVHF pPle T°IVIN I Ielervienr # Trip Uwh Ivlervlenr Trip Gee ROe Tlne PerIM Trlp IeePlb PeraM Nev' Trior ,MT Swm IeWbaI. FL T IIS� M] 16 ]1 ).5p YenJ 1M Y111 l�Xfi FmMIeUo—.@ ::uulor Mnivm CU FT TX A 111 Il] _ 1.YR 1VM. 110 N/A 1U)e K. nm &Arenera anon Cn. YL X77 A U3 I 1M N/A ]YI --r 14uMlelll:vu &Awcele� ' S.YO N/A Io 11 Hnmh A.—Fen Mnnnn Cn. Fl. IIIM A e01 I]] I 165 11N. NIA 3191 Km vm &AUrvurer w:v CV. FL J.U]fi A rill IYX le 161 I our 5'16 MIA I]1 .HVm &A.ux ur Mnnnn F'u Fl. �R1.4 A D2 IN 3,o 11 11M. "1 ILYS Kmin- Hrou&A -1c, ou 1.11 o.014 W W AT Te la Yr YH HlmtlMr . 15.511 vML:W AVmY lrry:livmnrivv Xeb'. '_l5 IIo AVmny Thp mm. ]ll MAEV(NL \nOe utl ITT AVrryr Trip f—uFF. AZg, VMT 141 lav cirMMAVtnXe VMT: I'll Explanation: For the LUC 251 trip generation rate, a total of six (6) sites (shown above) were blended with data from seven (7) sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 3.13 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Ameieted I Winn FaeillflrXS IALFI I ITE LUC 2531 Il'li ldfl ... W 4tlAme TA Lr :.. lAl.... IrlmdW :nisi 460 Wv186:I Avmyv 1l:p Grnmnivv or: 111 Iio -rmrpI —ouu.v — "I o IIknJ nl M. F'rvdrr mtl I'1'r AmK<lrlpr:cenubr Mru: 135 Explanation: For the LUC 253 trip generation rate, a total of two (2) sites (shown above) were blended with data from two (2) sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 2.25 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Mntn11Mnte1 IITF 1 IIC 31a & 3201 Lorvfion SLe IPOOm[1 Dole Tolvlp ITrlp Urra Trlp Gev nrou Trlp Per. New PerteM NeX Trlp[ VMT InrnHOn Sbel Deba Dare Inrmiewr lurmlewr Ree Period LFuooh Trips yMT Source 1-111 11 Fl. 1 lda U aA lm a X4 S IY 1.511 m�5 _ Ulrl 'Ii 1:rcr&Aou fiYll I'wlMleOlrvv+tl Ne�cara Sf I211 YmS ]AU N/A --r 14uMlelll:vu &Awcele� ' Il'li ldfl ... W 4tlAme TA Lr :.. lAl.... IrlmdW :nisi 460 Wv186:I Avmyv 1l:p Grnmnivv or: 111 Iio -rmrpI —ouu.v — "I o IIknJ nl M. F'rvdrr mtl I'1'r AmK<lrlpr:cenubr Mru: 135 Explanation: For the LUC 253 trip generation rate, a total of two (2) sites (shown above) were blended with data from two (2) sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 2.25 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Mntn11Mnte1 IITF 1 IIC 31a & 3201 Lorvfion SLe IPOOm[1 Dole T.... ivlerrlew[ PTrlp Len¢Ib Inlmiewr Tr1V Gen Rele 'Plme Period Trlp 4:ry;11r PerteM NeX Trlp[ VMT Sour" Fmclleafu Fl_ aP OvFY4 to _ IM'_ ENU — 1 lda U aA lm P:mI1m Ca Fl. S J2 _ IAO fiYll I'wlMleOlrvv+tl Ne�cara Inrfa Fl_ I211 21 °_3 1 5]U Xe,6 14uMbOF:vmrYAnw:tvrm Mr fll Fl. A—F1 ISI I 350 I I'll-,, _ iwMb(llrvnk MUwimvn ':nvlln�( -npl. Sn�Xy le ]]U IlA 610 :I l] iiMnk {5livupAUnimw III: 'WA Yrtl Av eT Fa $Il HlmvWl mvl 5 '!U 'lfie wuPerW rWge InI:I++:XIi w:11HUW (m ll,cllurv'I WOJ wm fIAN'lllll ITF AAvVOnMgVc F (mmmelnm RXYm 4lIIAAN' 11 Ill X 17 1Lry 12111 SG Explanation: For LUC 310, data from two (2) hotels and three (3) motels was combined to calculate a weighted average trip length. MMA IITF I IIC 12M LauNOe SIVe IRVams Dvle W Nv]Aren TA le f.M Wmpfiru114nvm Nw lnl:Amryv' ". l6R WupfilN Avurµc lnnfew [I}AVVmpe FnP(:nammv W:e SA WupfilW nv ngv VMi. Idyl Explanation: Due to a lack of trip generation rate data from the Florida Studies, ITE data was used to represent the TGR for LUC 320. Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study rural p IlAmlewr ITAp 42'IM1 Immlvr Trlp Gen R.e nme Perod TrIP lenlen Percent Nen TAln VMT Sours INVIY:cCU. pl. rk 16 _ IIIt1 G5U oUlnnlAUUw:m pivclMrC1 pl. 1 1R 1 ] d4b w &Arvwcnla W Nv]Aren TA le f.M Wmpfiru114nvm Nw lnl:Amryv' ". l6R WupfilN Avurµc lnnfew [I}AVVmpe FnP(:nammv W:e SA WupfilW nv ngv VMi. Idyl Explanation: Due to a lack of trip generation rate data from the Florida Studies, ITE data was used to represent the TGR for LUC 320. Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 39 of 187 Movie Theater with Matinee (ITE LUC 4441 Ire Ip <nunHJ •- -'.".w WA r 1 .. ]E- BLVJWwW ]U WghleJPmvvI N=v iXp AVpye tl)A npnlet AVe:epe ]hplmmmuov Nnc FJ 2Y Irr nre.e =Imrmw.n.o xae. u¢se Ml' W e•pMUXrvnpv'VMi. ]0]80 Explanation: For the LUC 444 trip generation rate, a total of two (2) sites (shown above) were blended with data from one (I ) site in the ITE 6T Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 106.63 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Dav Care Center (ITE LUC 5651 luorlvn She Daee T..1# WTrip LeW TRIP Gen Time Trip Per¢rlr sme VMT Smrce '..mm 1 &rnnsl per ineervlewr Inlervien! erle PmIM U."i. Top, VMT Smite 1InIo41 �lem F' A 151 I)< 111,111 I tl llU fill '1uWnnlllrvnk A:wnne: Y:rcIY, CO.PL Il YIA9 1lI IIfi ''e 41A0 ] tl I x•m IIJM ImMkOIrvmA Amnon Ire Ip <nunHJ •- -'.".w WA r 1 .. ]E- BLVJWwW ]U WghleJPmvvI N=v iXp AVpye tl)A npnlet AVe:epe ]hplmmmuov Nnc FJ 2Y Irr nre.e =Imrmw.n.o xae. u¢se Ml' W e•pMUXrvnpv'VMi. ]0]80 Explanation: For the LUC 444 trip generation rate, a total of two (2) sites (shown above) were blended with data from one (I ) site in the ITE 6T Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 106.63 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Dav Care Center (ITE LUC 5651 luorlvn 5've ll,rliq in Daee T.121# Ineerviewa WTrlp Len¢In leeerviewa Trip Gen evee Time PerIM Trip Lemph Percent New Tripa VMT Smrce M 1mMle(IMV': k A.wunn 1InIo41 �lem F' A I)< M'N liol:klllrvekAme,eles .4L u.Afi _ x•m - n ne W \WA T V Y= lml NIwJN foul A56 WellhleJ YnmelHw lnl: ]],i nv WI=: IA,Y9 W:. ]'N nl..d.r n. u.ek...d nenrr..= v 1 11 p, va wmpmJ A=:: Z .1 ur, Explanation: For the LUC 565 trip generation rate, a total of eleven U I ) sites from the ITE 7ih Edition Handbook were used to calculate the TGR. This data was not blended with the Florida Studies due to the fact that the Florida Studies sites were measured per "1,000 sfe' while Collier County charges the impact fee per "student." Nursing Home (ITE LUC 620) TMalp pTrlp L-111i Trlp Gee Time T[ip Per[[M Y=w L .fiwn SieerBMrl Daee _ . VMT Smrm IIF. ilr Wehibl Aem ®Tb1etlY: t31 IIImJN:n:ul till WelhaE Ve:svl Nev lnp AVmle on Nmc „rnipc nn •mv'ml• W:c n..a.rn.N:.a..m llr. A—— 111, nNw: u ]X Explanation: For the LUC 620 trip generation rate, a total of one (1) site (shown above) was blended with data from five (5) sites in the ITE 71' Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 2.48 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. General Office Buildinn OTF I.IIC 71AI 1—mm Sne("mm :n Date ITvvlI nery OTrp<np li mrvhwe TwGre en pm, Prird leTnripp Pcmeir Nm Triu VNIT 1-1 mm e m. IxJnlMlrv[r AAVsssu:u ]M - 1vJn1NlM1,vkAnn rnm e'M I N lh S.It nFl:lm l�nmi =u Inp w.,w:lm n:,,.e =L:prm.ee..o wee urhJ wmblm A,weAevMl. sur. Explanation: For LUC 710, TGR was determined using the trip rate equation found in the ITE 7ih Edition Handbook. FL Studies data was used to calculate the trip length and percent new trips only. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 40 of 187 Madieal•Oental Office Buildina (ITE LUC 7201 Lore.. sir.maP eT ne(e Tood# INome., 0Trip Length Immlewe Trlp Gen R. Time Period Trip Le,mlh Pii New Tripe yMT S-- Tem 1 pale A.e,me ron (iwwYee wk. 13 Efi 36.Ii Pletl vl m.Nmtlk.vW llV.lAm[Fep'Frp 4e 6,o) A—I'VM mT1 Z nxsl �Ilmn6A[meuan wlm Nekm. IL m O[I-89 104 76 1398 610 ]l0 111 31 liv:lekl)Irve @Aw We[ ti[Y .F1. 1 2" NnxX4 _ 1(I 5110 @A[awel.� IM 880 Tmyb(Am 6 Ammimes NewM) ('o. IT 584 Ma fi 109 1X" 6a] XYt ludlMIlmk A-11 IIYVm4YC:l. F1. 1X0 M[ 96 NIE i 8 49 95 606 29967 11a.4:i-0Iiree& Aarems fENmle Cn.4L II�O OoNI IXfi eY_41 161� Ore W1 Y1.1 lMfi) l "melaOliwkAaueMU[ ChwlMe Cn.m1 28 Oo-9] IXfi II 04 1W[.e Amite - CI 304 104 (k4Y) Ile 1980 1J0 "(1 n5 .S h Aweuln —rICw1 Co. PI. 189 ObIII IPo Yil 211N 2111, 1w IrvV iLW:i-0Iwvr. or (ilrvn(b. YL II Nnxlp 1M M3 6 ANI 1Ao 914 - +l3)) Hr iN6[bt)Irvn@AweNe[ ('1nu[C24L I1e01 HI N16 N.)fi 5.25 YS] 1<4)X 1'wMh -0liver @A�aeiwe 1 goy r•FW Wle Tmelp Immlewi pTrlp Ler,h lolervlerm Trip Gen Tlme RASe Pamlotl AVm 535 .:. Mme. Sourte BlmtlM mW fiIJS Wnln'[L IMOxm Nn'1'np AVanXC XX9 pale A.e,me ron (iwwYee wk. lssv ropmaeo:m are 36.Ii Pletl vl m.Nmtlk.vW llV.lAm[Fep'Frp 4e ]595 A—I'VM mT1 Z nxsl We:P1ve6AVmFeVMt: 1]139 Explanation: For the LUC 720 trip generation rate, a total of ten (10) sites (shown above) were blended with data from ten (10) sites in the ITE 7`h Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 35.95 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. ]9,0 Rusin.. Park HTF I.IIC 7701 Toeekon Sifie (1,01X1 sit Wle Tmelp Immlewi pTrlp Ler,h lolervlerm Trip Gen Tlme RASe Pamlotl Trip -vN Pm¢ol New Tripe Mme. Sourte luratlon 11,1 pale Inlervlews 55 19AX 1&1 T2] X'Ih1 nNWLbverk.4n:rnln 66 I1 115] 570 ]9,0 401:verk nnn:r:nler rmu.n+urvm alpwrre. vl. 1 1 9v 1 1 2" ISISO M+fi _ Xvw @A[awel.� Iu. &s5s4 psmx -'wa NmA Tel a h, sle- nFVJOJ:n,el 5XSfi3 wmemtllu:mo, N[v'lnnnvope. WNp4:W A... I... —r vxee m,l TXl:4mme::on Xmu Il]6 n4ntl nl4l. Y.tiv.vtl Il P. n enRe TYp (-- R—; A—" VMI WnpMaJ Aenpe VM'. ISM Explanation: For the LUC 770 trip generation rate, a total of three (3) sites (shown above) were blended with data from fifteen (15) sites in the ITE 7's Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 12.98 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Snecialty Retail Center 11TE LUC 8141 111L tau Imo w Nlm bw Ln nlmuW In:nl IS,u weNM1:ou i'vrem Neu lnn nvurvl= e:nl:lw A....e.lYnrmewm wk xkna d IT Avtl:n..d ITE. Aw,. Iap b. NYe: y1,91 wope,ml A VCmu VMi. ux _6 Explanation: For the LUC 814 trip generation rate, a total of two (2) sites (shown above) were blended with data from four (4) sites in the ITE 7s' Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 49.99 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -6 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Sbe (1,111X1 Tamlp pTrlp Lpn¢IM1 Trlp Gev Tlme Trlp Pertem New luratlon in pale Inlervlews Iniervlew[ Reie PerloE Ler,reF Tripe yMT Sourte I1 19 T(I 1 ]n wllivm @ Awx'ur,a tnllrr(Iv YI. 121: Me -YY 1<6 ISISO M+fi _ l<Olfi ln:kluOl:va AAwvsn,v 111L tau Imo w Nlm bw Ln nlmuW In:nl IS,u weNM1:ou i'vrem Neu lnn nvurvl= e:nl:lw A....e.lYnrmewm wk xkna d IT Avtl:n..d ITE. Aw,. Iap b. NYe: y1,91 wope,ml A VCmu VMi. ux _6 Explanation: For the LUC 814 trip generation rate, a total of two (2) sites (shown above) were blended with data from four (4) sites in the ITE 7s' Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 49.99 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -6 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 41 of 187 Sh000ina Center IITE LUC 8201 I.auXOV S!e(I,IIW s(1 DO. TWW# SMervkwr pTXP 4eplI TO, 1,PV TOP f:an IYie Time PerIM TOP 4'oAe POmONm TAPS VMT Sovry 91m .1'l. P) W16 5!l VX Ref[ 'TZ 4.., MU VniT Pv@Am.yre lxm 41 W11 Ilp 1!11 4111 pmb tlwlAmwvm 1 11 u�X6 WI 760 Nlm IM[AVauv lw .FL Mu.tlfi A'im .NOVIAwµvm IT 11 IT Y!0 A .W !'H Ito- 1Nr III I TidawTi lAUCmm Sr. Pem .41 I'll PY NiI IF.Y )'I. IIR 910 12151 1mYbU &M—Wm I!II 16)1 !ID ToWbOM1rvkA wm ITeelip M1l tl9 !l6 110 b1AB IMI 760 l'. TwIxIM)rvvl AUrtm 11tlW Pd�. n. R1y,0 ti XY IPy SBb X11A Wv@AmIgW `mrvn4R TI. T�b(IIrvm W AUeom IXII EID.M 110 IxI�11 )011 11nyb1WVlAxuw�,v nuldmm eG,.R Ill lwhlegrvon Nm.ne. umr. Pl. Qr u m wl Im¢ -a1re WA,nrW�r. Ld I51 1 1411 11 0 iMxbl ill- - )E ?W Io I N 616 v.lrt IY1.1 Nin P vevm A —,—NV. .. 1,.( 1M4R <6Il, 1_q 711,0 aFw 110() II114 .\vwnx('rm Yom vx CU. Fl. IwHI 6t M1i 5151 'MI Auxmmx('am I'IS w�Y,l SI .lIO. I—Cn, IT vunn CV. H. IYIII lun'It 6! .11 NmmYCmu Item." M1I. IIIIX Mfi 1 l),NI I. _ IYI.XS uNlrOlrvvlNVenru (IIl.,1111 Al 1511 rm mer.Yl_ 1., !AY Pl,T..eA,vmnus Tw41MIn.WA n (1.1m lv. ma n(n `WWidv Slb (110. meeAmnly 14YVCn PI. AM4)1 14N)l Im &bO1rvvWAwwnrm _ 111 IvrdbOlrvvhAwwire 11-11, 6fi _ _ 411 `Ilil etleM(OrvvW AUrcmn vn CU. YI. l5X 111 ILWlelllrvc @AVanmm (1rvrJ11 TI4 St Nx +. Nr Nwrl 4]11 a MAM _ I1.,l l O - AWAA-- MM 41 1 il 1411 4111 I,J bOlimhAUrmv 51 51 1y 64,Vr II.!N W A TX W LIO II,)) We4rW I'errurNm lnp Arw4e. W .A III w "i V Vr4„ nnvc . .Wnv.(.uinu mrYv wnL Vin YaiMnl x_ W. rurirvllre nrd Walwrv'ufuWl rpm wexlnwlnr .mm.ml'ImplF rnlnlmuv eVMi wuyllW AuvnipvvMl. 11. W Explanation: For LUC 820, TGR was determined using the trip rate equation found in the ITE 7 "' Edition Handbook. Trip length and percent new trips are based on a Florida Curve analysis using the studies listed above. New Car Sales IITE LUC 8411 r, r °ITE !la w Nm n. 'm tx. a ua In.mw.rm an .remm ler..m vP, mP A.P.ec. BiIld lM1l..a.m....e uen .,... 1.,4 Savo N.4.m.,wI..r..n m.ml.wm.usa.,mm... e..rmw Ili 1" r,m,ala..ml.l n.no,,... m., ,mnll..,m..nrn. .Iwiw mmeW VMI. 11.41 Explanation: For the LUC 841 trip generation rate, a total of one (I ) site (shown above) was blended with data from eleven (I 1) sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 32.93 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. LUC I I,O.n I I Dale I . I ._f_._L I._1_.I I VNST I sour.. I 13x0 IM ArmP 11I41.m1Nr va L_ VMT 111141 In�War.n1 _uo rreFlm lNa.l N.. Imn n.�¢. Explanation: For the LUC 850 trip generation rate, a total of one (I ) site (shown above) was blended with data from four (4) sites in the ITE 7"' Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 103.38 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -7 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study sill (I I I aL1y LeACfh Tliy cen Time Trin P[am rveu Yualiun P) Inlmlfv3 IPO,Ai Ref[ 'TZ 4.., T.iPf VniT Swrte rmW 1'I. IS} 1!11 4111 ir.JriXYllwa WAwr4mlea IIIR lmJnlMlrvv'rW Amnnles r, r °ITE !la w Nm n. 'm tx. a ua In.mw.rm an .remm ler..m vP, mP A.P.ec. BiIld lM1l..a.m....e uen .,... 1.,4 Savo N.4.m.,wI..r..n m.ml.wm.usa.,mm... e..rmw Ili 1" r,m,ala..ml.l n.no,,... m., ,mnll..,m..nrn. .Iwiw mmeW VMI. 11.41 Explanation: For the LUC 841 trip generation rate, a total of one (I ) site (shown above) was blended with data from eleven (I 1) sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 32.93 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. LUC I I,O.n I I Dale I . I ._f_._L I._1_.I I VNST I sour.. I 13x0 IM ArmP 11I41.m1Nr va L_ VMT 111141 In�War.n1 _uo rreFlm lNa.l N.. Imn n.�¢. Explanation: For the LUC 850 trip generation rate, a total of one (I ) site (shown above) was blended with data from four (4) sites in the ITE 7"' Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 103.38 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -7 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 42 of 187 Cm — sursinnm Madrwt _ 9dhre. IITF LtIC 9511 Lernfiun Si-0.000 rn Dore To,.[0 I.mIcis tl41p 1<nRlh Immlena Trlp Gen Rare Time PeriM Tr p Lnglh Perm. New Trips 4Mi Soum lw ,R mor 86 80 ) I.III old Anaun,u Im n 1 Ill 2 Y Ill 1 .94111 .1, ONY 111 so 1NJrlO1 —k Aml.;nm fsell 1L _ u�9Y _ 61, 1. 1. "o ]Is 1, 1 mJek111ryv k Arnq,x°t v11 1, ill Iso,ol 511 fi153e Isar Iro 110 15111 TInbs,01 —k AVrcultt oo Cn. R. l5 I -11 4) 1P1311 JPhv Ill ll.l Ill", 'IWLIi.lors, A—ei Mnmm l'n.R 1MA, ]e 30 <Xhre 1459 IiedleOlivttkA.- IAhur lo, rl- Is., 11 1. l6 14 _ 1 rcouMlive k Aw.eill, onll ]X 'rmWINI°vvk Awuules no11. Ill _ ILIt1., nnl C��, I;A I'll, le", pal Smnnr lwu iw 1e.a n •n .x ..r lnml tint W'nnlnW Ill W NNA hl Imo : 131 Illi 160 WnphuJ l'evm Nn 1n11AVnye. JIS mmam lelm zh.I w er lTo lior —.m Re, g °,A so, rripr;- wYule'. nlv9 xkna .111 .Ymen..ue uF.nw.gc my ann. x.rt: 'I0.19 l�r aa:ll vuT. Ina ♦p Avanee VMl_ 45156 Explanation: For the LUC 851 trip generation rate, a total of five (5) sites (shown above) were blended with data from eight (8) sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 719.18 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Service Station w /Convenience Market (ITE LUC 853) :, lu. :yy :IWI wrbPW `. I . nil r1.11— 1riniareD: 1Is 1 IIrnk eII 1iF uP ao vress.- n ]X] llnm �Ine4rnumxry Wo.IprlUJ kv nl. 54160 Explanation: For LUC 853, a total of ten (10) sites from the ITE 71" Edition Handbook were used to calculate the trip generation rate. This data was not blended with the FL Studies due to the fact that the FL Studies sites were measured per" 1,000 sf," while Collier County charges the impact fee per "fuel position." PhisrmacvlDnmctnre with and without Drive - Throuah Window (ITE LUC 880 & 8811 Inralian Lorufiun Sue 0pul sG Dole To.,N Inrmoews Pnip Lenplh Inrmiews Trip Gen Rne Tome Period Trip I piti Perm. New Trips VATT Source ) I211 A—I N1lnkrllem k I—le, 1 1 _ .1, ONY _ Il6P] liskYIh�l111w 9 Amiurmrt mnfa. r'I. 'w flJ 1. 39hr 114 ivy41p1111wk A.mnxuv 1, 44 Iso,ol 1, 11 411 Ill 'knul I ei _ S1 AM "I 1Io"Milvknwrinla t1 4 ri W1111RcrkAx1 1MA, All 1. -1 '11nL11W )LVVkAUelm.+ Is., 11 14 onll Il4 :, lu. :yy :IWI wrbPW `. I . nil r1.11— 1riniareD: 1Is 1 IIrnk eII 1iF uP ao vress.- n ]X] llnm �Ine4rnumxry Wo.IprlUJ kv nl. 54160 Explanation: For LUC 853, a total of ten (10) sites from the ITE 71" Edition Handbook were used to calculate the trip generation rate. This data was not blended with the FL Studies due to the fact that the FL Studies sites were measured per" 1,000 sf," while Collier County charges the impact fee per "fuel position." PhisrmacvlDnmctnre with and without Drive - Throuah Window (ITE LUC 880 & 8811 Inralian Si'ee II,INNI Dill rn To1.1I ocrvlewl ITrip Lenl'Ih huslleas Tell Gen pill Tlme Period Trip Lvoi Pertt. New Trips VMT Source I211 A—I 212 1 m�CU.n II.I IIYI lYL 'w flJ linJeleOlrvahAAnrmv I 'LrIF wa Pbl AVnn .I on h: In sell. li� 11 IIknJ n! Fl..pnEln rnJ 1'1'V Avcm ll'n "p<:cnAn ai., xve: 91Ah FV VMr aelncd AVmµcVM1. /i_ll Explanation: For the LUC 880/881 trip generation rate, a total of three (3) sites (shown above) were blended with data from nine (9) sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size ofdata. The resulting TGR of 92.88 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 A -8 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 43 of 187 Furniture Store (ITE LUC 5901- Includina Collier County Studies larnbn SIee 11,OW an Dale Tmalp IMervlewr pTtlP l.eopM1 Inmlene TrlP aen etle Tm< PMea TtlP LepplM1 Percem Nev Tytr5 ip e VMT Source ln P ISA YIEWuL1Y11} N ` I mmv e Iss Il, ^-NY Ill 154 ]]X !111 lIIDunMWlIle,-0I II m .FL Pn. m SXS lun -06 ll I40 ]1 W{ IJ 7611 4I1 �9 Gm Flr6. XY 6 W IW wm - C@YOAA1l1IMrcmUrx[CbnOs N G l kic 1 1 nRGwp -Cnlm COmry prissil Il} ypj WnPIM PV¢a Nm I Armpc ]]8 o LnMIInLI Lops I.' 11—r.'. WIe 676 nT. ,1,am— moXAI� sub eYM NP1.6naY...a ne.Aww mp sap W.ivk.r l VmMe VMT. 1644 Explanation: For the LUC 890 trip generation rate, a total of three (3) sites (shown above) were blended with data from thirteen (13) sites in the ITE 7" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 5.23 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Drive -In Bank IITE LUC 912) lunlloo vlre 11.111X1 eD Uale TUralp lmerviews Trip ".1". lmerviews Trip GPn Rah Time Periwl Trip I.enp1M1 lesserN- Trips l'MT Saur[e tum I'L Nlmlrnllnm &A...uolm Iss Il, ^-NY Ill 154 !111 .I 1. .nln ['lerl,¢1 . 11! 7611 IN!NVe6l.- n XY I?4 IW iWMlM1- kic 1 A- -. vtl AMWm Imrvl nlpl. Iun Yl 61 _ x141 liaLelelllrvv &Aialeinen . fl. ]7b. I.)� I.M u m pl 1 1 lu YI ] _ 11ilry v &l_lrn 16 $ OM 1X ,r j,, IA4 AVr Ill i11e)I-& Amniner _ 71,1 rvnk AVmmar 111 IlMmno6U('o.Fl. ,-Y6 rlpJrlellLVelHAawi ly. t, :7e,. Mir" (Y.1�1. NmllwAlum k Amwebn I)Ima 41 :W W lM Ann rTrl 1m N111.11 lnlel 7/.. ! Wd141W 1'erwm Nev 41 2 11Yaa 7141. anaO. tied 111 NVU. 111.N Explanation: For the LUC 912 trip generation rate, a total of one (1) site (shown above) was blended with data from seven (7) sites in the ITE 8'" Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 159.34 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Quality Restaurant (ITE LUC 931) luOSion Sze 11,INNl sn Dale Tolalp Inlerrlews pTtlp Len¢IM1 Imerrlens Trlp Gen Rare Time PMOtl Trlp 4Tril Pertem New Trips VMT Souree tum I'L 11,m &li—1 la, na VI. Ill 154 ve,k Aavwuln ImJekflllvakAawclna ix i.n< a n.i n.v r, u t aeu ItaLI MA ill lm 1.14 IIImLLJ U.mI LVI. IA II nl6lW Rrtrnl Nrw lnp nvmPe IiI AV,Oix, inn <,m.nlmn Nn¢IA +un11 _Afi Explanation: For LUC 931, a total of eleven (I 1) sites from the ITE 7" Edition Handbook were used to calculate the trip generation rate. This data was not blended with the Florida Studies because the Florida Studies use "7,000 sf' as the measurement unit, while Collier County charges the impact fee per "seat" Hiah- Turnover Restaurant (ITE LUC 932) Weapon $Ixe(I.IIIXI sf) Uale 161a,s lmerviews Trip l.ei Inlervirws Trip Gen Rate Time Periotl Tnp I—i Perer. New Tripe l'MT tiouree Mllry IwI,IMMV& An. nun n I,ri InJnIN)Irvv &A.xrcn ".e 11 _ _ x141 ImGluOliw &AUwmv . fl. I InlMle Mner& Au�euln mWn mlol Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. December 2008 i L )Il Collier County A -9 'I ransportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 44 of 187 Explanation: For LUC 932, a total of two (2) sites from the ITE 76 Edition Handbook were used to calculate the trip generation rate. This data was not blended with the Florida Studies because the Florida Studies use "1,000 sf' as the measurement unit, while Collier County charges the impact fee per "seat." Fast Food Restaurant w /Drive Thru IITE LUC 9341 Lormim, Slze(I,000 no Wb Tmm N wrmrkwt N Trip Lemon Ig—W., Trip Gen Rim Time PNnd Trip Lanph Percent New Tripr V'MT Soum 11, r(1 pme Inlerepwt Imemwers Rate Period Ismeth Tnpr VMT Fimkv.11om& Amem16 MerXfi 161 M4 I m 11X1 11i, ee 4r A rv.[u,c Piddle +C:v IT ^2, 48 NO2 1e�2 170 590 511111 T:nnlMpewn.,r c `m[IIm Cq PL 410 15dd9 456 261 Wi40 I Or '_]II 590 X65 7X INMIMM1vvtl Aml mM le . 1pene, I, Owtl9 II4 )m] 60 4611 lmtlrleOlirc &Amimn Muer,(.IL IN, 51 4XLm 1191 4F6N4 vmn C'n. IL alXl 1-11 15 4fi "I IN "I IN 154 61.1 611 591101 lm.b Ilvm&Ameialm m.I (.I.ve, 6 AVnrmlee C'ollerfe. PL A.nll 66 191 6(] 1'wJrleOlrvv& A"mmee FL All-41 YI 1 1 111 Aau'min erm.'fo, mmoJn Cn. pl. U6 ]II14 161 NL' Im Ie011vm I 1N IhLsk(D 96 1.59 1X 415111 1.1;ver&Arm� - TmJnlOhoar &A,neimee Tj 23? AT ve 176 !ii 61410 941 uu1 'Irme4..Inm p Amlrwl[.[ is ,l'n.G the fn. N. A� -0I n1 1X2 6A 90 410 uu up9] Iw6eh.ole. Aree- Ihofe. A ; -0I IMX L,- 15110 110 11r ]ON tllL"1 A-- Fi mfLri, '-0l (fi }A.I3 Yufi 6fi4]0 1- 1,(Imrn In011ver @An wyrcs ]4fi i 1 m 515 JR S.]l 11n &Ar.,v, PL 1 s 156114 IYY 1:91 Ip]IYY 1101rvm 111u1.1V.[ .ia ..... ... — —.. .... , pj,4 N emAwc m,...IM I11mJW luul II✓1,9 Wmiv. w—iiw l,AVmex Wc41Jal AVeryvltipfmm�lw Rrtt'. MA6 IImTLneelunuvl 4,0 IIYI 4dp C:n XXe. b4 MtlmJC.reJ FIYAI.,1RCm— Pr,e 53161 No,c Fml perc, rvtl, lrnm lrcllvlitlin 1pi N. ppvlmin¢ wP1 Wmp4uJ Xe 1.VM P ] AVmw 63002 Explanation: For the LUC 934 trip generation rate, a total of twelve (12) sites (shown above) were blended with data from twenty -one (21)sites in the ITE 7'h Edition Handbook to increase the sample size of data. The resulting TGR of 522.62 was used in calculating the transportation impact fee rate. Service Station IITE LUC 9441 lumiaun LLa Wr MAnn vl4 lar Ier .T ., Awrimm Trip TmM VGpwrn :IAI' W"w!Nn rn Explanation: For LUC 944, a total of six (6) sites from the ITE 71h Edition Handbook were used to calculate the trip generation rate. This data was not blended with the Florida Studies because the Florida Studies use "9,000 sf' as the measurement unit, while Collier County charges the impact fee per "fuel position." Serif Service Car Wash IiTE LI1C 9471 sbe1L1100 to19p 41 "'Lenlrth Trlp Gen Time TO Perunt New Location r(1 pme Inlerepwt Imemwers Rate Period Ismeth Tnpr VMT Source III M4 I m 11X1 i I'll I 1 I k w. wn m ImJx1v -111 vc.knvµileules lumiaun LLa Wr MAnn vl4 lar Ier .T ., Awrimm Trip TmM VGpwrn :IAI' W"w!Nn rn Explanation: For LUC 944, a total of six (6) sites from the ITE 71h Edition Handbook were used to calculate the trip generation rate. This data was not blended with the Florida Studies because the Florida Studies use "9,000 sf' as the measurement unit, while Collier County charges the impact fee per "fuel position." Serif Service Car Wash IiTE LI1C 9471 1n:el YUe SX a.n 'r[ w' ref bJAw iA la Itr'I 1 Wei4MN I'mm: New I:'i1:AVnge. lfi II Explanation: For LUC 947, a total of one (1) site from the ITE 7'h Edition Handbook was used to calculate the trip generation rate, since no trip generation data was available from the Florida Studies sites. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. December 2008 Collier County A -10 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study She1f,IN10 TmN# YTrip Levlyh Trip Gen Time Trip Percent Nre, 1—mion sn Date Interview` ..'e—re, Pare Period Lenph Trips "'IT sours III M4 I m 11X1 i I'll I 1 I k w. wn m 1n:el YUe SX a.n 'r[ w' ref bJAw iA la Itr'I 1 Wei4MN I'mm: New I:'i1:AVnge. lfi II Explanation: For LUC 947, a total of one (1) site from the ITE 7'h Edition Handbook was used to calculate the trip generation rate, since no trip generation data was available from the Florida Studies sites. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. December 2008 Collier County A -10 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 45 of 187 APPENDIX B Cost Component Calculation Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 46 of 187 Appendix B Cost Component Calculation 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, county road data was collected from the Collier County Transportation Department as well as recent construction bids from other counties in Florida. In the case of the state projects data, the sources are construction bid data for state road projects in other Florida counties and FDOT gaming reports for recently completed or fully programmed capacity expansion projects in Collier County. Right -of -Way Cost County The ROW cost reflects the total cost of the acquisitions along the corridor that was necessary to have sufficient cross - section width to widen or in the case of new construction to build the road. Based on the local data, a ROW cost of $1.3 million per lane mile was _. used for county roadway projects with urban design characteristics. Table B -1 provides a detailed description of the projects analyzed. State FDOT has not recently acquired ROW for any lane widening projects in Collier County. Based on discussions with FDOT and Collier County, it has been determined that the ROW acquisition cost for state roads is equivalent to that of county roads. Therefore, a ROW acquisition cost of $1.3 million will be used to calculate the unit cost per lane mile of an urban design state road. Based on discussions with FDOT, it is anticipated that all of the lane miles that the State will build in Collier County in the future will have urban design characteristics. A review of the widening projects along SR 84 in the 5 -year plan confirmed that only urban design projects are being considered. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 B -1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 47 of 187 Construction Cost County As shown in Figure B -1, a review of construction cost data for Collier County shows two recently bid projects with urban section designs within the County. The weighted average construction cost for the projects along Santa Barbara Boulevard and Collier Boulevard is approximately $3.7 million per lane mile. In order to analyze a larger sample, a review of recent county projects in Florida was conducted for county roadways. This review captured twelve (12) roadways and determined a range of $1.7 million to $4.2 million per lane mile for projects with urban design characteristics. When the two sets of data are combined, the resulting weighted average cost per lane mile is $3.1 million. As shown in Figure B -1, the County construction cost of approximately $3.1 million reflects the recent trend of decreasing costs, and represents a conservative approach to the recommended cost. Table B -2 provides detail on all of the projects considered in the construction cost analysis for county roads. State As shown in Table B -5, a review of statewide construction cost data shows nine recently bid projects with urban section designs. The construction costs range from $2.3 million to $4.7 million per lane mile with a weighted average cost per lane mile of $3.2 million. As illustrated in Figure B -1, the State construction cost of approximately $3.2 million reflects the recent trend of decreasing costs, and represents a conservative approach to the recommended cost. It should be noted that two local projects in the 5 -Year Program along SR 84 (from Santa Barbara Blvd to Radio Rd and from Radio Rd to Collier Blvd) were identified, but ultimately not included in the analysis. The costs for these segments represent future estimates with a weighted average cost per lane mile of $4.9 million and are not reflective of the recent statewide cost trends. Other Cost Components County The unit cost per lane mile for county roads Collier County also includes updated utilities, mitigation, interchange and carrying costs associated with capacity expansion projects. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 B -2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 48 of 187 Utilities and mitigation cost estimates were developed based on four recently bid lane widening projects in Collier County. As shown in Table B -3, the utilities cost is approximately $455,000 per lane mile and as shown in Table B4, the mitigation cost is approximately $99,000 per lane mile for county roads. Interchange cost estimates were developed based on two (2) planned interchange/grade separation projects in Collier County that are expected to be completed by 2030. These projects consist of improvements at the intersection of I -75, CR 951 and Davis Boulevard and where the US 41 (Tamianti Trail) meets CR 951. The total interchange cost provided by the Collier County Transportation Planning Department is $283.36 million. This figure was then divided by the total lane miles being built in the 2030 LRTP Financially Feasible Constrained Plan (434.7 lane miles). As shown in Table B -7, the interchange cost per lane mile is approximately $652,000. The lane mile cost includes an update to the carrying cost that tends to occur while a roadway is being built (approximately a 6 -year process for County projects). As presented in Table B -8, the carrying cost per lane mile is estimated at $259,000 based on the time table provided by the county for each phase. This figure takes into consideration the fact that the County receives some of the impact fees up front. State The unit cost per lane mile for state roads Collier County also includes updated mitigation, interchange, and carrying costs associated with capacity expansion projects. Since no data was available for mitigation costs of state roads, the mitigation cost for county roads was used (Table B -4). Also, the state road construction cost estimate does not include a utilities cost due to the fact that the Collier County Water -Sewer District pays for utility relocation costs associated with state facilities. As with county roads, the interchange cost per lane mile is approximately $652,000 for state roads (Table B -7). In addition, the lane mile cost includes carrying cost that tends to occur while a roadway is being built (approximately a 6 -year process for State projects). As presented in Table B -9, the carrying cost per lane mile is approximately $264,000 based on the cost components associated with constructing a state roadway. This figure takes into consideration the fact that the County receives some of the impact fees which charge for travel on all roads up front. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 B -3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Um� �O00 O O Z m�a m aim aura aa[I� �m,� uoUan.gsun,� 8� 08 i 08 o� os eg �s T i2 ti Jv J W n 0 e O� O O N r.+ O V y � C O m ~ i.J O � O � �U C +� O d y � I C O O V O V aim aura aa[I� �m,� uoUan.gsun,� 8� 08 i 08 o� os eg �s T i2 ti Jv J W n 0 e [) ) \\ ƒ §) 2\ } \ _f /\ \\ )) } k { ƒ � ƒ \ \\ 5 r= g � « \ }8/\4;22 } \ _f /\ \\ )) } k { �N 0 O Zn- a m mcd Q V d O CL T a 0 N � 07 r v � m v d A N v C A O J g 1 e O d - O L O E 3 o 2 uv V N y V O z C O U M m N wU a m T C O U N O U Y � e ° g U p.i b ry, O O N b W m O P 9O� h pO m d� P y � w www yw w DO D L D t V '• o 0 0 0 d d m m m a h. Y'r .O Yi O r P � � O U V O 00 v m O O O M O R_ vm O o O a r D as.e.E a aZE s a _ E -2 e' a= b b N v d d d d v d d 9 N m E f v � a 9 � y O C o °OO U °o o o o °o oo z° of a a � F O °1, o 5 v F 0] C ¢ :� � z.� vzi tlw t u'.'��✓i�Y.'�o - a m a S o ¢F,�e r d ➢ d N C 3 O C g 1 e O d - O L O E 3 o 2 uv V N y V O z C O U M m N wU a m T C O U N O U 0 3 d o pO O 6 era e_ h o v U� O Z 9 .z N 6 0 H Q Y � e m DO D L D t V '• o 0 0 0 d d m m m a h. Y'r .O Yi O r P � � O U V O ° ° ° o 0 a Y _ E 9 N m E f v � a 9 � y O C U of a a � F O 0 3 d o pO O 6 era e_ h o v U� O Z 9 .z N 6 0 H Q 2O CO �0— ,^ N O N E d J mca d m Q N A R' M C 0 d U d ao mU d a o m m OI g T C O U d O U w �5 Y G? w3 a 0 a �A ry A a. � G V N v .z° v d CL T f0 v d p N d 9 A m O 1^ �odoo�oP W ci C, y I h N 9 ePt fY " "' V" O N Q H1 N N V g O O N N S d a P m &V C5 u Qnt nl K V L A A q p qqqq N Q O � 10 z Q a N a �.�gnv�c.�i q 3 �a9m r.evne N orv.n b o F n v m o - v O(��u't a Q 49 N N C N W o o ?+ o 1-H- az O P b � � P O O� r01 a A LI NN m T v C Q = L C a i G O A C C > J F �5 Y G? w3 a 0 a �A ry A a. � G V N v .z° v d CL T f0 v d p N d 9 A m I � q O 1 L 9 = Ei p? v M L L h N G o a �+ `w_ A c� N v cz` T h 9 n LL g S g N O v �o 1^ �odoo�oP W ci C, y I h N ePt fY " "' V" O N Q H1 N N V 4 f11 yi NN. P m &V Qnt nl �Vi =WMQO p qqqq N Q O � 10 Q N P �.�gnv�c.�i q r.evne N orv.n b Q In Q 49 N N C N C N N$ 1-H- C P b � vrvi P O O� NN C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c Q Q C C N N N Q C V r r a v v c a a L � O �Zv,Uwv, vi via d O - a 2 o 2 7 r ° I � q O 1 L 9 = Ei p? v M L L h N G o a �+ `w_ A c� N v cz` T h 9 n LL g S g N O v �o Uo� doom O N O Z—� E�� t6 m — @ mca -o m aci � m Q �C FL 9 C .q N C O U m a H d O LL � T d U a� 10 N N C LL a K J M N w C O U d O U T z a LL a t 8 a 6 >U �a a� - -- - - -- -- - - ----- ---- - -- -----mm -- �u'---- -- - - U 9 9 a a E 6 E g c m a n a °a a °z '+ vzo uz °O3 drg o,o s'm om Q -gym cm 'z J n m U' m k _ 5 - t➢J' o ___ v 5 v V 9 u 5 K Y➢ __ W_ V V IJ W U U :J F= _i J _: O 5 K C K to __ m T z a LL a t 8 Q m O r N- -0 M � � N @ C d M c� N m Q c A EL a c �m 0 U d �a -C LL 1 o m o � � m c f0 jy °a a� m 0: � J M N T G_ U d 0 U 9 .J .7 L ^0 9 n a 8 w -3- C J 'n u' o" �v .z° T 9 y 6 g 0 c 8 C 888 Ti'�;.u.. 'na ___ - "88 M4 _ u9 9a E 9 9 s; 9 E a s a e e '�'ffi a aaa saa'anaa�ts�� as a OO �55055555�55 7055 555 E Y n e 9 z -= Ob00 =� - 3 d . . ... vv .c.. 9 .J .7 L ^0 9 n a 8 w -3- C J 'n u' o" �v .z° T 9 y 6 g 0 c 8 C Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 59 of 187 F-19904 110 Credit Component Calculation Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 60 of 187 Credit Component This appendix presents the detailed calculations for the credit component. Currently, in addition to the capital support that ultimately results from state fuel tax revenues, Collier County also receive financial benefit from several other funding sources. Of these, County fuel taxes are listed below, along with a few pertinent characteristics of each. 1. Constitutional Fuel Tax (2¢ 1gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. Collected in accordance with Article X11, Section 9 (c) of the Florida Constitution. • The State allocated 80 percent of this tax to counties after first withholding amounts pledged for debt service on bonds issued pursuant to provisions of the State Constitution for road and bridge purposes. • The 20 percent surplus can be used to support the road construction program within the county. 2. County Fuel Tax (I0 /gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Primary purpose of these funds is to help reduce a county's reliance on ad valorem taxes. • Proceeds are to be used for transportation- related expenses, including the reduction of bond indebtness incurred for transportation purposes. Authorized uses include acquisition of rights -of -way; the construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of transportation facilities, roads, bridges, bicycle paths, and pedestrian pathways; or the reduction of bond indebtedness incurred for transportation purposes. 3. V Local Option Tax (6¢ /gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. • To accommodate statewide equalization, all six cents are automatically levied on diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a county is levying the tax on motor fuel at all or at the maximum rate. • Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution scheme, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 C -1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 61 of 187 4. 2 "a Local Option Tax (5¢ /gallon) • Tax applies to every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures needed to meet the requirements of the capital improvements element of an adopted local government comprehensive plan. • Proceeds are distributed to a county and its municipalities according to a mutually agreed upon distribution scheme, or by using a formula contained in the Florida Statutes. 5. Ninth -Cent Fuel Tax (1¢ /gallon) • Tax is on every net gallon of motor fuel sold within a county. • Proceeds may be used to fund transportation expenditures. • To accommodate statewide equalization, this tax is automatically levied on diesel fuel in every county, regardless of whether a county is levying the tax on motor fuel at all. • Counties are not required to share the proceeds of this tax with their municipalities. Each year, the Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (LCIR) produces a document, the Local Government Financial Information handbook, which details the estimated local government revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. Included in this document are the estimated distributions of the various fuel tax revenues for each county in the state. The 2008 -09 data represents projected fuel tax distributions to Collier County for the upcoming fiscal year. In the table, the fuel tax revenue data are utilized to calculate the value per penny (per gallon of fuel) that should be used to estimate the "equivalent pennies" of other revenue sources. Table C -1 shows the distribution per penny for each of the fuel levies, and then the calculation of the weighted average for the value of a penny of fuel tax. "the weighting procedure takes into account the differing amount of revenues generated for the various types of gas tax revenues. The weighted average figure of approximately $1.4 million is used in the value per penny calculation. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, lnc. Collier County December 2008 C -2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Umr- ooco �oN,« 0 M N E TN c6 C p_ C � N Q 0C G R IL M rO _ CO CL Q V N w LL LL 4 W .4+ d l0 r r V U c. � C C O CC3 � G Q 06 w i+ N_ w 0 3 O RU LL O �U to 4+ U) w O L 5 b 0 w O p �o v c -a T 0 b .- N � 7 a U Vi > T v 0. O a o c o c b v � an � > �s b � c =nn'v b H m .n O fn N a J � d w U N R G O a ro H U n 0 a ov v� g HQ .y C N M 7 0 N et Q �O �O o 00 0o OD Ea t» sA � s�5 ss A y 0 0 0 0 0 0 o � K � y G v v � v F a 'v CD o v a 0 ��NzH3 O L 5 b 0 w O p �o v c -a T 0 b .- N � 7 a U Vi > T v 0. O a o c o c b v � an � > �s b � c =nn'v b H m .n O fn N a J � d w U N R G O a ro H U n 0 a ov v� g HQ Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 63 of 187 Gas Tax Equivalent Credit A revenue credit for the annual gas tax equivalent expenditures on roadway capacity expansion projects in Collier County is presented below. The two components of the credit are as follows: • County gas tax equivalent pennies • State gas tax expenditures County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies A review of the County's FY 2009 -2013 Transportation Work Program indicates that a combination of gas tax revenues, impact fees, grants, and ad valorem taxes are used to fund roadway capacity expansion projects. Collier County receives a credit of 4.9 pennies for the portion of gas tax revenues dedicated to capacity expansion projects in the 5 -year work program and 9.6 pennies for debt service payments on the 2005 gas tax revenue bond. Based on discussion with County staff, all bond proceeds were expended on roadway capacity expansion projects. In addition to the gas tax and debt service, approximately $20 million of grant funds (totaling 2.8 equivalent pennies) are being used to fund roadway expansion projects. 'Thus, a credit of 17.3 equivalent pennies will be given for the allocation of funds the county collects in gas tax revenues and grants. Table C -2 County Gas Tax Equivalent Pennies (1) Source: Table C -4, Item (c) (2) Source: Table C -4, Item (a) (3) Source: Table C -4, Item (b) (4) Source: Table C-1 (5) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from I penny (Item 4) divided by 100. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 C -4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Cost of .- Number Revenue ' Equivalent Credit' Projects of Years "': from 1. 4) qj ':Pennies tsj ... penny( Tax Revenues (2008 - 2013)(') $35,218,000 5 $1,449,228 $0.049 2005 Gas Tax Revenue Bond Debt Service(') $69,370,000 5 $L449,228 $0.096 Grant Revenues (2008-2013)") $20.000.000 5 $1,449,228 $0.028 Total 1 $124,585,000 $0.173 (1) Source: Table C -4, Item (c) (2) Source: Table C -4, Item (a) (3) Source: Table C -4, Item (b) (4) Source: Table C-1 (5) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from I penny (Item 4) divided by 100. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 C -4 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 64 of 187 State Gas Tax Expenditures In the calculation of the equivalent pennies of gas tax from the State, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Work Program was reviewed for capacity expansion projects in Collier County for the 17 -year period from FY 1997 to 2013. The six years of "future" roadway projects from FY 2008 -2013 Work Program indicate a total state expenditure of approximately $97.8 million for capacity- adding projects in the County. On an annual basis, this level of expenditure is equivalent to 11.2 pennies of gas tax revenue. Comparatively, the total cost of the capacity - adding projects for the six -year and five -year "historical" periods are as follows: • The FY 2002 to 2007 Work Plan equates to 16.2 pennies; and • The FY 1997 to 2001 Work Plan equates to 13.1 pennies. The combined weighted average over the 17 -year total of state expenditures in the County for capacity - adding roadway projects results in a total equivalency of 13.5 pennies. Table C -3 documents this calculation. The specific State projects that were utilized in the equivalent penny calculations are summarized in Tables C -5 through C -7 Table C -3 Equivalent Penny Calculation for State Portion (1) Source: Table C -7, Total Cost of Expansion Projects (2) Source: Table C -6, Total Cost of Expansion Projects (3) Source: Table C -5, Total Cost of Expansion Projects (4) Source: Table C-I (5) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from I penny (Item 4) divided by 100. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 C -5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Cost of Number, Revenue Equivalent Credit Projects of Years from 1 - Pennies(5) penny(4) Future Work Progmm(2008- 2013)(0 $97,789,432 6 $1,449.228 $0.112 Historical Work Program (2002-2007)(2' $140,704,668 6 $1,449,228 $0.162 Historical Work Program (1997-2001)(') $94.717,412 5 $1,449,228 $0.131 Weighted Average $333,211,512 17 $1,449,228 $0.135 (1) Source: Table C -7, Total Cost of Expansion Projects (2) Source: Table C -6, Total Cost of Expansion Projects (3) Source: Table C -5, Total Cost of Expansion Projects (4) Source: Table C-I (5) Cost of projects divided by number of years divided by revenue from I penny (Item 4) divided by 100. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 C -5 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study oo� o� N p -O 0 Zn� � N m N C d p I9 m Q T CL V l0 m {Q U R 3 co w y d 3 c m Q K W; W U '3 5 a` W C ~ H C 0 M ,R M v w w C 7 O U 4) O U M O N LL LL O N } LL ' oC=) � "'y d Ha o o P: 0 Ge�Vy tr� O M p ti p O O O p 00 O ti O N O O� O O1 Y'3 TO H � a u v o _ a Y iy O 7 x F o � U 4 � a a d o C O y O C d G9 R R b b 2�2ow om � J F v c o F N G F O m o a o ro ..J 0 ..,l.0 G Q J< q T T O N U „ v id U U W d 0 r a H U x 0 0 v v V Y Q 5 Cq C C F t Y > G Y Y'3 TO o � a o a` iy O 7 x F o N NO C7 u ❑ �D .2 � C G9 4�'w UV� ttl U ,O U � ,✓+ 2�2ow om V U tq N 0-0 Y. J F v c o F G F O m o a o ro ..J 0 ..,l.0 G T T O N U „ v id U U W d 0 r a H U x 0 0 v v V Y Q � 0 � N O �N � m m " � m mGIL C M N Q N V d �O Q` a O .y C A Q K W r C 0 O U `a N U U d f A 0 0 Q` Y L O N a } LL H Q LL 8 Y c J 0 C E Q ryF e 6u � i a O " 3 5 C o � a o v e= a'o C v W i �J N v cz° T C Z N 6 L4 6 a °o 6 H a w w w gorvo�wrn � -wa�o V3 OO a °o °o w`�'ea ry O rv� O w e N P P O O H rN�t V N w w K w w Nw O P� r O W O J O W O� O� e ew p VAI °O� r ry W O nt ry b b c0 O Q r i w w m °w �° r wrry °ro °oro °o °OO e�°.i °o oow ory "'m aoo o �oa"ory og • .P duo 00 o ap' W a o�n mry o•c P0000 00 000 n r in P b w w J wOJ w O w a r w N vbi P O V rvrvw�oww ry e %-i v� w q 9 w a z N - s a Z ¢ p U h _ 9 z O° ° c° C q 9 O _n O -> E W' OJ U v O C V 9 z z F F C P V N E L E 6 C c E v E a ca � tee. S ^ L o Q Q� r%t N� m m m W O O rn b� O b r Itit P P P T P P P P P P O~ 8 Y c J 0 C E Q ryF e 6u � i a O " 3 5 C o � a o v e= a'o C v W i �J N v cz° T C Z N 6 L4 6 a °o 6 H a U rn r ooro N O O Z � � C � � m w � � -o m C � N m Q N d O IL c 0 .N c CL x w T C O U d 00 UV d I a E 0 0 a` n N N N 0 LL a V e Q Y y3 J v O C = t C L v C Y v 4 LLL G E 4 m <ia m w w w r w In W ..�i w w w p m m 4 b � w ' } w _ Ifl- ri 8 - a g _ _ 'a Y _ _ - � c = N o J 42 n 6 P - - - - - - a V e Q Y y3 J v O C = t C L v C Y v 4 LLL G E 4 m U m r p o W O .- +- N O �m y� C mcIL Q N d O a` c 0 .N C N M W Fg C 7 O U d 6Z U m A E f A 0 O LL O N W 0 N LL O O LL 6 z" G 0 e e c� e� Y w 3` G O G q 3 n �L g ;w o� O v LL i K � �v �z NO LqG e °c v = F �g sM�p�p MO y s � s v, Tlk I N �C » » »�� ° » »�s »- »° » » » » » --- N O g b V e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... g 0 « 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 o e ry o n q - - m m qC o4mm '4 _d 4 V o '9 G o o uP E Fp E � 3 o ti K K C s � �� ✓� v m K N� c B rL � •� U� m v1 N m 3 1 1- Z�� JI VI m m O 'r U C Fv a g w s s JCL a T5. 9 �J ai O vMi n F S a 6 z" G 0 e e c� e� Y w 3` G O G q 3 n �L g ;w o� O v LL i K � �v �z NO LqG e °c v = F �g Ua) ti p O W N O ZMM � m m m C Co m d F- CD W L Y C C 3 U K W U � m a�i � �G1 LU W d LL d v t 7 O O G d d 7 Q 7 J 0 .a ri 3 U � N � U W N O p O b N i O U .Ci O U a v o R Q d � � O o N � V1 H q O: O 7 J 0 .a ri 3 U � a � U W Fn a O b N i O U .Ci O U a v o R Q d � � O o N � V1 H q ry P b ... O P N °, N 0n P - M vi V C P O" � r" h a" NV' a a O N r a r M 9 O d O Fri L.' r v: q • V M ll P .-� V 4 m Oi vi Q CL a' z o i LJ L aao s L aaa 6 L 4 L ) L L L 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 r 7 J 0 .a ri 3 U � a � U W Fn a O b N i O U .Ci O U a v o R Q d � � O o N � V1 H q oo� N .r _O � O E T� � @ m 01 Q I co D � a C R d d t r — C � R d O O Cc m d F' R W U `. 3 N d = V t6 7 C Q m�mp&Pp'"mb3Pb eYm.'g'PRmW$W^o 13��emf"ob��A�mp iog�� ma 8 ry N m m m QQ m Z iO i$. ^l n. Pio °r mem�,w non�a `Vm m.�amyi.nn °NR �° 9 2w !S �ggm'B �i"� `8ry °nnnNOm q m `m SE NN E3 _ my m�iX ^gym M`�mvaoo gP"' H 'n.mg ma`�+m�ma�ron 0p� ° =_p t`E'm m• n�m��'m �m E S a r° m n m 7rS - ' N N (M 1. w. 1T §p 8 y 6�d f. g -`O 'm £ 8y w o a3 Ef, ° "magSv $ NN� °� °�oio�m emmo��rvmm 'm Nj mNEB�j' ry E m a> S S- .°s ry m.m - LLmA 1994 16 T E a c 0 0 .800000 °0000 °oo °oSmSSoo °oo °og A s „o mm I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N _ ❑T T 7 r o � U y d � 0 U y v w 0 G H U v U O d N � ^ o _ N 0 � N � GU 5 i H Q Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 71 of 187 Ad Valorem Credit Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 72 of 187 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 the 2007 single family home sales and determined the market value of a new home. This process involved some adjustments to the size and unit price of homes to account for outlying values. More specifically, the following adjustments were made: • Home sales data from Collier County Property Appraiser parcel database for 2007 indicated that the average home size in Collier County is 4,067 square feet. The home sales data also reflected that the average cost per square foot was $168.84 for this group of homes. The multiplication of the average size by the average price resulted in an average market price of approximately $686,615 for a home 2,500 sf or greater. w • Since the average size of the homes for the sales data was more representative of larger homes, the relationship between taxable values of existing homes for less than 1,500 square feet, 1,500 — 2, 4999 square feet, and greater than 2,500 square feet was used to develop a stratified credit per square foot. This approach was used to be consistent with the tiered single family residential land use. The cost per square foot that resulted from this analysis is the less than 1,500 square foot category is estimated at $104.68 (62 percent of the $168.84), 1,500 -2, 4999 square foot category is estimated at $118.19 (70 percent of the $168.84). It should be noted that the ad valorem revenues used toward transportation capital projects is a fixed amount and not a percentage of the County's ad valorem revenues. As presented previously, over the next five years and beyond, this amount will be limited to approximately $6.0 million per year. Table D -1 presents the projected ad valorem contributions of a new home (2,500 sf or greater) over a 25 -year period, beginning with the 2008 market price of $686,615. Given that the dollar amount that goes to transportation projects is not going to increase, the portion of the ad valorem taxes paid by a new home that are used for transportation capacity projects will be declining. Under the homestead exemption rule, the annual increase of the taxable value of a home is limited to three percent until it is sold. The percent decrease in the annual tax payments of a new home is calculated as the difference between the home value increase (3 percent) and the overall taxable property value increase (14 percent). The resulting 1 -mil taxes are brought to Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 D -1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 73 of 187 present value based on an interest rate of 4.5 percent, which is consistent with the interest rate at which the County currently borrows. Table D -1 also provides the portion of the 1- mil collections that would be used toward transportation capital expansion projects and the total credit per square foot. Table D -1 1 -Mil Credit Calculation for Single Family Home Land Use (Based on Market Value) Revenues generated from I- mile' $82,791,002 Annual ad valorem revenue that goes to transportation capacity (2) $5,985,800 Average home price (3) $686,615 Annual increase in countywide taxable values' 4) 14% Annual allowed increase in taxable home values % Net increase 11% Percentage of Millage Used for Transportation Capacity Addition Projects (vt 7% Year Value Value Used 1 -Mil Taxis) Ad Valorem Present Taxable Market for Credit for Transportation(*) Value0o) 2008 $686.615 $686.615 $686.615 $687 $48 $46 2009 $43 $40 2010 $39 $34 2011 $35 $29 2012 $32 $25 2013 $28 $22 2014 $26 $19 2015 $23 $16 2016 $21 $14 2017 $19 $12 2018 $17 $10 2019 $15 $9 2020 $14 $8 2021 $12 $7 2022 1 1 $11 $6 2023 $10 $5 2024 $9 $4 2025 $8 $4 2026 $7 $3 2027 $7 $3 2028 $6 $2 2029 $5 $2 2030 $5 $2 2031 1 1 $4 $2 2032 $4 $1 2033 $4 $1 $452 $326 Square footage a 4.067 Credit per square foot $0.08 Interest RatetIrt 4,5% Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2009 D -2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 74 of 187 (1) Source: Collier County Transportation Planning Department (2) Source: Table C4, Item (e) divided by 5 (3) The 2008 taxable value is determined as explained on page D -1 of this report. (4) Average increase in total taxable values between 1999 and 2008 in Collier County (5) permitted rate of annual increase in taxable value of homes under the homestead exemption rule (6) Annual increase in countywide taxable value (Item 4) less annual allowed increase in taxable home values (Item 5) (7) Annual ad valorem revenue (Item 2) divided by the revenues generated from 1 -mil (Item 1) (8) Average home value (Item 3) divided by 1,000 (9) 1 -mil tax (Item 8) multiplied by the percentage dedicated to transportation capital additions (Item 7). This amount is reduced by 1 I percent (Item 6) annually to account for the fact that the portion that is used toward transportation capacity expansion projects will be decreasing. (10) Present value of the ad valorem for transportation (Item 9) based on an annual interest rate of 5 percent (Item 11) (11) Average size of a home based on 2007 sales (12) Consistent with the interest rate for the 2005 Gas Tax Revenue Bonds Non - Residential Land Uses Table F -2 provides an explanation of how the ad valorem credit was calculated for non- residential land uses. It should be noted that the 1 -mil credit calculations for these land uses represent broad estimates based on recent sales in Collier County as available, and the Consultant's experience in other jurisdictions and knowledge of the industry. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 D -3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Um� oox O O Z � � � N � N m ca N Q N N 7 a C J N v y N C O Z d C U U v d U T N c° a 6 `o `o h x ° m e o L o zw� F J o1i O M U � L O J � OryG F. L v q C 6 n v © L J m '•- m u] ". ul > s ul �� F- U F u�i rii L � o 1y 1 s9 w y W �.L U W Vi M Q 69 Z V W o r O �. V �^ N L= .V V�F 9 N- V O u O N ✓i � V L U' F T N c° a 6 mow rrr C:) O r � h Emo� co = d Yl N C J A .0 d d Id G C' C = 0 u Z N w O0 a o T3 " H � V t0 U V m CU C T V N 8_ W 0 0 6 F o ° 7 yy � G A ryry UUUU_ U_U_ A_ •d, id ^ O m m m • 5 �yIhpp� 3M1ry Oi 9p i4 'F.li N (j i,' 5 � N V '� � N � N `w `n `m A tE'J � ^J O N � D O O O O U U U U U V V V y FI � I.. •i � el Oy rv.i'o rnTrn m a o. F'w oo m wm mw moo mm w wm oom �� c -www ww w www wcvwzvw sv w w wwww ++ia 4 ma F� O Gi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oF' 006v0� 0000000 00 �! V0�000 N N F� 3yi pt w fR FA w w w w w 1 G' w Ya w w w w w W w Ya f.4 O q of g d.. pG �j�j 00 O O O O O O pp 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 d {} ry r E 1�d O 'n S i m p o o E ° 3 4 x-0000 ti`y va d -tz r. =OOEN�� LLI �OONV�OSOV COE00 ^b E r= E C A P pi 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Q C A 0° o o v L4 A E E C N U U 3i d O LL , d rV af) •- N r N m W� W N N N< C vi CO T "Z �I d 1� r r ..� Fy T V N 8_ W 0 0 6 F CD p O N O O Zr� Td L m cd C � N Q N 7 9 C J A .0 d d w C C C O `Z N w O 0 d O a " U A U 9 U wG J H 5 Q a 9 9�j O= ?V q 491 0 v 491 T L 15 T B O a k �' � � ra � °� � � n p iCIL .`a a �u ❑ � � � r �.. � U ❑ V e 5 v 3 q ? y?= `o _ o m n c 3 N g u1m wd 1bf x,.M t tr a'1 C z Ilk c C G 3 = ZI A '1- N N wG J H 5 Q a 9 Um00 p0000 �N O E i d a) N m m —a- '0 � d C � N Q d N C J m C d 99 � a c � C C O an- 0 N w D� m O .0 F- .2 m Y_ L U 5R—NT, Yral v u ry vGt MR, k m r m o J _ 4: D- it C w 7� y �ra�' •• �1 Oi �K Cry c o — —e P O � O ii i C' L v F a _ N ' G 0 0 A S 5 3 0 e a 0 v Ci a° 0 0 9 9 L� 8 5 xo � T 9 P 'E o 9 C Q O g y a � T 9 N 9 t `o °v y F n � H > +T 9 is �N i� i� �g 5 0 Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 79 of 187 ' ' \MI ►M Single Family Tiering Analysis Agenda Item No. IOC January 13, 2009 Page 80 of 187 TOA has included an update to the tiering of the assessed impact fee for the single family residential (detached) land use to ensure equity by size of home. To facilitate this, an analysis was completed on the comparative relationship between housing unit size and household travel behavior. This analysis 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 households in the United States. Table E -1 presents the existing trip characteristics being utilized in the current adopted impact fee schedule for the Single Family (Detached) subcategory. The 2001 NETS 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 NETS and housing unit size from the ABS. The results of the analyses of these two sources are included in Tables E -2 and E -3. 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 -3, 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. In order to calculate a corresponding trip rate for these new tiers, however, it was necessary to rely on comparative ratios. As an example, consider the $34,579 annual income category. First, it was determined that the average annual household VMT for the income level of the $34,579 is 20,976 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 0.735. 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 38.00 for the new tier, as shown in Table E -4. This daily VMT figure was then divided by the proposed assessable trip length of 6.62 miles to obtain a typical trip rate of 5.74 trips per day. Then, this trip rate was placed in the impact fee schedule to generate a net impact fee value for one of the new single family tiers. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 E -1 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 81 of 187 Table E -5 illustrates the impact that the incorporation of the tiers for the Single Family (Detached) land use has on the County's calculated impact fee schedule. As shown in the table, the net impact fee for a housing unit of less than 1,500 square feet is $8,668. Table E -1 Calculated Single Family Trip Characteristics (') Calculated Values Excluding, Annuali Income;' Assessable Tnp Dailyt, ;:,Ratio to g a !Tenn . Tnp Rate i48?ll VMT . A Meait },, Single Family Detached 7.811 6.621 51.701 1.00 (1) Source: Appendix F, Table F -1 Table E -2 AHS Median Income Data by Housing Size 1') 2005 AHS Median Income Data by Housing Size Annuali Income;' Less than 1,500 sf $34,579 1,500 to 2,499 sf $57,050 2,500 sf or more $80,889 Average of All Houses $49,702 (1) Source: 2005 Amencan Household Survey Table E -3 NHTS VMT Annual VMT by Income Category ('1 2001 NHTSrTravel Data by Annual HH Income I Annual VMT/1111 Days Daily VNIT Ratio to Mean Normalized' to 1.128 ' Median of $34,579 20,976 365 57.47 0.829 0.735 Total (All Homes) 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 (1) Source: 2001 National Household Travel Survey Database, Federal Highway Administration Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 E -2 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 82 of 187 Table E-4 Trip Generation Rate by Single Family Land Use Tier ' h"ahon of Tri Rate B s•ix r..� -tai, i Tilp Rate, Assessa>tIc Tzxpt �','r,��tti"i A;ia;�} a Datly ;z?�� Rahn to` hti4! ,... �'4' % Trlp Rate - Ra f c� " °� t� t3 ➢xa Net Fee t :........ .......- . ,.,g Length � �'NITa Single Family Detached Less than 1,500 sf 5.74 6.62 38.00 0.735 1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 1.000 2.500 sf or larger 8.83 6.62 58.47 1.131 (1) Daily VMT (Item 3) divided by assessable trip length (Item Z) for each tiered single tamely land use category (2) Source: Table E -1 (3) Ratio to the mean (Item 4) divided by total daily VMT for the 1,500 to 2,499 sf tier for each tiered single family land use category (4) Source: Table E -3 Table E -5 Net Impact Fee by Single Family Land Use Tier (') Impact of 1Senng on Fee ," a ° > k -, "' ble T... Dally ri +' " j Trlp Rate - Ra f c� " °� t� Net Fee t x , S,Fhedule r, . ,.,g Length � �'NITa Single Family (Detached) Less than 1,500 sf 5.74 6.62 38.00 $8,668 1,500 to 2,499 sf 7.81 6.62 51.70 $11,760 2,500 sf or larger 8.83 6.62 58.47 $13,130 (1) Source: Appendix F,'I able F -I Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County December 2008 E -3 Transportation Impact Fee Update Study Agenda Item No. IOC January 13, 2009 Page 83 of 187 APPENDIX F Calculated Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Schedule mow O r � E�� mm m C lL C Q d 'O d t U d d LL V Q E c �r LL O d y a � m �F C U a O U 9 d u d U T 2 N 6 �ry L Q O F h O S °a6 i I $ t A A �u 8 L h Z q. F Z Z Z F Z S T' E @ @ tl a a s pgy tl V OV YlV S 4 a o 4 t 8 - aAr� pe tl _ tl 55 �3 L- � E D E E Q tl y A - - nj _ - 3 T 2 N 6 �ry L Q O F h O �O00 —NO O Z -� �com D f6 mca N O) Q d 7 9 d L Q N d IL U a d Q � r C d C � O O �a H C r ` LL F d � � C H � O U d O U n d Q U ,9 )N s� i° W a H 4 Q � m I � ry — °' z n s „ m _ gT 8 _ IR Iggu4 i,` It E L -G � h O n tl b a z tl tl tl q L Z L r Z u I y z gg 8 V r r- F x, b � g pq is 2 2 2 c" 6 i ,9 )N s� i° W a H 4 Q � m I � ry .c O� O f � E T� N � m C � N Q O1 V d L V N d a LL U CL d o M C �p C 0 o $. N C N LL r d a� m � r o U d 0 v v V U log r CCpp{{xr Y5 .( lb [CJ 0 lY I N a z U 5 z 9 y z z z A X o J - t 6 e ? t Ego A� 3 3 e V V � s n 91 3 g I I — m n1l 131 - & _ _ s 3 S z v 1 Z 3 v U 3 3 g i 3 0 3 �D -3 u V N m a h C T �L p W U m ° s E u n 5 8g 2 � t oa� v' m 9 0 a o m F y 9 O � ° N � av O p 9 o�g 3p° L e ? W � m O a W v O 79 m C C s a c z O v +T iZ g E a r:. u� J� Agenda Item No. IOC January 13, 2009 Page 87 of 187 COLLIER COUNTY SINGLE FAMILY TRIP CHARACTERISTICS STUDIES FINAL REPORT May 23, 2008 Prepared by. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. 1000 N. Ashley Dr., #100 Tampa, Florida, 33602 ph (813) 224- 8862,,fax (813) 226 -2106 Agenda Item No, 10C January 13, 2009 Page 88 of 187 COLLIER COUNTY SINGLE FAMILY TRIP CHARACTERISTICS STUDIES Collier County is in the process of updating its transportation impact fee. As part of this update, a trip characteristics study for the single family land use was conducted. This summary report, which acts as a technical support document to the 2008 update of the transportation impact fee program, presents the results of the trip data collected for the single family land use in the Collier County. This data collection effort was conducted to reflect current travel demand for the single family residential land use based on development patterns in the Collier County and supplements previous data collected for this land use in 1999. 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. Appendix A presents the raw data results collected by the origin - destination surveys and Appendix B presents the recommended single family land use demand component input variables. Methodology 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 Collier County 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. The analysis of trip characteristics data is based on the review of the lane miles of capacity consumed by specific types of land use. In order to better understand trip characteristics in Collier County, a total of 4 single family residential sites were studied. The details of these site surveys can be found in Appendix A. Two types of study data were collected at each study site: 1) trip generation data, and 2) origin- destination survey data. The trip generation data were collected through the use of machine traffic counts during specific weekdays for a period of 72 consecutive hours, or three days. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 1 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 89 of 187 Additionally, manual counts were collected periodically during the week to verify the accuracy of the machine traffic counts. Origin- destination survey data also was collected at each study site. The data was collected through road -side patron interviews. The interviews were generally conducted between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which allowed for data to be collected for both work and non -work type trips. A statistical review of the reasonableness of the survey data was performed. This analysis is illustrated in Appendix A, Table A -5. Finally, the results of the trip characteristics surveys are summarized through three tables (Appendix A, Tables A -6 through A -8). These tables provide information about the trip generation rate, percent new trips, and trip lengths for each of the four sites previously referenced. Data resulting from the trip characteristics surveys will be used in the development of the demand component of the transportation impact fee for the single family residential land use. One of the considerations in the collection of origin- destination survey data is to collect survey samples to develop a reasonable level of confidence that the collected data reflects local travel conditions in Collier County. From a statistical sampling respective, the goal of these studies is to collect enough survey samples to be 90 percent confident that the average trip length from the survey data was within a plus or minus 15 percent accuracy level for each study site. This confidence level and level of accuracy standard is currently required in the Collier County Administrative Manual (Appendix B) for independent studies conducted as part of an alternative fee calculation for transportation impact fees. Appendix A, Table A -5 presents the review of the land use sample size for each of the sites surveyed at the single family residential land use. This table indicates the number of samples, coefficient of variation, and sample size requirement at a 90 percent level of confidence. Margins of error for each of these sample size requirements are provided at 10 and 15 percent. Review of the data presented in Table A -5 indicates that enough samples were obtained at all 4 of the study sites for the single family residential land use to obtain a confidence level at or above 90 percent confidence within both a 10 and 15 percent margin of error. In summary, the results of the local trip characteristics studies conducted in Collier County have provided reasonable data and the results meet the statistical sampling requirements. Thus, the data collected will be used in the development of the demand component for the single family residential land use for which data were collected in Collier County. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 2 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 90 of 187 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 site that was studied. Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2009 3 SF Trip Characteristics Study Umr OOM o O Z�— E Td m`m0) = m m C� C� Q N CD N U N W d � z R � L �U M O E N L v w > v R > ff 0 a y v 3 'a v a o L 9 .n a v G C A m -- L 'y W C G 6 � o a v y > m 72 T U L r N� � O O v v 3 U 00 L T a c v u u aq v v v v aGi y G s � G.aa� v y 0 v m r T � 7 O � N' O � V N L V a H w d S m U O 2 Mi N a O N O N N 'O T C A F 7� d rMti:. i t h V N rub t, 4 O, U' a yo �o U a. v v v d M y C C C C w A O b c C Q O > v �_ W .e o •--� N M V' Vj L v w > v R > ff 0 a y v 3 'a v a o L 9 .n a v G C A m -- L 'y W C G 6 � o a v y > m 72 T U L r N� � O O v v 3 U 00 L T a c v u u aq v v v v aGi y G s � G.aa� v y 0 v m r T � 7 O � N' O � V N L V a H w d S m U O 2 Mi N a O N O N N 'O T C A F 7� c O O V t� ti G o � .. w G O � y N W v � � w � U O O :d p� ❑ y G [ i U 7 L 4i 4 0 y �] U N � G m :n o � Ci p N L 5 b b U � 5 U yU L 3 U .b U .D 3 � 'O fti' cR G co C O y V cc Q O U N I- N PL a> w C d T cc LL d C m ywm oom , .o � N YV .� T S W� m ma ny �] m ❑ Q c y O y e: � o � N V1 ab U tQ Ll i O � � 3 _ � N G N � N � b M IN l R F N k_4i w ro � Q O � v U b N � T � U o m b U � y r U h Yk iJ d � O ...... w V] b N W R d A o w � U 'u A G b R CA ro m t � O W ro ro b a � G o O :d id O T � U � l { W O t c O O V t� ti G o � .. w G O � y N W v � � w � U O O :d p� ❑ y G [ i U 7 L 4i 4 0 y �] U N � G m :n o � Ci p N L 5 b b U � 5 U yU L 3 U .b U .D 3 � 'O fti' cR G co C O y V cc Q O U N I- N PL a> w C d T cc LL d C m w H w X c G a Q Q N 5 Q O G w T w ro C O td �commw A TF H H H � C G ❑ G ^ aao.a o a a a a U Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 G��° ,'- ,T, T G T� O N O y U t U a F W U1 m U O C 9,1 � o ,y N C cC H ywm , YV .� T S W� ny �] pp e: � oc N M V1 iD M IN l k_4i U t x Am � h Yk ...... { L CA .0 t 4 U l { N V] V] w H w X c G a Q Q N 5 Q O G w T w ro C O td �commw A TF H H H � C G ❑ G ^ aao.a o a a a a U Q Q Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 G��° ,'- ,T, T G T� O N O y U t U a F W U1 m U O C 9,1 � o ,y N C cC H Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 93 of 187 APPENDIX A Collier County Trip Characteristics Study Data Agenda Item No, 10C January 13, 2009 Page 94 of 187 Table A -1 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 «_ urve 3 Ty !P;5).. ncunt, � ,iAssessab <.£7 ,Lengt . u yon sessabiri r ;eng 1 -1 P - 10.5 1 -2 P 10.5 1 -4 P 2.6 1 -5 P 3.5 1 -6 P 4.3 1 -7 P 2.6 1 -8 P 3.3 1 -9 P 2.6 1 -10 P 2 1 -11 P 2 1 -12 P 0.3 1 -13 P 3.2 1 -14 P 3.2 1 -15 P - 10.5 1 -16 P 0.3 1 -17 P 2.6 1 -18 P 2.8 1 -19 P 2 1 -20 P - 23 1 -21 P 0.1 - 1 -24 P - 10.5 1 -26 P - 2.8 1 -28 P - 1.6 1 -29 P 3.6 1 -30 P 4.3 1 -31 P 10.5 1 -32 P - 3.2 1 -33 P - 33 1 -34 P - 2.6 1 -35 P - 3.5 1 -36 P 3.2 1 -37 P 3.9 1 -38 P - 3.5 1 -39 P 3 - 1 -40 P - 3.8 1 -41 P 0.2 1 -43 P 1.7 1 -45 P 4.2 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -1 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. IOC January 13, 2009 Page 95 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 <s' " .x �" " (,5 ' "nbuin r u o� 11$se88$ IeTP1 ,rveY oeng 1-46 P - 5.2 1 -47 P 10.5 1 -52 P - 2.6 1 -55 P - 4.3 1 -56 P - 5 1 -57 P 5.2 - 1 -58 P - 3.5 1 -61 P - 0.7 1 -62 P 10.5 - 1 -65 P - 4 1 -66 P 0.6 - 1 -67 P - 1.7 1 -69 P 1.5 1 -70 P 2.9 - 1 -71 P - 5.2 1 -72 P - 2.1 1 -73 P - 23 1 -74 P - 4.6 1 -75 P - 3.8 1 -76 P 21 - 1 -79 P - 16 1 -80 P - 3.1 1 -81 P - 2.3 1 -82 P - 3.1 1 -83 P 3.3 - 1 -85 P 3.2 - 1 -86 P - 3.5 1 -87 P - 3.6 1 -88 P 5.8 - 1 -89 P - 1.5 1 -90 P 1.7 1 -91 P 3.9 1 -92 P 2.3 - 1 -93 P 1.5 - 1 -100 P 2 1 -101 P 2 - 1 -102 P 2.7 1 -103 P - 3.3 1 -104 P 3.8 - 1 -105 P 4.1 - 1 -106 P - 3.6 1 -107 P - 33 1 -110 P 3.3 - Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -2 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 96 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 urvey "N �x. 9d 11 1 (��G, ��a •Bessa �a `en9t t + .M, U OII i SC85 8 i c n ti 1 -112 P 1.7 - 1 -113 P - 2.3 1 -114 P 4 1 -116 P - 4.2 1 -117 P - 4.2 1 -120 P 3.4 - 1 -122 P - 1.6 1 -123 P 10.5 - 1 -125 P 2.1 - 1 -127 P 3.7 - 1 -128 P 10.5 - 1 -129 P 4.6 - 1 -131 P - 4.6 1 -132 P 1.6 - 1 -133 P 2.8 1 -134 P 4.6 - 1 -135 P 10.5 - 1 -136 P 5.2 - 1 -137 P 21 1 -138 P - 5.5 1 -139 P 2.6 - 1 -140 P 3.2 - 1 -141 P 2.1 - 1 -142 P 5.2 - 1 -143 P 4.6 - 1 -144 P 10.5 - 1 -145 P - 1.6 1 -146 P - 10.5 1 -147 P 1.6 1 -148 P - 2.6 1 -149 P - 2.3 1 -150 P - 3.1 1 -151 P 3.6 - 1 -152 P 5.2 - 1 -153 P - 2.3 1 -156 P - 2.3 1 -157 P 10.5 - 1 -158 P 5.3 1 -159 P 2.3 - 1 -160 P 2.2 - 1 -161 P - 1.6 1 -162 P 3.5 - 1 -163 P - 1.6 1 -164 P 6.5 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -3 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 97 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 Survey# Trip Type (P,C,D,S) n oun Assessable Trip " Length '- u oun Assessable Trip Length 1 -165 P 10.5 - 1 -167 P 10.5 - 1 -168 P - 2.2 1 -169 P 5.2 - 1 -170 P - 0.6 1 -171 P 13 - 1 -173 P 1.6 - 1 -175 P - 27 1 -176 P - 1.6 1 -177 P 2.7 - 1 -178 P 2.3 - 1 -180 P 5.2 - 1 -181 P - 1.6 1 -182 P - 2.3 1 -183 P 1.6 - 1 -184 P 3.3 - 1 -185 P - 0.6 1 -186 P - 1.6 1 -187 P 10.5 - 1 -188 P - 0.6 1 -189 P - 0.6 1 -190 P - 27 1 -191 P 2.6 - 1 -193 P - 27 1 -194 P - 10.5 1 -197 P - 10.5 1 -199 P - 33 1 -200 P - 2.7 1 -201 P - 2.6 1 -202 P - 2.2 1 -203 P - 0.6 1 -206 P - 3 1 -207 P - 1.6 1 -209 P 2.7 - 1 -210 P - 2.3 1 -211 P - 4 1 -213 P - 3.5 1 -214 P - 0.6 1 -216 P 4.6 1 -217 P - 3.2 1 -218 P - 2.7 1 -220 P - 4.6 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -4 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 98 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 yY, e Sbrve SIAM is ,d,5), syaN?+1 '11S ass b e 7 Lengt stt Assessable sl q 1 -221 P 10.5 1 -222 P 2.7 1 -223 P 3.8 1 -224 P - 3.2 1 -225 P 2 1 -226 P - 3.7 1 -227 P - 0.6 1 -230 P - 3.6 1 -232 P - 3.5 1 -233 P - 2.6 1 -234 P - 21 1 -236 P - 0.6 1 -237 P - 3.9 1 -238 P 0.1 - 1 -239 P 1.6 1 -241 P 4.5 1 -243 P 6.5 1 -244 P - 3.1 1 -245 P 0.6 - 1 -246 P - 3.1 1 -247 P - 0.6 1 -248 P 5.2 - 1 -251 P - 2.6 1 -252 P 0.6 - 1 -253 P 0.7 - 1 -254 P 1.5 - 1 -255 P - 0.1 1 -256 P 2.6 1 -258 P 2.6 1 -259 P 1.6 - 1 -261 P 1.7 - 1 -262 P 4.6 1 -263 P - 0.1 1 -264 P - 2.2 1 -266 P - 2.6 1 -267 P - 0.6 1 -268 P 2.6 - 1 -270 P 2.6 - 1 -271 P 2.6 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -5 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 99 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 qs ' a urve f l,. y rn ''I &u�D,5Y noun s sss le _ �,. Deng u oun P sse abl Trip 1 -273 P 3.5 1 -274 P 1.6 - 1 -275 P - 0.1 1 -276 P - 0.6 1 -277 P 2.7 - 1 -278 P - 0.6 1 -281 P - 3.5 1 -283 P - 3.5 1 -286 P - 10.5 1 -287 P 10.5 - 1 -288 P - 4.5 1 -289 P - 1.6 1 -290 P 3.5 1 -293 P - 3.8 1 -294 P - 4.1 1 -297 P - 2 1 -299 P 10.5 1 -300 P - 2.6 1 -301 P - 0.1 1 -302 P 2.7 - 1 -303 P 2.7 - 1 -304 P - 3.3 1 -305 P - 3.7 1 -306 P - 2.6 1 -307 P - 2.7 1 -308 P - 1.7 1 -310 P - 0.1 1 -311 P 1.3 - 1 -313 P - 0.1 1 -314 P - 10.5 1 -315 P - 2.6 1 -316 P - 3.3 1 -317 P - 3.2 1 -318 P 0.6 - 1 -319 P 2.6 - 1 -320 P 0.1 1 -321 P 10.5 - 1 -322 P - 0.1 1 -323 P - 0.1 1 -324 P - 01 1 -325 P 0.1 - 1 -326 P 0.1 - 1 -330 P 3.9 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -6 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 100 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 'Burreng' ON, Tr p ' noun : > "a A.M. et7"Ip 11 f , a+°un 7lssessee Trp { 1 -332 P - 0.6 1 -334 P 0.6 1 -335 P 0.6 1 -337 P 12 - 1 -340 P 10.5 1 -341 P 2.3 - 1 -345 P 5.4 1 -346 P - 2.3 1 -347 P - 0.6 1 -348 P 1.4 - 1 -349 P - 10.5 1 -350 P - 1 1 -351 P 5.4 - 1 -352 P 1.6 1 -353 P 0.6 - 1 -354 P - 1.5 1 -355 P 1.9 1 -356 P 10.5 - 1 -357 P 10.5 1 -358 P 1.6 - 1 -359 P 2.3 1 -360 P - 10.5 1 -361 P - 1.5 1 -363 P - 10.5 1 -365 P 10.5 - 1 -366 P - 2.2 1 -367 P 1 1 -368 P 16 - 1 -369 P 2.2 - 1 -370 P 1 - 1 -371 P 3.9 - 1 -372 P - 1.3 1 -373 P 0.6 - 1 -374 P 2 1 -375 P 17 1 -376 P 0.6 1 -377 P 10.5 - 1 -378 P 1.7 - 1 -379 P 0.6 - 1 -380 P - 3.3 1 -381 P 1.5 1 -382 P - 0.9 1 -383 P - 1.8 1 -384 P 3.9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -7 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 101 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 1� 54 Survey #, „,f„ � TrIp,T pe (P,Cp,Sj o n pss�ssab1 T s f�iength� „ ' e tboun F Assesp,W6,1rlp,. rim Length r,� 1 -332 P - 0.6 1 -334 P - 0.6 1 -335 P 0.6 - 1 -386 P 10.5 - 1 -387 P - 3.3 1 -388 P - 0.4 1 -389 P - 10.5 1 -391 P - 01 1 -392 P - 2.3 1 -394 P 0.1 - 1 -395 P 0.1 - 1 -396 P 2.7 1 -398 P - 2.6 1 -402 P 2.6 - 1 -403 P - 3.9 1-405 P 10.5 - 1 -407 P 10.5 - 1 -408 P - 10.5 1-409 P 3.2 - 1 -410 P 2.7 - 1-411 P - 0.9 1 -413 P 01 - 1 -414 P 2.6 - 1 -415 P 2.6 - 1 -417 P 10.5 - 1 -419 P - 1.8 1 -421 P 1.3 - 1 -422 P 10.5 1 -423 P 3.3 - 1 -424 P 1.2 - 1 -426 P - 10.5 1 -427 P - 1.3 1 -428 P - 0.8 1 -429 P - 0.6 1 -430 P 10.5 1 -432 P - 1.6 1-433 P 10.5 - 1 -434 P 2.1 - Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -8 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 102 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 Survey # Trip Type (P,C,D,S) Inbound, , Assessable Trip ' 1" Length!, # Assessable Trip (; Length r 1-435 P 1.5 - 1 -437 P 0.1 - 1 -439 P 5.2 1 -440 P 10.5 - 1 -441 P 0.6 - 1 -442 P 0.1 - 1 -444 P 1.1 - 1 -448 P 0.6 - 1 -451 P - 1.2 1 -453 P 0.6 - 1 -455 P 2 1 -457 P - 10.5 1 -458 P - 2 1 -459 P 2.6 1 -460 P - 2 1 -461 P 1.3 1 -462 P - 0.1 1 -463 P 0.1 - 1 -464 P 0.1 - 1 -465 P 3.2 - 1 -466 P - 2.6 1 -468 P - 10.5 1 -469 P - 2 1 -470 P 4.6 1 -471 P - 2 1-472 P 2.7 1 -473 P - 3.2 1 -474 P 2.6 - 1 -475 P 3.5 - 1 -476 P 0.1 - 1 -477 P - 0.1 1 -478 P 0.1 - 1 -479 P 0.1 - 1 -480 P - 1 1 -481 P 0.1 - 1 -482 P - 0.1 1 -483 P 0.1 - 1 -484 P 0.1 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -9 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 103 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 1 u ,r$UNB *74., Trl Type _+ noun sessabla Trip x�ion�Q Ylasessable Trlp�. 1 -485 P 5.4 1 -486 P 5.1 1 -487 P 2.2 1 -488 P - 2.3 1 -492 P 0.9 - 1 -493 P 1.6 - 1 -494 P 0.5 - 1 -496 P 2 1 -498 P - 4 1 -499 P 2.3 - 1 -501 P - 3.1 1 -502 P 3.7 - 1 -503 P - 3.3 1 -504 P 2.8 - 1 -506 P - 2 1 -507 P 4 1 -508 P - 0.1 1 -509 P 01 - 1 -510 P 2 - 1 -511 P - 3.6 1 -512 P 5.8 - 1 -513 P 3.3 - 1 -515 P 10.5 - 1 -516 P 1 - 1 -517 P - 1.4 1 -518 P 1.5 - 1 -519 P 1.6 - 1 -521 P - 0.6 1 -522 P - 0.4 1 -524 P - 1.6 1 -525 P - 0.1 1 -526 P 0.1 1 -527 P - 0.6 1 -529 P - 0.9 1 -533 P - 1.5 1 -538 P - 3.3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -10 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 104 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 k "p Re> noun �„ 9essab a 7l n abound Assessable r�p .` n. 1 -539 P 0.1 1 -540 P 3.3 1 -541 P - 3.2 1 -542 P 0.1 1 -544 P - 4.5 1 -545 P 1 - 1 -546 P 0.1 - 1 -548 P - 2.2 1 -549 P 2.4 1 -550 P 13 1 -551 P - 16 1 -552 P 0.1 1 -555 P - 3.3 1 -561 P - 5.2 1 -563 P - 0.1 1 -565 P - 0.6 1 -567 P 2 - 1 -568 P 2 1 -571 P - 1 1 -572 P 1.5 - 1 -574 P - 0.6 1 -576 P - 0.1 1 -578 P - 0.6 1 -579 P 1.3 1 -587 P 1.5 1 -588 P - 0.1 1 -592 P - 2.4 1 -594 P 0.8 - 1 -595 P 1.4 - 1 -596 P - 5.1 1 -598 P 13 1 -599 P - 0.6 1 -602 P 2 1 -603 P 2.1 - 1 -604 P 0.6 - 1 -605 P 0.6 - 1 -606 P - 0.9 1 -607 P 0. 1 1 -608 P 10.5 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -11 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 105 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 1 Survey# Trip Type (P,C,D,S) ----Vn6o-und .Assessable Trip " Gength Outbound Assessable Trip Length 1 -608 P 10.5 - 1 -609 P - 1 1 -610 P 3.3 - 1 -611 P 0.1 - 1 -612 P 0.4 - 1 -613 P - 0.6 1 -614 P - 1.6 1 -615 P 1.5 - 1 -616 P - 1.3 1 -617 P 1.5 - 1 -618 P 1.5 - 1 -619 P - 1.6 1 -620 P 10.5 1 -621 P 0.1 - 1 -623 P - 0.8 1 -624 P 3.8 - 1 -625 P - 0.6 1 -626 P 0.1 - 1 -629 P - 1.5 1 -631 P 1.1 1 -632 P 0.1 - 1 -633 P 27 - 1 -635 P - 2.5 1 -636 P - 1.4 1 -637 P - 1.7 1 -638 P 1.5 - 1 -640 P - 1.7 1 -641 P - 0.6 1 -644 P 2.1 - 1 -645 P - 1.5 1 -646 P 0.7 - 1 -647 P 10.5 - 1 -652 P - 0.9 1 -654 P - 1.5 1 -655 P - 1.6 1 -656 P 1.6 1 -657 P - 1.5 1-658 P 0.2 - 1 -659 P 1.5 1 -660 P Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -12 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 106 of 187 Table A -1 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 1 W. Trip Length Summary: $e §sabTefT11 . Average 3.05 Standard Deviation 2.90 Average + 3a 11.75 Average - 3a 0.00 Coefficient of Variation 0.951 Count of Assessable Trip Ends 503 Trip TVDe Summary: v� 'c5. 'q.5t w 4 ii ` 0 l- := •:Trip hype' z of Total- ? Primary Trips 503 100% Diverted Trips 0 00 Secondary Trips 0 0% Captured Trips 0 0% Total Surveys: 503 % New Trips of Total Surveys: 100% Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -13 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 107 of 187 Table A -2 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 2 Survey # Trlp Type (P,C,D,S) Inbound, Assessable Trip Length '' Outbound. Assessable Trip:. Length " 2 -1 P - 7.3 2 -2 P - 13.9 2 -3 P - 193 2-4 P - 7.8 2 -5 P - 7.8 2 -6 P - 16.1 2 -7 P - 18.9 2 -8 P - 7.8 2 -9 P 8.6 2 -10 P 0.4 - 2 -11 P - 13.7 2 -14 P - 17.5 2 -15 P - 21.3 2 -16 P - 18.9 2 -17 P - 18.4 2 -18 P 15.7 2 -19 P 10.5 - 2 -20 P - 5.7 2 -21 P - 5.7 2 -22 P 19.2 - 2 -23 P 7.8 - 2 -24 P - 13.7 2 -25 P - 16.8 2 -26 P - 10.7 2 -27 P - 12.7 2 -28 P - 16 2 -29 P - 4.8 2 -32 P - 18.9 2 -33 P - 10.6 2 -34 P - 2.5 2 -35 P - 137 2 -36 P 4.8 - 2 -37 P 213 2 -38 P - 2.6 2 -39 P 2.5 2-40 P 21.3 - 2 -43 P - 21.3 2 -44 P 12.7 2 -45 P 5.2 - 2 -46 P 6.9 2 -47 P 141 - 2 -48 P - 10.5 2 -49 P - 15.7 2 -50 P - 12.3 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -14 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 108 of 187 Table A-2 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 2 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A-15 SF Trip Characteristics Study rtbounj essaile ATT U OU n thpu& 2-51 P - 7.8 2-52 p - 7.8 2-53 p - 7.3 2-54 P - 2.5 2-55 P - 14.1 2-56 P 2.5 - 2 -57 P - 11.3 2-58 P - 12.7 2-60 P 5.3 - 2 -61 P 21.3 - 2 -63 P - 11.7 2-64 P 15.7 2-65 P - 21.3 2-66 P 14.1 - 2-67 P 2.5 2-68 P 17.7 - 2 -69 P - 3.2 2-70 P - 11.5 2-71 P 11.7 - 2 -72 P 4.8 2-73 P 16.6 - 2-74 P - 12.2 2-76 P - 1.3 2-77 P - 0.2 2-78 P - 8.1 2-79 P 3.1 - 2 -80 P 19.3 2-81 p 1.3 - 2 -82 P - 21.3 2-83 P 11.5 - 2 -84 P 21.3 - 2 -85 P - 0.8 2-86 P 2.5 - 2 -87 P 3.9 - 2 -88 p - 0.6 2-89 P 3.9 - 2 -90 P 1.3 2-91 P 3.6 - 2 -92 P - 21.3 2-93 P 18.2 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A-15 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 109 of 187 Table A -2 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 2 ~rVOY - T .. a S R;c D,S ' noun se '� ip a en9 u ou ro Assessable T� Lang ,. K 2 -94 P - 10.1 2 -95 P 111 - 2 -96 P - 12.2 2 -97 P 11.5 - 2 -98 P 8.6 - 2 -99 P 3.6 - 2 -100 P 21.3 - 2 -101 P - 7.2 2 -102 P 20.7 2 -103 P 7.8 - 2 -104 P 11.7 2 -105 P 18.4 - 2 -106 P - 10.6 2 -107 P - 17.5 2 -108 P 9.1 - 2 -109 P - 16.2 2 -110 P 1.3 - 2 -111 P - 11.6 2 -112 P - 15.8 2 -113 P 15.7 - 2 -114 P 18.4 - 2 -115 P - 15.7 2 -116 P 8.6 - 2 -117 P 15.8 - 2 -118 P 11.5 - 2 -119 P - 1293 2 -120 P 16.7 - 2 -121 P - 1.8 2 -122 P - 16.2 2 -123 P - 7.8 2 -124 P - 0.3 2 -127 P 11.8 2 -128 P 21.3 - 2 -129 P - 17.4 2 -130 P - 2.5 2 -131 P - 20.8 2 -132 P - 4.8 2 -133 P 4.8 - 2 -134 P 2 -135 P 3.6 - 2 -136 P - 19.8 2 -138 P - 21.3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -16 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 110 of 187 Table A-2 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 2 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A-17 SF Trip Characteristics Study Inb stun assa Oun Sea D1 W 2-139 P - 4.8 2-140 P 213 - 2 -141 P - 10.6 2-142 P 9.6 2-143 P - 4.8 2-144 P 2.5 - 2 -148 P - 107 2-149 p - 2.5 2-150 p 5 - 2 -151 P - 2.5 2-153 P 14.6 2-154 P - 21,3 2-155 P 11.5 - 2 -156 P 7.3 - 2-157 P - 2.5 2-158 P - 4.3 2-160 P - 10.3 2-161 In - 10.6 2-163 P - 122 2-165 P 1.3 - 2-166 P - 10.7 2-170 P 2.5 - 2 -171 P 6.8 - 2 -172 P 139 - 2 -173 P 13,6 - 2 -174 P 4.5 - 2 -175 P - 21.3 2-176 ID 13.9 - 2 -177 P 2.5 2-178 p 20.5 - 2 -179 P - 8.6 2-180 ID 4.6 2-182 P - 2.5 2-183 D 2.5 - Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A-17 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 111 of 187 Table A -2 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 2 } {P e "bog u oun ir "�kssessa le Truku@Y eng 2 -184 P 17.5 2 -185 P 2.5 2 -186 P - 1.3 2 -187 P - 2.5 2 -188 P 8.7 - 2 -189 P 4.1 - 2 -190 P - 18 2 -191 P 2.5 2 -192 P 12.2 2 -193 P 13.7 2 -194 P - 2.5 2 -195 P 1.3 - 2 -196 P 11.9 - 2 -197 P 8.6 - 2 -198 P - 21.3 2 -202 P 21.3 2 -203 P 7.8 - 2 -204 P 5.7 - 2 -205 P 21.3 2 -206 P 153 - 2 -207 P - 18.4 2 -208 P 4.6 2 -209 P - 21.3 2 -210 P 7.8 2 -211 P - 7.8 2 -212 P - 19.2 2 -213 P - 19.2 2 -214 P - 21.3 2 -215 P - 13.3 2 -216 P - 21.3 2 -217 P 7.8 2 -218 P - 18.2 2 -219 P - 15.7 2 -220 P - 5.7 2 -221 P 12.7 - 2 -222 P - 12.8 2 -223 P - 12.7 2 -224 P - 14.3 2 -225 P 18.4 2 -226 P 11.5 2 -227 P - 11.5 2 -228 P - 20.4 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -18 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 112 of 187 Table A -2 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 2 Survey #.' Trip Type (P;C,D,S) n pun Assessable Trip "' Long tri, u o Assessable Trip ' Length' 2 -229 P - 18.4 2 -232 P - 21.3 2 -233 P 4.8 2 -234 P 4.6 2 -235 P - 12.7 2 -236 P 14.5 2 -237 P 13.7 2 -238 P 10.6 - 2 -239 P 73 2 -240 P 2.5 2 -241 P 12.7 2 -242 P - 2.5 2 -243 P - 2.5 2 -244 P - 4.4 2 -246 P - 162 2 -247 P 2.5 - 2 -249 P 12.7 2 -250 P - 13.7 2 -252 P 21.3 - 2 -253 P - 14.8 2 -255 P 9.6 - 2 -256 P 16.2 - 2 -257 P 17 - 2 -258 P 19.1 2 -259 P - 8.6 2 -261 P - 17 2 -262 P - 11.5 2 -263 P - 19 2 -264 P 151 - 2 -266 P - 21.3 2 -267 P 12.7 2 -268 P 2.5 - 2 -269 P - 41 2 -270 P 14.8 - 2 -271 P 2 2 -272 P 2.5 - 2 -273 P - 2.5 2 -274 P 11.7 I - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -19 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 113 of 187 Table A -2 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 2 gutve9ri� .� ..� =-=%� ,.Asse'ssabl en seessabe Triprr Deng �'' 2 -275 P 18.7 2 -276 P 4.6 2 -277 P 14.6 - 2 -278 P - 12.7 2 -279 P - 17.9 2 -280 P 13 - 2 -282 P - 4.8 2 -283 P - 21.3 2 -284 P 9.6 - 2 -285 P - 2.5 2 -286 P 18.2 - 2 -287 P - 12.6 2 -288 P - 4.8 2 -289 P 4.6 - 2 -290 P 15.8 - 2 -291 P 19.3 - 2 -292 P - 11.5 2 -293 P 21.3 - 2 -294 P 12.6 - 2 -295 P 18.2 - 2 -296 P - 8.6 2 -297 P 12.7 - 2 -298 P 13.2 - 2 -299 P - 15.8 2 -301 P - 17.4 2 -302 P - 14 2 -303 P 13.7 - 2 -304 P 2.5 - 2 -305 P 4.8 2 -308 P - 2.5 2 -309 P - 21.3 2 -310 P - 14 2 -311 P - 4.8 2 -312 P 4.8 - 2 -314 P 12.7 2 -315 P 21.3 2 -316 P 16 - 2 -319 P - 8.6 2 -320 P - 13.7 2 -321 P - 13,3 2 -323 P - 2.5 2 -324 P 2.5 2 -326 P 8.6 - 2 -327 P - 2.5 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -20 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 114 of 187 Table A -2 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 2 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -21 SF Trip Characteristics Study h U Y1. oun 2 -331 P - 2.5 2 -332 P 8.6 - 2 -333 P 14.4 - 2 -334 P 21.3 2 -339 P 12.7 - 2 -341 P - 11.7 2 -342 P 19.4 - 2 -344 P - 14.5 2 -345 P - 2.5 2 -348 P - 4.8 2 -354 P 2.5 - 2 -356 P 10.1 - 2 -357 P 2.5 2 -358 P - 20.5 2 -364 P - 21.3 2 -365 P 2.5 - 2 -366 P 2.5 - 2 -367 P 2.5 - 2 -368 P 9 - 2 -369 P 4.6 - 2 -370 P - 2.5 2 -371 P 17.1 2 -372 P 21.3 - 2 -373 P 11.7 - 2 -374 P 13.7 - 2 -375 P 13.7 - 2 -376 P 19.3 - 2 -377 P 15.8 - 2 -378 P 11.7 - 2 -379 P 2.5 - Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -21 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 115 of 187 THD Length Summary: Trip TVDe Summary: Trt TvS Average 10.98 Standard Deviation 6.46 Average + 3a 30.37 Average - 3a 0.00 Coefficient of Variation 0.589 Count of Assessable Trip Ends 314 Trip TVDe Summary: Trt TvS . r„ Count F " t of Totaa ,, Primary Trips 314 100% Diverted Trips 0 0% Secondary Trips 0 0% Captured Trips 0 0% Total Surve s: 314 - % New Trips of Total Surveys: 100% Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -22 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 116 of 187 Table A -3 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 ¢ 4 ,9 - ) y V .rig `r rt oUn sessab ' . "ell u oun ssa x �i "8nf� 3 -1 P - 20.2 3 -2 P 17.3 3 -3 P - 11.6 3 -4 P - 1.6 3 -6 P - 18.2 3 -8 P - 14 3 -11 P - 20.2 3 -12 P - 14.6 3 -13 P - 12.4 3 -15 P 19.2 3 -17 P 18.5 3 -19 P 14 3 -20 P - 13.9 3 -22 P - 5.9 3 -23 P - 14.9 3 -24 P - 7.7 3 -25 P - 14.1 3 -26 P 3.9 3 -27 P 8.2 3 -28 P 17.4 3 -29 P - 17.8 3 -30 P 5.5 3 -31 P 7.4 3 -33 P 0.4 3 -34 P - 6.5 3 -38 P 7.4 3 -39 P - 15.2 3 -41 P 7.9 - 3-43 P - 113 3 -45 P - 11 3-46 P 5.9 3-49 P 14.9 3 -50 P - 5.9 3 -52 P - 10 3 -53 P - 14 3 -55 P 4.5 - 3 -57 P - 13.5 3 -60 P - 15.6 3 -62 P - 13.8 3 -63 P 1 12.4 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -23 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 117 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 Survey #" Trip, Type (P,C,D,S) Inbound Assessable Trip ` Length "' Outboun,d Assessable Trip' Length ' 3 -64 P 13.7 - 3 -67 P 20.2 3 -68 P 5.6 - 3 -69 P - 5.9 3 -70 P - 20.2 3 -71 P 5.5 3 -72 P - 8.9 3 -73 P 13.6 - 3 -74 P 14.1 - 3 -75 P - 5.6 3 -76 P 5.6 - 3 -77 P - 6.2 3 -78 P - 14.1 3 -79 P 11.2 - 3 -81 P 14.2 - 3 -82 P 10.6 - 3 -83 P 12.6 - 3 -84 P - 10 3 -85 P - 151 3 -86 P - 14.6 3 -87 P 10 3 -88 P 20.2 3 -89 P - 20.2 3 -91 P - 20.2 3 -93 P 18.4 - 3 -94 P 11.5 - 3 -96 P 18.2 - 3 -97 P 10.2 - 3 -98 P 5.5 3 -99 P - 10 3 -100 P - 5.8 3-102 P - 18.4 3 -103 P - 14.6 3 -105 P 5.5 3 -106 P 20.2 3 -108 P 74 3 -113 P - 14.1 3 -114 P - 14.4 3 -115 P 14.3 3 -116 P - 5.6 3 -118 P 5.6 - 3 -119 P 20.2 - 3 -121 P - 13 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -24 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 118 of 187 Table A-3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 VINY W NK Inbound, ' ' Bess n in OLrtbo d Bassani 3-122 P - 12,6 3-123 P 15.1 - 3-124 P 17.4 - 3 -125 P - 7.4 3-126 P 13.1 3-127 P - 14.9 3-132 p 7.3 - 3-134 P - 0.9 3-136 P - 18.5 3-137 P 14.1 - 3-138 P 5.6 - 3-139 P 20.2 - 3 -140 P 5,5 - 3 -141 P 20.2 - 3 -143 P 2.9 - 3 -145 P 6.5 - 3 -146 P 15,8 - 3-147 P 17.5 - 3 -148 P - 14.1 3-149 P 18.8 - 3 -150 P - 41 3-151 P 14.9 - 3 -155 D - 11.7 3-156 P - 13.8 3-160 P 14.2 - 3 -162 P 14.2 3-163 P 5.6 - 3 -165 P - 20.2 3-167 P 14 - 3 -174 P - 14.9 3-175 P - 13.1 3-182 p 14.8 - 3-184 P - 18.9 3-186 P 19.2 - 3 -187 P 18.4 3-190 P 9 - 3 -191 P - 20.2 3-1 22 P 121 5_ _i93 P 17.5 3-195 P 5.6 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A-25 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 119 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 L 8�`.,. MAI fig, _� a.; rS 4 aessabfe , is "�� eases a �iPa: 'B�t -s, .e.• 3-196 P 5.9 3 -198 P 13.2 3 -199 P - 5.6 3 -200 P - 5.9 3 -202 P - 19.4 3 -203 P 3.9 3 -205 P 10 3 -206 P - 10 3 -207 P 20.2 3 -210 P - 14.2 3-212 P - 2.6 3 -214 P 17.8 3-215 P - 16.4 3 -216 P 14.4 3 -218 P 19.7 - 3 -219 P - 13.6 3 -220 P 20.2 3 -221 P - 2.6 3 -223 P 1 3 -224 P - 12.4 3-225 P - 14 3 -227 P - 2.9 3 -228 P 20.2 - 3 -229 P 16.1 3 -231 P 15.5 3 -235 P 17.2 - 3 -236 P 5.5 - 3-237 P - 5.6 3-239 P 20.2 - 3 -240 P 5.6 - 3 -241 P - 10 3 -242 P 5.5 - 3 -244 P 5.6 - 3 -245 P 14.2 - 3 -248 P 11.8 - 3 -251 P - 18.5 3 -252 P 3.9 - 3 -253 P 1 20.2 - 3 -254 P 1 11.2 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -26 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 120 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -27 SF Trip Characteristics Study sn scab n u sas ; 3 -255 P 9.2 3 -258 P 13.7 3 -259 P 5.6 - 3 -260 P 20.2 - 3 -261 P - 13.8 3 -264 P 5.6 - 3-265 P 5.5 3 -266 P 9 - 3-267 P 12.6 - 3 -268 P 7.2 3 -269 P 5.6 3 -270 P 5.6 - 3 -272 P 15 3 -273 P 7.3 3 -275 P 8 - 3 -276 P 5.5 - 3 -277 P 18.2 - 3 -278 P 10 - 3 -280 P - 5.5 3 -282 P 10 - 3 -286 P 13.1 3 -287 P 14.1 - 3 -290 P 13.7 - 3 -291 P 15.6 3 -292 P 5.6 - 3 -293 P 5.6 - 3 -294 P 14.2 - 3 -295 P 5.6 - 3 -297 P 10 - 3 -298 P - 20.2 3 -300 P 2.6 - 3 -301 P 5.6 - 3 -302 P 13.1 - 3 -304 P 9 - 3 -305 P 5.6 - 3 -307 P 5.6 - 3 -308 P 5.6 - 3-311 P 13.2 - 3 -312 P - 8.9 3 -313 P - 6.8 3 -315 P 8.6 - 3 -317 P 14.1 - 3 -324 P 2.6 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -27 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 121 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -28 SF Trip Characteristics Study vs 4y4Ia! , r d o 898 .1. '` :;r "J en u ou sessa rip erlg 3-327 P 5.6 - 3 -328 P 5.6 - 3 -329 P 15.7 - 3 -330 P 18 - 3 -331 P 18.8 - 3 -332 P - 10.7 3 -335 P 14 3-338 P 8 - 3 -340 P 20.2 3 -342 P 5.6 - 3 -343 P 13.7 - 3 -345 P 10 3 -346 P 7.9 - 3 -351 P 13.5 - 3-352 P 5.6 3 -353 P 14 3 -355 P 19 3 -356 P 13.5 - 3 -361 P - 8 3 -362 P 11.7 - 3 -363 P 10 - 3 -364 P 10.1 3 -366 P 5.6 3 -367 P 13.1 3 -368 P 5.6 - 3 -371 P 5.5 - 3 -372 P - 11.2 3 -373 P - 10.1 3-374 P - 5.5 3 -376 P 10.3 - 3 -377 P 5.6 - 3 -379 P 10 - 3 -380 P 14.2 - 3 -381 P 0.8 - 3 -384 P 20.2 - 3 -385 P 5.6 - 3 -386 P 11.7 - 3 -388 P 20.2 3 -390 P 2.6 - 3 -391 P 13.1 3 -392 P - 5.9 3 -393 P 5.6 - Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -28 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 122 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 ` Suwe� # ''�• Trip Type (P1C,D,S)'� n oun 4ssessable Trip Length ur oun . Assessabl9, rip �',;x Length. 3-394 P 12.4 3 -395 P 20.2 - 3 -397 P 191 - 3-400 P 14 - 3 -401 P 17.3 - 3 -402 P 14 - 3 -405 P 5.5 3 -407 P 14.9 - 3 -408 P 6.5 - 3 -409 P - 20.2 3 -410 P 6.4 - 3 -414 P 5.6 - 3 -417 P 5.6 - 3 -420 P 8.9 3 -426 P 13.7 - 3-427 P - 14.4 3-428 P - 12.6 3 -430 P - 14 3-431 P - 13.8 3 -435 P 5.5 3 -438 P 5.6 3 -439 P - 8.8 3 -441 P - 5.5 3 -442 P 14.2 - 3 -443 P - 141 3 -444 P - 0.2 3 -445 P 18.4 3 -446 P 10 3 -447 P - 14.4 3 -448 P - 17.3 3 -449 P - 18.5 3 -45C P - 19 3 -454 P 10.6 - 3 -455 P - 15.2 3 -457 P 5.5 3 -458 P 5.6 - 3 -459 P - 18.5 3 -4461 60 P - 5.5 3 - P - 20.2 3 -462 P - 12.9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -29 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 123 of 187 Table A-3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 3 survey ".. W In oun %gut - b.0 ow?, .QS;T'O ilo On 06; 3-463 P 11.7 3-464 P 13.5 3-465 p 19.7 3-466 P 13.8 3-468 P - 12.4 3-469 P - 15 3-470 P - 18.5 3-473 P - 13.6 3-474 P - 144 3-475 P - 20.2 3-476 P 5.5 - 3-479 P - 14 3-480 P - 12.9 3-481 P - 10 3-482 P - 119 3-483 P - 14.1 3-484 P - 5,6 3-486 P - 11.7 3-487 P - 5.9 3-488 P - 20.2 3-489 P 11.7 - 3-490 P - 13.6 3-491 P - 183 3-492 P - 5.5 3-493 P - 5,5 3-494 P - 13.5 3-495 p - 10 3-497 P - 15.6 3-498 P - 141 3-499 P - 5.5 3-501 P 13,8 - 3 -502 P - 10 3-503 P - 20.2 3-504 P - 17.2 3-505 ID - 10 3-506 P - 5.5 3-507 p - 12.9 3-509 ID - 10.6 3-510 P - 20.2 3-511 P 5.6 - 3 -512 P - 5.5 3-513 P 5.6 - 3 -515 P - 17.5 Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A-30 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 124 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 dri ' ISM" . Type ,(F° , ,, n o n = Assessa I�fir ,,.. erl t �, moun mss; * sessa e7rip .....18.3. . 3- 516.. P 3 -518 P - 8.9 3 -519 P 8.2 3 -521 P - 5.5 3 -522 P - 5.5 3 -524 P 5.5 3 -525 P - 5.6 3 -526 P 5.6 3 -527 P - 5.6 3 -528 P 5.6 3 -529 P - 5.6 3 -530 P - 5.6 3 -531 P 13.8 3 -532 P 5.6 3 -533 P 3.9 3 -534 P - 5.6 3 -535 P 5.5 3 -536 P - 13.5 3 -537 P - 3.9 3-538 P 5.6 3 -539 P - 5.6 3 -541 P - 11.7 3 -542 P - 5.6 3 -543 P - 5.6 3 -545 P - 5.6 3 -546 P - 15.8 3 -547 P - 14.8 3 -548 P 5.6 3 -549 P 5.5 3 -550 P 5.6 3-551 P - 5.6 3 -552 P - 5.6 3 -553 P - 20.2 3 -554 P 13.6 3-555 P 3.9 3 -556 P - 5.6 3 -557 P 14.6 3 -558 P - 5.6 3 -559 P - 13.6 3 -560 1 P 10 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -31 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 125 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 Survey# Trlp Type (P,C,D,S) inbound Assessable Trip Length - -- u oun Assessable Trip - Length 3 -561 P 5.5 - 3-562 P 5.6 3 -563 P - 5.6 3 -564 P - 5.5 3 -565 P 5.5 - 3 -567 P - 11.1 3 -568 P 20.2 3 -569 P - 5.6 3 -570 P - 14.1 3 -571 P - 20.2 3 -572 P - 20.2 3 -573 P - 20.2 3 -574 P 20.2 3 -575 P 5.6 3 -576 P 20.2 - 3 -577 P - 5.6 3 -579 P - 5.6 3 -580 P - 5.6 3 -581 P - 20.2 3 -582 P 6.2 3 -583 P - 20.2 3 -584 P - 5.6 3 -585 P - 19.5 3 -586 P 10 - 3 -587 P - 12.4 3 -588 P 10.1 3 -589 P 10 3 -591 P - 20.2 3 -593 P - 17.3 3 -594 P - 20.2 3 -595 P - 12.9 3 -605 -1 P 14.4 - 3 -611 -1 P 13.7 - 3 -609 -2 P 14.4 3 -610 -2 P 14.6 - 3 -611 -2 P 5.6 3 -613 P 6.9 - 3 -615 P 14.3 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -32 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 126 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -33 SF Trip Characteristics Study e; - Y LF s u n o n som - oan ., W. esss� t. - ,_. 3 -618. P 20.2 3 -619 P 5.5 - 3 -620 P 20.2 - 3 -621 P 8.8 - 3 -622 P 8.8 3 -624 P 20.2 - 3 -625 P 14.2 - 3 -626 P 2.6 - 3 -627 P 20.2 - 3 -628 P 16 - 3 -629 P - 17.5 3 -632 P 2.6 - 3 -634 P 20.2 - 3 -635 P 13.7 - 3 -636 P 13.9 - 3 -637 P 2.6 - 3 -638 P 5.5 - 3-639 P 2.6 - 3-640 P 20.2 - 3 -641 P 11.1 - 3 -642 P 5.5 - 3 -643 P 5.5 - 3 -649 P 14.2 - 3 -650 P 5.5 - 3 -652 P 11.7 - 3 -653 P 5.5 - 3 -654 P 5.5 - 3-655 P 5.5 - 3 -666 P 9 - 3-667 P 14.1 - 3-668 P 5.5 - 3 -670 P 14.1 - 3 -672 P 16.4 - 3 -673 P 14.2 - 3 -674 P 13.8 - 3 -675 P 5.5 - 3 -676 P 5.5 3 -677 P 5.5 - 3 -678 P 13.6 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -33 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 127 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 3 Survey# Trip, Type (?,c,D,S) inbound Assessable Trip "" L'sngtFi' '`I u oun Assessable Trlp Length ' 3 -679 P 14.1 - 3 -680 P 5.5 3 -681 P 5.5 - 3-682 P 0.6 - 3 -683 P 5.5 - 3 -685 P 14.1 - 3 -686 P 16 - 3 -688 P 20.2 - 3 -689 P 14.1 - 3 -690 P 5.5 - 3 -691 P 5.5 - 3 -692 P 13.7 - 3 -693 P 12.1 - 3 -694 P 14.2 3 -697 P 14.1 - 3 -699 P 17.5 - 3 -702 P 5.5 3 -703 P 5.5 - 3 -704 P - 5.6 3 -705 P 7.7 - 3 -706 P 10 - 3 -707 P 5.5 - 3 -708 P 13.8 - 3 -715 P 20.2 - 3 -716 P 14.1 - 3 -717 P 13.7 - 3 -718 P 5.5 - 3 -719 P 14.1 - 3 -720 P 5.5 - 3 -721 P 5.5 - 3 -722 P 14.1 - 3 -723 P T6 - 3 -724 P 12.9 - 3 -728 P 12.9 - 3 -729 P 14.1 - 3 -732 P 13.7 - 3 -734 P 2.6 - 3 -735 P 14.7 - 3 -736 P 15.6 - 3 -738 P 20.2 - 3 -740 P 18 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -34 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 128 of 187 Table A -3 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 3 . ar ° - x a urvaT - �3� n 4un • - #. sessa 1 .2 .l - Ong 4 oun sessa a Tr7 °' ngt 3 -741 P 2.6 3 -744 P 8.7 - 3 -745 P 15.5 - 3 -746 P 11.7 3 -747 P 5.5 - 3 -749 P 5.5 - 3 -751 P - 14.1 3 -753 P 13.8 3 -757 P 17.5 - 3 -758 P - 7.4 3 -760 P - 14.1 3 -761 P - 14.4 3 -762 P 17.3 3 -764 P - 5.5 3 -765 P - 5.6 3 -766 P 5.6 3 -767 P - 13.8 3 -768 P 135 - 3 -773 P 14.1 - 3 -777 P - 13.7 3 -780 P 5.6 3 -761 P - 5.6 3 -785 P 18.6 - 3 -787 P I - 20.2 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -35 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. IOC January 13, 2009 Page 129 of 187 Trip Length Summary: Trip Tvpe Summary: TrI .T 0', Cnunt� Average 11.29 Standard Deviation 5.41 Average + 3a 27.51 Average - 3a 0.00 Coefficient of Variation 0.479 Count of Assessable Trip Ends 512 Trip Tvpe Summary: TrI .T 0', Cnunt� - % of Totals Prima Trips 512 100% Diverted Trips 0 0% Secondary Trips 0 0% Captured Trips 0 0% Total SuD2 s: 512 % New Trips of Total Surveys: 100% Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -36 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 130 of 187 Table A-4 Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 i W Ablate 1' W 5 -,j Tr X �4 nboUndt. sbssab1I St1 n -D tboun Beast I T 4-1 P - 0.8 4-2 P 7.7 - 4 -4 P - 14.9 4-6 P - 9.6 4-7 P - 8.9 4-8 P - 6.2 4-9 P - 10.9 4-10 P - 6.2 4-11 P 14.9 - 4 -12 P 7.3 - 4 -13 P - 5.3 4-14 P - 9.5 4-15 P - 7.3 4-16 P - 12.3 4-17 P - 14.9 4-18 P - 12.9 4-19 P - 8,9 4-20 P - 5 4-21 P - 11.9 4-23 P - 12 4-25 P - 3.9 4-26 P - 5.1 4-27 P - 6.9 4-28 P - 9.7 4-29 P - 6.7 4-30 P - 7.1 4-31 P - 3.4 4-32 P - 4 4-33 P - 0.3 4-34 P - 4.1 4-35 p - 2.8 4-36 P - 3.1 4-38 P - 1.2 4-39 P - 2.6 4-40 p - 2.6 4-42 P - 8.9 4-43 P - 4.3 4 ! 17 4 45 T,, Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A-37 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 131 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 ;., Survey# ou ., u Wound r1 ,' a , s ngt 4 -46 P - 9.1 4 -47 P 6.6 4 -48 P - 0.3 4 -50 P - 8.8 4 -51 P - 0.3 4 -52 P 10.2 4 -53 P 0.3 4 -55 P 1.6 - 4 -56 P - 14.9 4 -57 P - 5.6 4 -58 P - 51 4 -59 P - 13.4 4 -60 P 14.9 4 -63 P - 14.3 4 -64 P - 1.9 4 -65 P - 14.9 4 -66 P - 2.4 4 -67 P - 1,9 4 -68 P - 3.9 4 -69 P - 8 4 -70 P - 14.3 4 -71 P - 14.9 4 -73 P - 6.2 4 -74 P - 3.1 4 -76 P - 76 4 -77 P - 9.3 4 -78 P - 14.9 4 -79 P - 81 4 -80 P - 6.6 4 -81 P - 14.9 4 -82 P - 4.9 4 -83 P - 0.3 4 -84 P 43 - 4 -85 P - 1.9 4 -86 P - 7.6 4 -88 P - 14.9 4 -89 P 5.1 4 -90 1 P - 14.9 4 -91 1 P 3.1 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -38 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 132 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey #' - Trip Type (0;C,D,5) n oun Assessable Trip 1` Length -1 Outbound Assessable Trip';, �, T' 1 Length " 4 -92 P - 1.4 4 -94 P 2 - 4 -95 P 2 - 4 -96 P - 7.1 4 -98 P - 6.6 4 -99 P 2 4 -100 P 8.1 - 4-102 P - 8.2 4 -103 P - 3.1 4 -104 P - 5.1 4 -105 P - 10 4 -106 P 5.8 - 4 -107 P 14.9 4-108 P - 6.6 4 -109 P - 14.9 4 -110 P - 7.1 4 -111 P 6.2 - 4 -112 P 2.6 - 4 -113 P - 8.6 4 -114 P 7.7 - 4 -115 P 7.6 4 -116 P - 0.3 4 -117 P 93 4 -118 P - 0.3 4 -119 P - 7.6 4 -122 P - 3.1 4 -123 P - 7.6 4 -124 P 13.5 4 -126 P 5.1 4 -128 P - 10.7 4 -129 P - 14.9 4 -130 P 10.5 - 4 -131 P - 13.7 4 -132 P - 9.2 4 -133 P - 14.9 4 -135 P - 1.9 4 -136 P 3.1 4 -137 P - 13.7 4 -138 P - 11.6 4 -139 P 4 -140 P 3.4 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -39 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 133 of 187 Table A-4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 d4} r'y'k's' �r SurVdeY# ?.� a T� 1P,�� , noun r img"k44RW'afs sessable Tilp oun �L. Assessable rip >, 4 -142 P - 0.3 4-143 P - 5.1 4 -145 P - 13 4 -147 P - 7.6 4 -149 P - 0.3 4 -150 P 0.3 - 4 -151 P 0.8 - 4 -152 P - 14.5 4 -153 P - 0.3 4 -154 P - 8 4 -155 P - 1.3 4 -156 P - 2.1 4 -157 P 13.7 4 -158 P 2 4 -159 P - 7.3 4 -160 P - 2 4-161 P - 13.4 4 -162 P - 1.9 4-163 P 11 - 4 -165 P - 0.3 4 -166 P - 14.9 4 -167 P 12 4 -168 P - 14.9 4 -169 P - 1.9 4 -171 P - 12.8 4 -173 P - 6.2 4 -174 P 8.9 - 4 -175 P 3.1 4 -176 P 0.3 4 -177 P 7.3 - 4 -178 P 3,1 - 4 -179 P - 31 4 -180 P - 12.2 4 -181 P - 67 4 -182 P - 3.6 4 -183 P - 6.6 4 -184 P 1.4 4 -185 P - 5.1 4 -186 P - 14.9 4 -187 P 0.3 4 -189 P - 9.7 4 -190 P 17 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -40 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 134 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 ;e AMW n our sessa a °Tr p engt -DUtboUnd 8 ab e p y in g 4 -191 P 1.4 4 -192 P - 14.9 4 -193 P - 1.9 4 -194 P - 2.4 4 -195 P - 14.9 4 -196 P 1.7 4 -197 P - 8.2 4 -198 P - 1.4 4 -199 P - 03 4 -200 P 8.7 - 4 -201 P 3.5 4 -202 P - 7.3 4 -203 P 71 4 -204 P 3.1 - 4 -205 P 1.3 - 4 -206 P 6.7 - 4 -207 P 4.5 - 4 -208 P 5 - 4 -209 P 6.9 - 4 -210 P 2.1 - 4 -212 P 14.9 - 4 -213 P 13.2 - 4 -214 P 14.9 4 -215 P 12.3 - 4 -216 P - 2 4 -217 P 4.5 - 4 -218 P 4.6 - 4 -219 P 5 - 4 -221 P 1.4 4-222 P 14.9 - 4 -223 P - 3.1 4 -225 P - 1.9 4 -226 P 3.9 - 4-227 P - 1.9 4 -228 P 1.7 4 -230 P 14.9 4 -231 P - 3.1 4 -232 P - 5.1 4 -233 P 4 -234 P - 14.9 4 -235 P - 3.1 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -41 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 135 of 187 Table A-4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 x, r �Ip e; n oun ,• sessab �rl u oun �sse ble 7 `• ert9 P 0.3 P - 0.3 P - 6.8 P - 7.6 P - 1.7 4 -241 P 1.1 - 4 -242 P 7.7 4 -243 P 3.9 - 4 -244 P 14.9 - 4 -245 P 1.4 - 4 -246 P 21 - 4 -247 P - 2 4 -248 P - 1.7 4 -249 P 17 4 -250 P 4.9 4 -251 P 3.1 - 4 -252 P - 31 4 -253 P - 1.4 4 -254 P - 1.9 4 -255 P 14.9 - 4 -259 P 3,1 - 4 -260 P - 2 4 -261 P - 0.3 4 -262 P - 6.2 4 -263 P - 14.9 4 -264 P - 14.9 4 -265 P - 7 4 -266 P - 1.9 4 -267 P - 0.3 4 -268 P - 03 4 -269 P - 9.5 4 -270 P 0.3 - 4 -271 P - 6.8 4 -272 P 2 4 -274 P - 13.1 4 -275 P 14.9 4 -277 P 1.4 4 -278 P 4.4 - 4 -279 P 1.1 - 4 -280 P 14.6 - 4 -281 P 1.1 - 4 -282 P 2 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -42 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 136 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Su Sy', F r1 oun ss b e a ti 4�9 b ,ti .eng u oun T/4ssess�ble ri 4 -283 P 10.5 - 4 -284 P 14.9 - 4-285 P 14.9 - 4-286 P 14.9 - 4-287 P 6.2 - 4-288 P - 5.4 4 -289 P - 1.4 4-290 P 14.9 - 4 -292 P 12.7 4-293 P 2.1 - 4 -294 P 14.9 - 4 -295 P - 1.7 4 -296 P 14.9 4 -297 P 6.8 4 -298 P - 1,9 4 -299 P 3.1 - 4 -300 P - 12.4 4 -301 P 12 - 4 -302 P 8.9 - 4-303 P 14.9 - 4 -304 P 10.2 4 -305 P 7.1 4 -306 P - 12.4 4 -307 P - 2.1 4 -309 P - 5 4-310 P - 10.1 4 -312 P - 11.7 4 -313 P - 1.9 4 -314 P 14.9 4 -315 P 2.1 - 4 -316 P 12 4 -317 P 14.9 - 4 -318 P 7.9 4 -319 P - 5 4 -320 P - 2 4 -321 P - 7.3 4 -322 P - 1.4 4-324 P 14.9 - 4 -325 P - 8.3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -43 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 137 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 survey # Trip Type (P,G,D,S) noun Assessable Trip : Length'' Outbound `Assessable Trip Length:" 4 -326 P - 8.4 4 -327 P - 14.9 4 -328 P 11.5 - 4 -329 P - 14.9 4 -330 P - 1.4 4 -331 P 17 4 -333 P - 14.9 4 -334 P - 14.9 4 -335 P - 6.8 4 -336 P 9.2 - 4 -337 P - 6.6 4 -338 P - 9.3 4 -339 P - 14.9 4 -340 P - 7.4 4 -341 P 9.1 4 -343 P - 1.3 4 -344 P - 1.9 4 -345 P 14.9 - 4 -346 P 5.1 - 4 -347 P 118 - 4 -348 P 0.8 - 4 -349 P 7.2 - 4 -350 P - 7.1 4 -351 P 1,3 - 4 -352 P 14 4 -353 P - 5.1 4 -354 P 7.6 - 4 -354 P - 5.1 4 -355 P 2.5 4 -356 P - 9.3 4 -357 P 1.3 - 4 -358 P - 9.3 4 -359 P - 5.2 4 -361 P 3.1 - 4 -363 P - 6.6 4 -364 P - 12.6 4 -365 P 1.3 4 -366 P - 31 4 -367 P 1.3 - 4 -368 P 14.1 - 4 -369 P - 1.3 4 -370 P - 2.2 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -44 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 138 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 urvey. s 57 ' _.i �5 `... =fi n s 4s ssae T' 1 '¢ ?, �n9 h u oun a sessa a rtpE,r n9 -I 4 -371 P 8.7 - 4-372 P 1.3 - 4 -373 P 2 4 -374 P - 14.9 4 -375 P 1.7 - 4 -376 P 14.9 - 4-377 P 13 - 4 -378 P 12.3 - 4 -379 P - 2 4 -380 P 2.2 4 -381 P 1.3 4 -382 P 7.7 - 4 -383 P 14.9 4 -384 P 0.9 4-385 P - 6.6 4 -386 P 8.2 4 -387 P - 0.7 4 -388 P - 7.6 4 -389 P - 14 4 -390 P 7.7 - 4 -391 P 1.9 4 -392 P - 6.5 4 -393 P - 11.9 4 -394 P 5.8 - 4 -395 P 14.9 - 4 -396 P - 12.8 4 -397 P - 8 4 -398 P 1.1 - 4 -399 P 9.7 - 4 -401 P 3.1 - 4 -402 P - 1.9 4 -403 P - 6.7 4 -404 P - 8.2 4 -405 P - 14.9 4 -406 P 14 4 -407 P 14.9 - 4 -408 P - 1.4 4-409 P - 12.8 4 -410 P - 14.9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -45 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 139 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Tindale- Oliver & Associates. Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -46 SF Trip Characteristics Study I t`; Sunay# y�,� r4Di�i+ ou :%1$BeSSe 1 7 ena Wa ,. u putt , +��=8658 e . 'rertg 4-411 P 6.6 4 -412 P 12.7 - 4 -413 P 14.3 - 4-414 P 1.7 - 4 -415 P 14.9 - 4 -416 P - 31 4-417 P 1.4 4 -418 P - 7.6 4 -419 P 5.1 - 4 -420 P 6.2 - 4 -421 P - 71 4-422 P - 9.4 4 -423 P - 14.9 4 -424 P 1.9 4 -425 P 14.9 - 4 -426 P 2 4 -427 P 8.9 - 4 -428 P - 1.4 4 -429 P - 7.6 4-430 P - 3.1 4 -431 P - 2 4 -432 P 8 4 -433 P - 2 4 -434 P 5.8 - 4 -435 P 9.7 - 4 -436 P - 1.4 4 -438 P - 7.7 4 -440 P - 14.9 4 -441 P - 8.1 4 -442 P - 6.7 4 -443 P - 0.3 4 -444 P - 7.7 4 -445 P 1.1 - 4 -446 P 11.4 - 4 -447 P 6.2 4-448 P 4.8 4 -451 P - 13.4 4 -452 P 9.1 4 -453 P - 0.3 4 -455 P - 10.1 4 -456 P 1 0.3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates. Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -46 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 140 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 ,, 1- , $urV9Y � r Tlww } T."11 on sBSSab W oun. aessa le �,; 4 -457 P 10.8 4 -458 P 31 4 -459 P - 13.1 4 -460 P 3.1 4-461 P - 7.1 4-462 P - 7.8 4-463 P - 14.9 4 -464 P - 6.3 4 -465 P - 2.9 4 -467 P - 5.1 4 -470 P - 7.6 4 -471 P - 6.2 4 -472 P - 0.3 4-473 P 9.1 4-474 P 21 - 4-475 P 13.4 - 4-476 P - 2.1 4 -477 P 1.9 4-478 P - 1.4 4 -479 P 12.8 4 -480 P - 10.6 4 -481 P 6.6 - 4 -483 P 14.9 4 -484 P 5 - 4 -485 P - 14.4 4 -486 P - 9.1 4 -487 P - 1.4 4 -488 P - 1.9 4 -489 P 3.1 4-490 P - 6.4 4 -492 P - 7.6 4 -493 P - 51 4 -494 P - 1.9 4 -495 P - 13.1 4 -496 P 3.1 4-497 P - 1.4 4 -498 P - 5.1 4-499 P - 9.6 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -47 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 141 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -48 SF Trip Characteristics Study sl n ound, sessa6 se al • mg: 4 -501 P 2 - 4 -502 P - 3.1 4 -503 P - 13.5 4 -504 P 11.4 - 4 -505 P 2 - 4-506 P - 5.5 4 -507 P 7.6 4 -508 P - 7.6 4 -509 P 3.4 - 4 -510 P 0.3 - 4 -511 P - 4.3 4 -512 P 3.8 - 4 -513 P - 8.9 4 -514 P 8.9 4 -515 P 2.1 - 4 -516 P 0.3 - 4 -517 P - 6.6 4 -518 P - 1.3 4 -519 P - 0.3 4 -520 P 7.6 4 -521 P 1.7 4 -522 P - 14.9 4 -523 P - 14.9 4 -524 P - 12.3 4 -525 P - 0.3 4 -526 P - 03 4 -527 P - 0.3 4 -528 P - 14.9 4 -529 P 0.8 4 -530 P 92 - 4 -531 P - 4 4 -532 P 5 - 4 -533 P 1.3 - 4 -534 P 1.3 - 4 -535 P - 14.9 4 -536 P - 5.1 4 -537 P - 13.2 4-538 P - 5.1 4 -539 P - 0.3 4 -540 P - 3.1 4 -541 P - 3.1 4 -542 P 13.2 4 -543 P - 5.6 4 -544 P - 14.9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -48 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 142 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey# Trip Ty pe (P C,D,S) Inbound,.-. Asse ssable Tr T''Length ' `.`" Outbound Assessable Trip' Length' - "' . 4 -545 P - 3.1 4 -546 P 0.3 - 4-548 P - 5 4 -549 P - 9.3 4 -551 P - 2.4 4 -552 P 3.8 4 -553 P - 1.7 4 -554 P - 1.9 4 -556 P - 14.9 4 -557 P 3.1 - 4 -558 P - 14.9 4 -559 P 0.3 - 4 -560 P 2.8 4-562 P - 5 4 -563 P 9.3 4 -564 P - 1.9 4 -565 P 14.9 - 4 -566 P - 1.7 4 -567 P - 8.9 4 -569 P - 14.9 4 -570 P - 9.3 4 -571 P - 5.1 4 -572 P - 0.3 4 -573 P - 5.3 4 -574 P 1.3 - 4 -575 P - 7.6 4 -576 P - 3.1 4 -577 P - 14.3 4 -578 P 2 4 -579 P - 2.8 4 -581 P - 13.4 4 -582 P 18 - 4 -583 P - 1.7 4 -585 P - 9.3 4 -586 P - 1.3 4 -587 P 7.2 - 4 -589 P - 1.9 4 -590 P 4 -592 P 8 4 -593 P 5 4 -595 P 1 0.7 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A-49 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 143 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 a 4 s„su Oy #, -n �' jP ±-�D;3 n oun i . SOS �Ongt u oun SB850 8 cif 'Ong 4 -596 P 1.4 4 -597 P - 1.4 4 -598 P - 5 4 -599 P - 7.8 4 -601 P - 1.9 4 -603 P - 0.7 4 -604 P 7.6 4 -605 P - 31 4 -606 P - 5 4 -608 P - 0.3 4 -609 P - 14.9 4 -610 P - 0.3 4 -611 P - 7.6 4 -612 P 0.3 4 -613 P 0.7 - 4 -614 P - 1.7 4 -616 P - 3.9 4 -617 P 14.9 - 4 -618 P - 1.9 4 -619 P - 0.3 4 -620 P 2 - 4 -621 P - 0.8 4 -622 P - 6.8 4 -623 P - 03 4 -625 P - 10.6 4 -626 P - 10.2 4 -627 P 4.8 4 -628 P - 1.9 4 -629 P - 9.8 4 -631 P 9.2 - 4 -632 P 6.5 - 4 -634 P - 1.9 4 -635 P 1.3 - 4 -636 P 3.1 - 4 -638 P 2.8 - 4 -639 P - 4.1 4 -640 P 11 - 4641 P 6.5 - 4 -642 P 1.1 - 4 -644 P 4-645 P 77 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates. Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -50 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No, 10C January 13, 2009 Page 144 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -51 SF Trip Characteristics Study n oun 4_ ; 968 ble, ;r U oun ng-9 4 -646 P - 8.9 4 -647 P - 14.9 4 -648 P 14.9 4-649 P 14.9 - 4 -650 P 1.1 - 4 -651 P 9.7 - 4 -652 P 0.7 4 -653 P - 51 4 -654 P - 14.9 4 -655 P 14 - 4 -656 P 4 - 4 -657 P - 6.6 4 -658 P 0.7 4 -659 P - 17 4 -660 P 1.9 4 -661 P - 14.9 4 -662 P - 1.9 4 -663 P - 0.8 4 -665 P - 1.3 4 -666 P 71 4 -667 P 12.3 - 4 -668 P - 1.7 4 -669 P 9.2 - 4 -671 P - 101 4 -672 P 132 4 -673 P 2 - 4 -674 P 6.6 - 4 -675 P - 3 4 -676 P 7.6 4 -677 P - 1.3 4 -678 P - 1.9 4 -679 P 1.3 4 -680 P - 14.9 4 -681 P - 4.7 4 -682 P 11.8 4 -683 P 5 - 4 -685 P - 5 4 -686 P - 3.2 4 -687 P 3.1 4 -688 P - 7 4 -689 P 14.2 4 -690 P - 7.6 4 -691 P - 7.6 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -51 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 145 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 7f F _. ` Survey,'# i lea M ." -..- n oun i sas§a " engt ° �: u oun e AS a 3r1 eng 4-692 P - 5.8 4-693 P 5 - 4 -694 P - 17 4 -695 P 14.2 - 4-696 P 3.1 - 4 -697 P 12.7 4 -698 P 2 - 4 -699 P 5 - 4 -700 P 0.3 - 4 -701 P 0.3 - 4 -702 P 0.3 - 4 -703 P 14.9 - 4 -704 P - 9.3 4 -705 P - 51 4 -706 P 12.7 - 4 -707 P 7.7 - 4 -708 P 0.7 - 4 -709 P 5 4 -710 P 3.1 - 4 -711 P 1.7 4 -712 P - 5.1 4 -715 P - 5.8 4 -717 P - 1.9 4 -718 P 7.7 - 4 -719 P 1.1 - 4 -720 P 7.7 - 4 -722 P 31 - 4 -723 P - 1.9 4 -724 P 6.6 - 4 -725 P 1.7 - 4 -726 P 1.7 - 4 -727 P 14 - 4 -728 P - 14.9 4 -729 P - 1.3 4 -731 P - 1.9 4 -732 P - 1.3 4 -733 P 14.9 - 4 -734 P - 1.3 4 -735 P - 5.8 4 -736 P - 1.9 4 -737 P - 1.9 4 -738 P 0.9 - 4 -739 P 7.5 - 4 -740 P 14 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -52 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 146 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 a Survey # Trip Type (PG,D,S) Inbound Assessable Trip Length`, '' utbound, _ Assessable Trip -; Length' 4 -741 P - 1.9 4 -742 P 07 4 -744 P 12 - 4 -745 P - 5.1 4-746 P - 1.3 4 -747 P 3.1 4 -748 P 8.9 4 -749 P - 1.9 4 -752 P 7 - 4 -753 P 2 - 4 -754 P 8.9 - 4-755 P 2 - 4 -756 P 9.8 - 4 -757 P 2 - 4 -758 P 1.7 - 4 -759 P 21 - 4 -760 P 12.7 - 4 -761 P 7.7 - 4 -762 P 9.7 - 4 -763 P 2 - 4-764 P - 9.1 4 -766 P 5 - 4 -767 P - 3.1 4 -770 P - 5 4 -771 P - 8.9 4-772 P - 14.9 4 -773 P 8.7 - 4-774 P 6.9 - 4 -775 P 14.9 4-776 P 14.9 - 4 -777 P 12 - 4 -778 P - 9.3 4 -779 P - 1.9 4 -780 P 7.5 - 4 -782 P 7.2 - 4 -783 P 5 - 4 -784 P 11.4 - 4 -785 P 2 4-788 P 0,7 - 4 -789 P 2 4 -790 1 P 14.9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -53 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 147 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 ' Survey Trip Type (P,C,D,S) Inbound-, As Trip " Length u oun Assessable Trip L'edgth",, 4 -791 P - 5.1 4 -792 P 77 - 4 -793 P 6.5 - 4 -794 P 3 - 4-796 P 8.3 - 4 -797 P 6.1 - 4-798 P 14.9 - 4 -799 P 3 - 4 -800 P 2 - 4 -801 P 1.7 - 4 -802 P 8.9 - 4 -803 P 5.8 - 4 -804 P 14.9 4 -806 P 5.8 - 4 -807 P 7.2 - 4 -808 P 7.7 - 4 -809 P 7.7 - 4 -810 P 11,6 - 4 -811 P 2 - 4 -812 P 5.8 - 4 -813 P 1.7 - 4 -814 P 5 - 4 -815 P 9.2 - 4 -816 P 5 - 4 -817 P 6.7 - 4 -818 P 17 - 4 -819 P 9.2 - 4 -820 P 6.7 4 -821 P 2.1 - 4 -821 P 8 - 4 -822 P 31 - 4 -823 P 5.8 - 4 -824 P - 3.1 4 -825 P 11 - 4 -826 P 1.1 - 4 -827 P 1.1 - 4 -828 P 1.1 - 4 -830 P 14.6 - 4 -832 P 0.9 - 4 -833 P 6.7 - 4 -834 P 12 - 4 -835 P 0.9 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -54 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 148 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey #, : Trlp Type (P;G,D,3) lnbound, , . Assessablq Trip "' L'engtti '-;; Outbound , Assessable.Trlp;- Length' "': -, !` 4 -837 P 14.9 - 4 -838 P 7.3 - 4 -839 P 14.9 4 -842 P 7.4 - 4 -843 P 12 - 4 -845 P - 6.5 4 -846 P 8.6 4 -847 P 14.9 - 4-849 P 3.1 - 4 -852 P 8.6 - 4 -853 P 14,9 - 4 -854 P 31 - 4 -855 P 3 4 -856 P 6.2 - 4 -857 P 7.3 - 4 -859 P 1.7 - 4 -860 P 4.8 - 4-862 P 14.9 - 4 -863 P 11.9 - 4 -864 P 3.1 - 4 -868 P 3.1 4 -869 P 8.9 - 4 -870 P 1.2 - 4 -871 P 3.9 - 4 -872 P 0.3 - 4 -874 P - 0.3 4 -875 P 2.3 - 4 -877 P - 2.4 4 -880 P 3.9 - 4 -881 P 11.9 - 4 -882 P - 0.3 4 -863 P 4 4 -884 P - 6.3 4 -885 P 7.3 - 4 -886 P 3.1 - 4 -887 P 2.5 - 4 -888 P - 8.9 4 -889 P 6.7 - 4 -891 P 14.9 - 4 -892 P 10.6 - 4 -893 P 8 -6 - 4 -894 P 1.1 - 4 -895 P 7.7 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -55 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 149 of 187 Table A-4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 . I I "I h��. survey # -` s ,;- yPa P „ „;� D,Sy ' ❑ oun P 3 a o�un i r, YlssessM r Pa Po9 4 -896 P 2.5 4 -897 P 14.4 - 4 -898 P 6.7 - 4 -899 P 10.5 - 4 -900 P 1.1 - 4 -901 P 3.9 - 4 -903 P 12.7 4 -904 P - 13.8 4 -905 P 7.9 4 -907 P - 1.9 4 -909 P - 0.3 4 -910 P 14.2 - 4 -911 P 1.7 - 4 -912 P 0.9 - 4 -916 P 4 -918 P 1,2 4 -919 P 14.6 :9.71 4 -920 P - 4 -921 P - 4 -922 P 6.7 4 -924 P 9.7 - 4-925 P 9.7 4 -926 P 7.2 - 4 -927 P 3.1 - 4 -928 P 14 - 4 -929 P 6.6 4 -931 P 7.3 - 4 -932 P 3.1 - 4 -933 P - 7.6 4 -934 P 6.4 - 4 -935 P - 14.9 4 -938 P - 7.3 4 -939 P - 14.9 4 -941 P - 2 4 -942 P 03 - 4 -944 P - 1.7 4 -945 P - 14.9 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -56 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 150 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Osu"NOT', Oil 1� �a n oun sessab7 `zri l " "' lqkn a oun sessa lei 4 -946 P 0.3 4 -947 P - 5.6 4 -948 P 3.1 - 4 -949 P 1.7 - 4 -450 P - 6.9 4 -951 P 4.1 4 -952 P 0.7 4 -953 P 1,8 - 4 -955 P 12.5 - 4 -956 P 11.5 - 4 -957 P 14.9 - 4 -958 P 7.1 - 4 -961 P 0.9 4 -963 P 9.8 - 4-964 P 3.1 4 -965 P 8.8 - 4-966 P 6.9 - 4 -967 P 6.5 - 4-968 P 31 - 4-969 P 5.8 4 -970 P 0.7 - 4 -971 P 3.3 - 4 -972 P 2 - 4 -976 P 13.3 - 4 -978 P - 14.9 4 -979 P - 6.6 4 -981 P - 5.8 4 -982 P 14.9 4 -983 P - 9.3 4 -984 P - 0.9 4 -985 P - 1.1 4 -987 P - 7.6 4 -988 P 14.9 - 4 -989 P - 1.9 4 -990 P 13.4 4 -992 P 3.1 - 4 -993 P - 0.9 4 -994 P - 9.3 4 -995 P - 1 0.3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -57 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 151 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 survey # ' Trip,, Type (P,C,D,S) Inbound Assessable Trip ' Length, ' Outbound Assessable Trip:, Length 4 -998 P - 31 4 -999 P 12.4 4 -1000 P - 6.3 4 -1003 P 11.5 4 -1004 P - 0.7 4 -1005 P - 9.3 4 -1006 P - 0.7 4 -1007 P - 13.4 4 -1008 P - 4.7 4 -1009 P - 7.6 4- 1010 -1 P 3 - 4- 1011 -1 P 1.7 - 4- 1012 -1 P - 0.7 4- 1013 -1 P - 1.7 4- 1014 -1 P - 9.7 4- 1015 -1 P 31 4- 1016 -1 P 0.7 4- 1017 -1 P 0.8 4- 1019 -1 P - 9.3 4- 1010 -2 P - 0.8 4- 1011 -2 P 3.1 - 4- 1012 -2 P - 14.2 4- 1013 -2 P - 7.6 4- 1014 -2 P - 5.4 4- 1015 -2 P - 0.8 4- 1016 -2 P - 0,8 4- 1017 -2 P 6.9 - 4- 1018 -2 P - 0.7 4- 1019 -2 P - 0.7 4 -1020 P 4 - 4 -1024 P 3 - 4 -1025 P - 0.7 4 -1027 P 14.9 - 4 -1030 P - 4.3 4 -1031 P - 1.7 4 -1032 P - 3.9 4 -1035 P - 61 4 -1036 P - 4.1 4 -1037 P 5.8 - 4 -1039 P 13.8 - 4 -1040 P - 14.9 4 -1042 P - 14.9 4 -1043 P Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -58 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 152 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey# '" TdpType (P,C,D,S) n oun Assessable7rip Length '` oun Assessable Trip Length" 4 -1044 P - 7.7 4 -1045 P - 5.1 4 -1047 P 2 4 -1048 P - 1.9 4 -1049 P - 2 4 -1050 P - 7.6 4 -1051 P - 7.6 4 -1052 P - 8.2 4 -1053 P - 8.9 4 -1060 P 6.2 4 -1061 P - 1.9 4 -1066 P - 6.4 4 -1067 P - 2.1 4 -1071 P 14.9 4 -1072 P - 2 4 -1073 P 9.8 4 -1074 P - 9.8 4 -1075 P - 9.7 4 -1076 P - 3.1 4 -1078 P - 3.9 4 -1079 P 1.7 4 -1080 P 4.8 - 4 -1083 P - 8.8 4 -1086 P 5 - 4 -1088 P - 7.6 4 -1089 P - 9.7 4 -1090 P - 11.8 4 -1091 P - 1.9 4 -1092 P 14.9 4 -1093 P - 19 4 -1094 P 3.1 - 4 -1095 P - 3.6 4 -1096 P - 3.1 4 -1097 P - 3.6 4 -1098 P 1.9 4 -1099 P 4.3 4 -1100 P - 5.8 4 -1101 P - 2.1 4 -1102 P - 7.6 4 -1103 P - 14.9 4 -1104 P - 0.9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -59 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 153 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey #' Trip; Type (P,C,D,S) inbound Assessable Trip " "!Length `" u oun Assessable Trip Length' 4 -1105 P - 1.9 4 -1106 P - 6.6 4 -1107 P - 4.8 4 -1108 P - 5.1 4 -1109 P 14.9 - 4 -1110 P 9.2 4 -1111 P - 9.7 4 -1112 P - 9.7 4 -1113 P - 14.9 4 -1114 P - 17 4 -1115 P - 14.9 4 -1116 P - 1.7 4 -1118 P 14.9 4 -1119 P - 21 4 -1120 P - 1.9 4 -1121 P - 6.6 4 -1122 P - 1.9 4 -1123 P - 4.8 4 -1124 P - 7.6 4 -1125 P - 14.9 4 -1127 P 13 4 -1128 P - 6.9 4 -1129 P - 12.7 4 -1130 P - 6.6 4 -1131 P 63 - 4 -1133 P - 97 4 -1134 P - 2.4 4 -1135 P - 3.1 4 -1137 P - 8.2 4 -1138 P - 2.1 4 -1139 P - 51 4 -1140 P 17 - 4 -1142 P 2 4 -1144 P - 7.6 4 -1145 P 14.9 - 4 -1146 P 10.1 - 4 -1148 P 14.9 - 4 -1149 P 1.7 - 4 -1150 P 2 - 4 -1152 - 4 -1153 1 P 1 67 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -60 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 154 of 187 Table A-4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 a H Sulvey# Trip Type (PC.IDS) n OUqd Assessable 7np Lert9th "': "_ u oun . Assessable TrJp.' Length';` 4 -1154 P - 1.9 4 -1155 P 1.9 4 -1156 P 2 - 4 -1157 P 12.2 4 -1159 P 2 - 4 -1160 P 7.7 4 -1161 P 3.9 - 4 -1163 P - 3.1 4 -1164 P - 12.4 4 -1165 P - 3.9 4 -1166 P - 8 4 -1170 P 9.7 - 4 -1171 P 5.8 - 4 -1173 P 2 4 -1175 P - 6.2 4 -1177 P - 1.9 4 -1178 P - 0.7 4 -1179 P - 3.1 4 -1180 P - 5 4 -1181 P - 2.8 4 -1182 P 4.3 - 4 -1183 P 2 4 -1187 P - 4.8 4 -1188 P - 5.1 4 -1189 P - 1.9 4 -1190 P - 14.5 4 -1192 P - 14.9 4 -1193 P 10.5 - 4 -1194 P 14 - 4 -1196 P - 1.9 4 -1197 P - 13.6 4 -1198 P 3.6 - 4 -1199 P - 14.9 4 -1200 P 11.6 - 4 -1201 P - 6.7 4 -1202 P - 2.8 4 -1204 P - 1.3 12 4 -07 P - 10.9 4 -1208 P 9.2 - 4 -1209 P 2 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -61 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 155 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey# Trip Type (PC,D,S) Inbound ., Assessable Trip - ' "" Length" u oun Assessable Trip. Length 4 -1211 P 6.7 - 4 -1212 P - 1.9 4 -1214 P - 8 4 -1216 P 2 - 4 -1219 P - 2.6 4 -1220 P 14.7 4 -1221 P - 1.9 4 -1222 P 14.9 4 -1223 P - 4.8 4 -1224 P - 8.9 4 -1225 P - 1.9 4 -1227 P - 14.4 4 -1228 P - 2.1 4 -1229 P 5 - 4 -1230 P - 6.6 4 -1231 P 2 - 4 -1232 P 14 - 4 -1233 P 1.1 - 4 -1234 P 6.8 - 4 -1235 P 9.7 - 4 -1237 P 6.7 - 4 -1238 P 13.7 - 4 -1239 P 14 - 4 -1242 P 3.1 - 4 -1243 P - 6.4 4 -1244 P - 9.7 4 -1246 P - 8.9 4 -1248 P 0.9 4 -1249 P 9.4 - 4 -1250 P 3.1 - 4 -1251 P - 6 4 -1252 P 14 - 4 -1253 P 7.7 - 4 -1254 P 14.8 - 4 -1255 P 14 4 -1256 P - 4.1 4 -1257 P 0.7 - 4 -1259 P 3.1 - 4 -1264 P Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -62 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 156 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey # - Trip Type (P,C;DSj 3r n oun Assessable Trip Lengthy" '?' u oun Assessable Tnp' �5 Length 4 -1266 P 14.7 - 4 -1267 P 2 4 -1268 P 8.9 - 4 -1269 P - 13.4 4 -1270 P 3.1 4 -1271 P 2 - 4 -1272 P 6.6 4 -1273 P 8.9 - 4 -1274 P - 13.4 4 -1275 P 14 - 4 -1276 P 8.9 - 4 -1278 P 14.9 4 -1279 P 3.1 - 4 -1281 P 14.9 - 4 -1282 P 6.5 4 -1283 P 3.1 4 -1284 P - 6.4 4 -1290 P - 7.6 4 -1291 P - 5.1 4 -1292 P 12 4 -1293 P - 13.5 4 -1294 P 1.1 - 4 -1295 P 2 - 4 -1296 P - 3.1 4 -1297 P - 1.1 4 -1299 P - 3.1 4 -1300 P - 10.9 4 -1301 P - 9.6 4 -1303 P 12.7 4 -1305 P 17 4 -1306 P 17 4 -1308 P - 5.1 4 -1310 P - 3.1 4 -1311 P - 1.7 4 -1312 P 6.6 4 -1313 P 3.1 - 4 -1314 P - 6.6 4 -1315 P - 4.7 4 -1316 P - 4.8 4 -1317 1 P - 31 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -63 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 157 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey'# Trlp Type jPC D Sj n oun Assessabls Trlp Length, " u oun Assessable Trip; Length 4 -1318 P - 8.9 4 -1319 P - 7.9 4 -1320 P - 6.6 4 -1321 P - 6.6 4 -1324 P - 7.6 4 -1325 P - 13.6 4 -1326 P - 7.3 4 -1327 P - 117 4 -1328 P - 7.6 4 -1330 P 1.7 - 4 -1331 P - 7.6 4 -1332 P - 5.1 4 -1336 P - 51 4 -1337 P - 31 4 -1338 P - 13.8 4 -1340 P - 5.8 4 -1341 P 9.2 - 4 -1342 P 14.9 - 4 -1343 P - 43 4 -1344 P - 31 4 -1345 P - 0.7 4 -1346 P 11 - 4 -1348 P - 14.9 4 -1349 P - 12.4 4 -1350 P - 0.3 4 -1351 P - 11.5 4 -1352 P 8 4 -1353 P - 5.8 4 -1355 P - 5.1 4 -1356 P 0.3 4 -1357 P - 3.1 4 -1358 P - 8.9 4 -1360 P 1.7 - 4 -1361 P - 0.3 4 -1362 P - 14.9 4 -1363 P - 5 4 -1364 P - 51 4 -1365 P - 123 4 -1366 P - 8.9 4 -1369 P - 5.1 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -64 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 158 of 187 Table A-4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 t "Surirey # "_ Trip; Type (P,C,D,S) lnbotm rAssessableTri,p L's ngth UtbOund jAAsessable Trip Leng h' 4 -1371 P 2.1 4 -1372 P 6.6 4 -1373 P - 13.4 4 -1375 P - 1.7 4 -1376 P 13.5 4 -1377 P 1.9 4 -1378 P - 7.4 4 -1379 P - 8.9 4 -1380 P - 9.3 4 -1382 P 12 - 4 -1383 P 2 4 -1385 P - 14.9 4 -1386 P 1.7 4 -1388 P 0.8 - 4 -1389 P - 1.9 4 -1390 P - 6.6 4 -1391 P 7.7 - 4 -1393 P 1 4 -1394 P 6.7 - 4 -1396 P 8 4 -1398 P 2 4 -1400 P 11.7 4 -1402 P 13.3 - 4 -1403 P 1.7 - 4 -1405 P - 7.6 4 -1406 P - 7.3 4 -1409 P - 1.7 4 -1411 P 14.9 4 -1412 P - 0.3 4 -1413 P 7 4 -1414 P 1 4 -1415 P 0.3 - 4 -1416 P - 31 4 -1417 P 1.7 - 4 -1418 P 3.1 - 4 -1419 P 3.1 4 -1420 P - 0.3 4 -1421 P - 4.3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -65 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 159 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey Trip Type (13, C, Inbound - Assessable Trip Length u oun Assessable ,Trip'. Length'" ''' 4 -1422 P - 3.9 4 -1423 P - 1.7 4 -1424 P - 31 4 -1425 P 3.9 - 4 -1426 P - 3.1 4 -1427 P - 1.9 4 -1429 P 4.8 - 4 -1431 P - 1.9 4 -1432 P - 1.9 4 -1433 P - 3.6 4 -1434 P - 7 4 -1435 P 9.7 - 4 -1437 P - 6.4 4 -1438 P - 14.3 4 -1439 P - 1.7 4 -1440 P - 0.3 4 -1442 P - 0.3 4 -1443 P - 1.9 4 -1444 P - 5 4 -1445 P - 51 4 -1446 P - 1.9 4 -1447 P - 6.6 4 -1448 P - 14.9 4 -1449 P - 4.8 4 -1450 P - 9.8 4 -1451 P - 10.1 4 -1452 P - 13.8 4 -1454 P 1.7 - 4 -1455 P 5 4 -1456 P 2 - 4 -1457 P 1.7 - 4 -1458 P 03 - 4 -1459 P - 6.8 4 -1460 P 5 - 4 -1463 P 6 - 4 -1465 P - 1.9 4 -1467 P - 1.7 4 -146 8 P 1.7 - 4 -1469 P 5 4 -1470 P - 127 4 -1473 P - 14.9 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -66 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 160 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Sury ey #�' Tnp Type (PC,D,S) n oun , Assessable Trlp " - "' Length Outbound Assessable Trip ; " i LengtH 4 -1474 P 14.9 4 -1475 P - 7.6 4 -1477 P 5.1 4 -1478 P - 14.3 4 -1480 P - 12.4 4 -1481 P 1.9 4 -1482 P - 0.8 4 -1483 P - 7.6 4 -1485 P 0.3 - 4 -1486 P - 1.9 4 -1487 P 3.1 4 -1488 P - 6.6 4 -1489 P 3.1 4 -1490 P - 9.3 4 -1491 P 5.8 4 -1492 P - 5.1 4 -1493 P - 03 4 -1494 P - 10.3 4 -1495 P - 0.9 4 -1496 P 14.9 4 -1497 P 14 4 -1498 P - 12.6 4 -1499 P 6.5 - 4 -1500 P 2 4 -1501 P 6.5 - 4 -1502 P 2.1 - 4 -1504 P - 0.3 4 -1505 P 1.7 - 4 -1506 P 4 - 4 -1507 P - 7,3 4 -1508 P 2 - 4 -1510 P 3.1 - 4 -1511 P 7.7 - 4 -1513 P 7.7 - 4 -1515 P 12.7 4 -1516 P - 6.6 4 -1517 P 1.7 - 4 -1518 P 9.1 - 4 -1519 P 2 4 -1522 P 5 4 -1523 P - 1.9 4 -1524 P Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -67 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 161 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey * Trip Type (P,C,D,S) inbound .Assessable Trip ii '' Length' "'' u oun Assessable Trip.' Length' 4 -1525 P 12.7 - 4 -1526 P 2 4 -1527 P 8.2 - 4 -1529 P 9.7 - 4 -1530 P 14.9 4 -1532 P 14 4 -1533 P 1.7 - 4 -1534 P - 1.9 4 -1535 P - 1.9 4 -1536 P 3.1 - 4 -1537 P - 11.8 4 -1538 P - 14.9 4 -1539 P - 31 4 -1540 P 1.9 4 -1541 P - 9 4 -1542 P 2 - 4 -1543 P 7.6 - 4 -1548 P - 8.9 4 -1549 P 3.1 - 4 -1550 P 6.7 - 4 -1551 P 14.9 - 4 -1552 P 14.9 - 4 -1553 P - 14.9 4 -1554 P - 1.9 4 -1555 P - 5 4 -1556 P - 14.9 4 -1559 P - 13.5 4 -1560 P - 5.8 4 -1561 P - 2 4 -1562 P 2.1 - 4 -1563 P - 14.9 4 -1564 P - 2 4 -1565 P 8.2 - 4 -1566 P - 2.2 4 -1568 P 2 - 4 -1569 P - 2 4 -1570 P 7.7 - 4 -1571 P - 1.9 4 -1572 P - 6.4 4 -1573 P - 6.6 4 -1574 P 5.7 4 -1575 P - 5.1 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -68 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 162 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -69 SF Trip Characteristics Study Trip; Type inbound;,-- Assessable Trip Length - -` Outbound Assessable TripS(P,D,S) :' LengtP g4-1580 7.9 P - 3.1 P 6.4 - P - 14.9 P - 14.9 4 -1583 P - 1.7 4 -1584 P 8.9 - 4 -1585 P 1.7 - 4 -1586 P 1.1 - 4 -1588 P 0.9 4 -1590 P 7.7 - 4 -1591 P 6.7 - 4 -1592 P 6.7 - 4 -1595 P - 21 4 -1597 P - 7.9 4 -1598 P - 6.6 4 -1599 P - 6.9 4 -1600 P 1.7 - 4 -1601 P 14.9 - 4 -1602 P 3.1 - 4 -1603 P - 1.7 4 -1605 P 14.9 4 -1608 P - 5.8 4 -1609 P - 1.7 4 -1610 P 31 - 4 -1611 P - 6.6 4 -1612 P 1.7 4 -1613 P 2 - 4 -1614 P 1.7 - 4 -1615 P 5 - 4 -1616 P 3 - 4 -1617 P 14 - 4 -1618 P 14.9 - 4 -1619 P 14.9 4 -1620 P 9.3 4 -1621 P 9.4 4 -1622 P 1.7 - 4 -1623 1 P - 73 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -69 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No, 10C January 13, 2009 Page 163 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey :# ' "° Trip Type (PC,D,S) Inbound ,Assessable Trip tengtFi oun Assessable Trip' Length:':` -'` 4 -1625 P - 5.1 4 -1626 P - 1.7 4 -1627 P - 1.9 4 -1628 P - 1.1 4 -1629 P - 1.7 4 -1630 P - 31 4 -1631 P - 6.8 4 -1635 P - 1.9 4 -1636 P 5 4 -1637 P - 6.4 4 -1638 P - 5.3 4 -1640 P - 1.7 4 -1641 P 9.7 - 4 -1642 P - 31 4 -1643 P 7 4 -1644 P - 1.9 4 -1645 P - 51 4 -1646 P - 14.9 4 -1647 P 6.5 - 4 -1648 P 1.7 - 4 -1649 P 12.2 - 4 -1650 P 5.6 4 -1651 P - 2 4 -1652 P 3.1 - 4 -1653 P 9.7 - 4- 1653 -1 P 2.6 - 4 -1654 P 14.9 - 4 -1655 P - 6.4 4 -1658 P - 1.9 4 -1659 P 2 4 -1660 P - 5.8 4 -1661 P - 1.9 4 -1662 P - 1.7 4 -1665 P - 92 4 -1666 P 6.8 4 -1667 P - 14.8 4 -1669 P 2 - 4 -1670 P 31 - 4 -1671 P - 1.9 4 -1672 P - 1.9 4 -1673 P 2 - 4 -1674 P - 1.7 4 -1675 P - 13.5 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -70 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 164 of 187 Table A-4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 it '` Survey #'` Trip Type �(P,C D,S) inbound inbOund Assessable Len9th..�� u oun Assessable Trip L eng th .� 4 -1676 P 5 4 -1677 P 5 4 -1678 P 6.9 - 4 -1679 P 5 - 4 -1680 P - 14.3 4 -1683 P 10.3 4 -1684 P 6.4 4 -1685 P - 5.1 4 -1686 P - 1.9 4 -1687 P - 13.4 4 -1688 P 13.4 4 -1689 P - 6.9 4 -1690 P 1.7 4 -1691 P - 1.7 4 -1692 P 4.8 4 -1693 P - 13.4 4 -1694 P 8.9 - 4 -1696 P 14 - 4 -1697 P 4.9 - 4 -1698 P 14.9 4 -1699 P 5.6 - 4 -1700 P 9.7 - 4 -1701 P 1.1 - 4 -1702 P - 13.4 4 -1703 P - 8.9 4 -1704 P 14.4 - 4 -1705 P 6.9 - 4 -1706 P 2 4 -1707 P 0.9 4 -1709 P - 9.3 4 -1710 P - 0.9 4 -1711 P - 0.9 4 -1712 P 12 4 -1713 P - 8.8 4 -1714 P - 3.2 4 -1715 P 9.3 4 -1716 P 14.6 - 4 -1717 P 5.8 - 4 -1722 P - 5.8 4 -1723 P 13,8 - 4 -1724 P - 14.9 4 -1725 P 14.9 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -71 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 165 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 s. Survey# Trip Type.. (FiC.13.S) Inbound, Assessable Trip tengtfi '' u oun Assessable Trip Length" 4 -1727 P - 12.9 4 -1728 P 5.6 - 4 -1729 P - 3.2 4 -1730 P 14.9 4 -1733 P - 7 4 -1734 P 5.3 4 -1735 P - 192 4 -1736 P - 7 4 -1737 P - 0.7 4 -1738 P - 13.6 4 -1740 P 1.2 - 4 -1741 P 14 - 4 -1743 P 14.9 4 -1745 P - 0.9 4 -1746 P 14.9 4 -1747 P - 6.5 4 -1749 P - 31 4 -1751 P 598 - 4 -1752 P 8.1 - 4 -1753 P 7.6 - 4 -1754 P 4.1 - 4 -1755 P 1.2 - 4 -1756 P - 9.4 4 -1757 P - 0.7 4 -1758 P - 1096 4 -1759 P - 61 4 -1760 P - 13.2 4 -1761 P - 1.3 4 -1762 P - 14.9 4 -1763 P - 097 4 -1764 P - 7.6 4 -1765 P - 3.1 4 -1769 P - 14.9 4 -1770 P - 1.9 4 -1771 P 14.1 - 4 -1772 P - 8.8 4 -1773 P - 5.8 4 -1777 P - 1.1 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -72 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 166 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 ` survey Trip" (P,G,D,S) n oun 4ssessableTrp +'t "1 LeR9th Outbound,, ,- Assessable7rip F L`e "ngth 4 -1778 P - 10.6 4 -1779 P 14.9 4 -1780 P - 7.8 4 -1781 P - 3.1 4 -1782 P - 5.1 4 -1783 P 5.2 4 -1784 P - 5.1 4 -1785 P 6.5 4 -1787 P 17 - 4 -1788 P 9.5 - 4 -1789 P 14.9 - 4 -1790 P 10.5 - 4 -1791 P 5 4 -1792 P 4.1 - 4 -1794 P - 14.6 4 -1795 P - 14.9 4 -1796 P 14.9 - 4 -1797 P 5 - 4 -1798 P 11.7 - 4 -1799 P 4.9 4 -1800 P 2 - 4 -1801 P 7 4 -1802 P - 4 4 -1803 P - 51 4 -1804 P - 8.9 4 -1805 P 5 - 4 -1806 P 8.5 - 4 -1807 P - 14.9 4 -1808 P 3.1 4 -1809 P - 14.9 4 -1811 P - 14.3 4 -1812 P - 6.6 4 -1813 P - 52 4 -1814 P - 5.2 4 -1815 P - 5.2 4 -1816 P 4.9 - 4 -1817 P 7.5 - 4 -1818 P - 1.9 4 -1819 P - 12.1 4 -1821 P - 12 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -73 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 167 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey Trip Type (P,C,D,S) n oun Assessable Trfp !m Length ` e u our, Assessable Trip Larigth 4 -1822 P - 4.3 4 -1823 P - 3.1 4 -1824 P - 14.9 4 -1825 P - 6.6 4 -1826 P - 5.8 4 -1827 P 9 - 4 -1828 P 10.3 4 -1829 P 1.9 - 4 -1830 P 77 - 4 -1831 P 14.9 - 4 -1832 P 14.9 - 4 -1833 P 6.9 - 4 -1834 P - 4.1 4 -1835 P 4.7 4 -1836 P 2 - 4 -1837 P 4.1 - 4 -1838 P 5 - 4 -1841 P - 13.4 4 -1842 P 5.8 - 4 -1843 P - 5.8 4 -1845 P 5 - 4 -1846 P - 6.8 4 -1847 P - 1.9 4 -1848 P - 2.2 4 -1852 P - 7.9 4 -1853 P - 22 4 -1854 P - 3.1 4 -1855 P - T9 4 -1857 P - 1.9 4 -1858 P - 7.3 4 -1859 P 9.7 - 4 -1861 P - 11 4 -1862 P 2 - 4 -1863 P 5 - 4 -1864 P 9.9 - 4 -1865 P 4.9 4 -1866 P 9.7 -867 14 1 P -1869 P 2.1 - 4 -1871 P 5 4 -1872 P 12.7 - Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -74 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 168 of 187 Table A-4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey if -. TrlpType (P,C,D,5) n oun Assessable Trip ". Length `' u oun Assessable Trip L8 gfh 4 -1873 P 2 - 4 -1874 P 2 - 4 -1875 P 6.2 - 4 -1878 P 8.9 - 4 -1890 P 11.2 - 4 -1891 P 2.1 - 4 -1892 P 11.6 - 4 -1893 P 9.3 - 4 -1894 P 1.1 - 4 -1895 P 1.7 4 -1896 P 3.1 - 4 -1897 P 4.8 - 4 -1898 P 7.9 - 4 -1899 P 2 - 4 -1900 P 3.1 - 4 -1901 P 2 4 -1902 P 13.3 - 4 -1905 P 8.6 - 4 -1906 P 3 4 -1907 P 2 4 -1909 P 14.9 4 -1910 P - 1 9 4 -1912 P - 14.9 4 -1914 P 14.9 - 4 -1915 P 3 - 4 -1916 P - 13.4 4 -1918 P 14.9 - 4 -1920 P 3.9 4 -1922 P 8.1 - 4 -1925 P 31 - 4 -1926 P 14 - 4 -1928 P 3.1 - 4 -1929 P 5 - 4 -1930 P 2.1 - 4 -1931 P 11 4 -1932 P 7.3 - 4 -1933 P 7.6 4-1934 P 3 Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -75 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 169 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey # Trip Type (O C,D,S) n oun Assessable Trip Length". -. u oun Assessable Trip''' " tength 4 -1935 P 4.8 - 4 -1936 P 2 - 4 -1937 P 13.3 - 4 -1939 P 8.3 - 4 -1942 P 8.1 - 4 -1943 P 9.7 - 4 -1944 P 5 - 4 -1945 P 10.6 - 4 -1946 P 5 - 4 -1947 P 5.8 - 4 -1948 P 7.8 - 4 -1949 P 13.8 - 4 -1950 P 14.9 - 4 -1953 P - 14.9 4 -1954 P - 2.2 4 -1955 P 13.1 - 4 -1956 P 1.9 - 4 -1957 P 4.8 - 4 -1958 P 10.7 - 4 -1959 P 11 - 4 -1960 P 1.1 - 4 -1961 P - 5.8 4 -1962 P - 5.8 4 -1963 P 9.5 4 -1966 P 8.2 - 4 -1967 P 13 - 4 -1968 P 5.6 - 4 -1969 P 9 - 4 -1970 P 13.3 - 4 -1972 P 5 - 4 -1973 P 4.8 - 4 -1974 P - 14.9 4 -1975 P - 7 4 -1976 P 8.9 - 4 -1977 P 3 - 4 -1978 P 9.2 - 4 -1979 P 1.2 - 4 -1961 P 12.8 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -76 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 170 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey #' ? Trlp;Type (piC;D,Sy inbound Assessable Trap !`length oun , AssessableTrtp f "Length 4-192 P 12.7 - 4 -1983 P 3 4 -1984 P 13.6 - 4 -1985 P 12.8 4 -1986 P 5 - 4 -1988 P 5 - 4 -1989 P 2 - 4 -1990 P 6.9 - 4 -1992 P 10.6 - 4 -1994 P 3 - 4 -1995 P 5.1 4 -1996 P 4.9 - 4 -1997 P 4.8 - 4 -1998 P 7.7 - 4 -1999 P 9.7 4 -2000 P 11.2 - 4 -2001 P 7.3 - 4 -2002 P 9.5 - 4 -2003 P 1.7 - 4 -2004 P 1.1 4 -2005 P 3 - 4 -2006 P 0.6 - 4 -2008 P 6 - 4 -2009 P 14.9 - 4 -2010 P 3.6 - 4 -2011 P 9.7 - 4 -2012 P 6.6 - 4 -2013 P 12.7 - 4 -2014 P 9.7 - 4 -2015 P - 0.7 4 -2017 P - 13.5 4 -2018 P - 14.9 4 -2019 P - 1.9 4 -2020 P - 9.7 4 -2021 P 14.9 - 4 -2022 P 7.7 - 4 -2023 P 9.6 - Tindale- Oliver & Associates, hie. Collier County May 2008 A -77 SF Trip Characteri stics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 171 of 187 Table A-4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey # ' Trip Type (PC,D,S),f n oun Assessable Tip Lengt(if`R` u oun Assessabfe Trlp w' Length: - 4 -2024 P 5.1 - 4 -2025 P 7.7 - 4 -2026 P 7.7 - 4 -2027 P 6.2 4 -2028 P 14.7 - 4 -2029 P 14.7 - 4 -2031 P 1.3 4 -2032 P 1.1 - 4 -2033 P 7.2 - 4 -2034 P 2.8 -- 4-2035 P - 9.3 4 -2037 P - 9.5 4 -2038 P - 1.9 4 -2040 P 14.8 4 -2041 P 8.6 - 4 -2042 P 14.9 - 4 -2043 P 8 - 4 -2045 P 31 - 4 -2048 P 8 - 4 -2049 P 4.4 - 4 -2050 P 3.3 - 4 -2051 P 41 - 4 -2052 P 14.9 - 4 -2053 P - 3.6 4 -2055 P 8.3 - 4 -2056 P 8.9 - 4 -2057 P 8.6 - 4 -2059 P - 13,4 4 -2060 P 7.7 - 4 -2061 P 3 4 -2062 P 9.2 - 4 -2063 P - 1.8 4 -2065 P - 14.9 4 -2066 P - 5 4 -2067 P 67 - 4 -2069 P 14.9 - 4 -2070 P 7.7 - 4 -2071 P 14.1 - 4 -2072 P 1.3 - 4 -2073 P 7.3 - 4 -2074 P 9.7 - Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -78 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 172 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 � � Survey # Tr'ipType (P G,D,S) n oun ,u,, Assessable Trip u oun Assessable Trip tength 4 -2075 P 8.8 4 -2076 P 2 4 -2078 P 4.9 - 4 -2079 P 6.8 4 -2080 P - 10.6 4 -2081 P - 9.4 4 -2082 P 5.3 4 -2083 P 13 - 4 -2084 P - 3.2 4 -2085 P 13.4 - 4 -2086 P 6.1 - 4 - -2087 P 14.9 - 4 -2088 P 5 - 4 -2090 P 14.9 4 -2091 P 1.9 4 -2092 P - 5.1 4 -2093 P - 5.9 4 -2094 P 14.9 - 4 -2095 P 10.7 - 4 -2096 P - 1.9 4 -2097 P 8.6 4 -2099 P 8.3 - 4 -2101 P 6.5 - 4 -2102 P 14.6 - 4 -2105 P - 5.9 4 -2106 P 10.3 - 4 -2107 P 5 - 4 -2108 P - 1.9 4 -2109 P 4.1 - 4 -2110 P - 14.9 4 -2111 P - 14.9 4 -2112 P 14.9 - 4 -2113 P 10.6 - 4 -2115 P 2.1 - 4 -2116 P 6.9 - 4 -2117 P 1.1 - 4 -2118 P - 9.1 4 -2119 P - 14.3 4 -2120 P - 11.3 4 -2121 P - 5.1 4 -2123 P - 5 4 -2124 P 4.9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -79 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 173 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Sury ey #" Trip Type (P,C,D,S) n oun Assessable Trip engths oun Assessable Trip. Length 4 -2127 P 7.7 4 -2128 P - 4 4 -2129 P 5 - 4 -2130 P 3.1 - 4 -2131 P 13.8 - 4-2132 P 13.8 4 -2133 P - 17 4 -2134 P 5 4 -2135 P 9.4 - 4 -2136 P - 5.1 4 -2137 P - 51 4 -2138 P - 0.8 4 -2139 P 14.9 - 4 -2140 P 5 - 4 -2142 P - 3.1 4 -2143 P 9.2 - 4 -2145 P 1.3 - 4 -2146 P - 2.2 4 -2147 P - 1.9 4 -2148 P 2 - 4 -2149 P 5.1 - 4 -2150 P 91 - 4 -2151 P - 8.9 4 -2152 P 5 - 4 -2153 P - 7.1 4 -2154 P 4.9 - 4 -2157 P 14.9 - 4 -2158 P 5 - 4 -2159 P 9.8 - 4 -2160 P 17 4 -2161 P 3 - 4 -2162 P - 0.7 4 -2163 P 1.1 - 4 -2164 P 14.9 - 4 -2165 P 2 4 -2166 P 14.8 - Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -80 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 174 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey!.` Tye "(P,C,DS) noun Assessable7rlp Length'{' u oun Assessab le. Tnp.' Length 4 -2168 P - 0.7 4 -2169 P 9.5 4 -2170 P - 13.6 4 -2171 P 5 - 4 -2173 P 3 4 -2174 P 5 4 -2176 P 5 4 -2177 P - 4.1 4 -2178 P - 5.6 4 -2179 P 1.7 - 4 -2180 P 9.7 - 4 -2181 P 9.1 - 4 -2182 P 3.4 4 -2183 P 6.6 4 -2184 P - 51 4 -2185 P - 3.1 4 -2188 P 1.1 - 4 -2189 P 14.6 - 4 -2190 P 14.6 - 4 -2191 P 3 4 -2192 P 5.8 - 4 -2193 P 13.6 - 4 -2194 P 9.7 4 -2196 P 1.2 - 4 -2198 P - 7.6 4 -2199 P 5 4 -2200 P 1 - 4 -2201 P - 11.5 4 -2202 P 1.3 - 4 -2203 P 2 4 -2205 P 7.6 - 4 -2206 P 5.1 - 4 -2207 P - 51 4 -2208 P - 17 4 -2209 P 3.8 4 -2210 P 5.7 - 4 -2211 P 0.7 4 -2212 P 8.1 - 4 -2213 P 5 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -81 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 175 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey# Trip Type (P;c,D,S) noun : Assessable Trip `i Length °` Outbound . Assessable Trip; ength"�� "' -` 4 -2214 P 1.1 - 4 -2217 P 10.2 - 4 -2218 P 3 - 4 -2219 P 14.9 - 4 -2220 P 14.9 - 4 -2221 P 8.6 4 -2222 P 6.2 - 4 -2223 P 3.1 - 4 -2224 P 5.1 - 4 -2225 P 3.1 - 4 -2226 P 7.8 - 4 -2227 P - 5.5 4 -2228 P 14.9 - 4 -2229 P 4.9 - 4 -2230 P 2 4 -2231 P - 21 4 -2232 P 2.5 - 4 -2233 P 1,1 - 4 -2234 P 2 - 4 -2235 P - 1.7 4 -2236 P 14.9 - 4 -2237 P - 1.9 4 -2238 P - 1.9 4 -2239 P - 7.6 4 -2240 P - 91 4 -2241 P 4.9 - 4 -2242 P 14.9 - 4 -2243 P 4.9 - 4 -2244 P 5 - 4 -2245 P - 9.6 4 -2246 P 8 4 -2247 P - 5.1 4 -2248 P 147 - 4 -2249 P 7.9 - 4 -2250 P 7 4 -2251 P - 13.5 4 -2252 P 10.3 4 -2253 P - 2.6 4 -2254 P - 6.6 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, inc. Collier County May 2008 A -82 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 176 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use - Site 4 Survey # Trip Tyge (P,G D sj n oun Assessable Trip s r ,„,,., - -.1 'Lengt l.. u oun r� Assessable Trip p t Length 4 -2255 P 5.1 4 -2256 P - 1.9 4 -2257 P - 9.8 4 -2258 P - 2.2 4 -2259 P - 1.9 4 -2260 P - 3.1 4 -2261 P 12.7 - 4 -2262 P - 5.2 4 -2263 P - 5.2 4 -2264 P 1.3 - 4 -2265 P 3.1 - 4 -2266 P 14.9 - 4 -2268 P - 9.3 4 -2269 P 14.9 4 -2271 P 5.8 - 4 -2272 P - 1.9 4 -2273 P 14.3 - 4 -2274 P - 7.3 4 -2275 P - 14.9 4 -2276 P 10.7 4 -2277 P 12.3 - 4 -2278 P 6.6 4 -2279 P 14.9 - 4 -2280 P 14.9 - 4 -2281 P 9.2 - 4 -2282 P - 2.6 4 -2283 P - 1.9 4 -2284 P 5 - 4 -2285 P - 5 4 -2288 P 7.4 - 4 -2289 P 14.9 - 4 -2290 P - 1.9 4 -2293 P - 2.2 4 -2295 P 12.7 - 4 -22% P 12.9 4 -2297 P 3.1 4 -2298 P 7.7 - 4 -2299 - 4 -2300 P I - 1.9 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -83 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 177 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Survey# " Trip Type (P,C,D,S) Inbound, Assessable Trip " Length !: Assessable Trip;'' tengthr 4 -2302 P 5 4 -2303 P 7.9 - 4 -2304 P 5 4 -2305 P 5 - 4 -2307 P 7.7 - 4 -2308 P 6.7 - 4 -2310 P 7.9 - 4 -2312 P 10.1 - 4 -2313 P 9.2 - 4 -2314 P 5 - 4 -2315 P - 6.4 4 -2316 P - 10.7 4 -2317 P 21 - 4 -2318 P 51 - 4 -2319 P 5 4 -2320 P 5 - 4 -2322 P - 8 4 -2323 P - 0.9 4 -2325 P 9.2 - 4 -2327 P 1.1 - 4 -2328 P 1.3 - 4 -2329 P 2 - 4 -2330 P 1.3 - 4 -2331 P 51 - 4 -2332 P 11 - 4 -2333 P - 1.4 4 -2334 P 14.9 - 4 -2335 P 6.7 - 4 -2336 P - 5.6 4 -2337 P 2 4 -2338 P 31 - 4 -2340 P 9.2 - 4 -2341 P 9 - 4 -2343 P - 14.7 4 -2344 P - 8.9 4 -2345 P 5 4 -2346 P 1.1 - 4 -2347 P - 0.9 4 -2348 P - 12.3 4 -2350 P 3 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -84 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 178 of 187 Table A -4 (continued) Trip Length and Percent New Trips Statistical Analysis Single Family Land Use — Site 4 Trio Lenath Summary: Assessable Tti VC10x ' :4i", Average 6.55 Standard Deviation 4.66 Average + 3a 20.52 Average - 3a 0.00 Coefficient of Variation 0.711 Count of Assessable Trip Ends 1,949 Trip Type Summary: Tri Count ;, % of Toiai - Primary Trips 1,949 100% Diverted Trips 0 0% Secondary Trips 0 0% Captured Trips 0 0% Total Surve s: 1,949 - % New Trips of Total Surveys: 160% Tindale - Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -85 SF Trip Characteristics Study oo� N O O 0 Z�m E i •- � m m @a m m Q C d d Q N_ Q. 4? E an _d cn � N _T A C Q 0 W w 0 C R y y 6n 4 6v L O 0 tn e LO 6 rAN.0 O o a+ h b a vi v t� O U m M d' N > �Tro �s >,F ac�o z_ N In o � U v .N o `m U � m m U a w v: U C Vi U m U O ti N O N O � N 'D T G �m f' 4 Usti oom 0 r° � N N r � � C � N Q �4 R C 7 �o w Q NR 0 H R CD c m CL W CL N N CL ItT C, b Q` m v� oo r 3 '.•� 00 N ° y v C .. v U a � u m a � Y Y. •d OFA y � O N v� >O y W V O V'1 G U v T O ty % t� 1@ �a ❑ 3 0 v AU H V E � r O � .Ui y o s V a H w d A U O o� �o N F Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 181 of 187 Table A -7 Percent New Trips Summary Land Use: Single Fa mil y Residential Site Reference % New Trips '; Dwelling Units Weighted % New Trips* Site 111 100% 74 74 Site 2"' 100% 42 42 Site 3"' 100'% 315 315 Site 411 100% 97 97 Total: 1 528 528 * Weighted Percent new trips = percent new trips x dwelling units ** Weighted Percent new trip = percent new trips x size (1,000 sf) (1) Source: Table A -1, Trip Type Summary (2) Source: Table A -2, Trip Type Summary (3) Source: Table A -3, Trip Type Summary (4) Source: Table A -4, Trip Type Summary Table A -8 Trip Length Summary Land Use: Single Fa mil y Residential Site Reference Average Assessable Trip Length Dwelling Units Weighted Trip Lengths *' Site 1t.. 3.05 74 225.70 Site 2121 10.98 42 461.16 Site 31'1 11.29 97 1,095.13 Site 41" 6.55 31 Total: -528" * Weighted Trip Length = Avg, assessable trip length x dwelling units ** Weighted Trip Length = Avg. assessable trip length x size (1,000 sf) (1) Source: Table A- 1, Trip Length Summary (2) Source: Table A -2, Trip Length Summary (3) Source: Table A -3, Trip Length Summary (4) Source: Table A -4, Trip Length Summary Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 A -88 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 182 of 187 APPENDIX B Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 183 of 187 Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database The Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database includes over 200 studies on 40 different residential and non - residential land uses collected over the last 19 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. 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. TOA has published an article entitled, Measuring Travel Characteristics for Transportation Impact Fees, ITE Journal, April 1991 on the data collecting methodology for trip characteristics studies. As discussed previously, the trip characteristics data collected for the 1999 and 2008 Collier study sites were blended with the studies in the Florida Studies Trip Characteristics Database. Table B -1 Single Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) - 2008 Collier County Studies Only 11 40 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 B -1 SF Trip Characteristics Study 12 1 11 40 Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 B -1 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 184 of 187 Table B -2 Single Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) - 1999 and 2008 Collier County Studies Only Lontloo Ske /IInNS Dale TMVIewr X IMervi pitlp LenhM Inurviwe Teip Gen Rule Time petlod Trlp 4mrth percent New Telpr VNT SoS.— CollierC R. MI ikr-YY Ix,Xll Xe61• IIM NIA IJSS'x lN4bOl:um @Amcin¢ Ca {'o1Jar 4W 41p ar�9Y tAY 1,A0 Xndp I.NI NIA 49,Yx Y5ubb04rn @AUrvnbs CulluCa Fl. 11 wtltl 50 ]I: Ixlll Yrfip ]US NIA ]filly 'MdbOlhm @Aemoieue 'ulllorC¢PL luml] 513 A6 Ylxe >Mm II.l9 NIA 13 Y1 i 'imb40Mer @A+ncem CnllerCa Fl. ]IS _%' aM1-0tl x115 ]uLy 655 WA iinNkOM1vv@Almuuly fupnTCaa 4x MuLX Yss lw4p Io YN Iua85 nmle-0Irvc@Aw••evla w:. W hW Aw 1N Le Ih: ].111 We FM1mSAVeRVTip (iwne pe �" �. X.At.,� v. .Nv Im ArenryTnre wm,h•u • s1 eVW MT'. xll.l6 W uP4 mp<VMi: 6 Ix McJU1•VMT, T45x Table B -3 Single Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) — Florida Studies (excluding 2008 Collier Studies) laovlion Sire /Ilnln pvR T..1 Imeme «l OT Ip L•nplh Imar.lewr Ttlp Cen wle 11. H. Ttlp 1<n�Mn PertnlNrn'Trlpe M1T Sourte mwnl'u.liA ^JII IXfI^ 5111 6.11 - t�F \mv :uCn. IR YU ]I: rll.lx uwv (1•.li. luml] A6 Ylxe 4411 IYA i 13 Y1 i 4rewlnl'aml mu fu IT15 w'll x115 axnfu:: H- Xmevm (1 M1L 151 lwY] XSS _ une C:nol. timam [i.R IY/ MrY] 6X5 N/n 31 N aeCmm urnpn f\•.R IwYx ]]1 1661 ],IXi WA 5mmuC Yevw 19, Im9) 146 IK N/A 1112 415" W::«.xr {'uu (oAi. Xmnirvnfu IL ll6 ]rvv 111x lUl Ti6 U 41 %vNnn C:mm IImwY•CO. PI. 16 14x 14x I'VI 4X5 "I 4X55 '11m110IIvff AAR!"Itm IlmrrMCn, PI. M. N/A 4Yxl TvWf1IU—N111- Ilemm.4:('u.PL '_1' 112 MInYfi 1 IXl IXi 119 N/A ]!.4'I 'Ih:Wk•OI «vOAw <nu ILANn M1uhk�lX— R Arulehta vi Cu FL I]v 5ll' 4AI 41.X1 WXelm fc. il. 14^ (kl'YI 24A 4 I'll lull.N01: eAAru nn ('lu:br CU14. IW {kl " 11, 5A1 I NIA .YIp 11nblNllrvv CAwrnln flwYnu fu, Fl. 2" Yl "'v ]lY 4G1 .1 N/A ><Y6 111uWIHI4vu6`Awtuld fmrMm Ca. pL ]]'I tkldl x15 ]ld Yr 5 6 Mi N/A ]634 TMUIH11mrYAwv'u1a MMrcCU 41. 141 YN k.. 6 p N/A 46.x11 'I:MIe91nvYAnnmuly CNmnm(a ll. ]N 0.�V1 151 6 OP w SxU NIA 11,G 'IirvYIlpOlmmtlnrevvu m1¢(n, hl. 1p Wot / SIL x,Ml 5ll: 11 Tw111WkObe fluMmc(11.IU. WI Mkx I'15 X]p V 11 & Am-- flu C'.11 h A 14X 111 XIM WA 48 X( 1 b0 YI 6 114 MIA 11 • : OI lmJ Cillvfl L 1, IXa -)1 111 6 41 N/A M_ A wilviv I Cm 11 A U. 1 a]II Ilxil 1..4 xlx 1X: Ilrva@Axucun+ lwYk91rvv4AwaY1u I..IFl. IeYe(a Fl A-11' N/A S Ii11JnbOM1whAwcml¢ I4un lb. l'L 5x 55 A-12 6M 11,M @AArnm- !iJjI p (YI A ll N/ A elrv•vv vk A NA 1 p ( 1 .' IXN IX NIA • 7 1m 11)hvv@Naamv 'I nulr4Wlvvk Awwiner. Ifx/ . m xcl xr• w wn am IoWm�Olrw @a.,1.mw Munn�a. e7. o' _ IM1x X,m te< In — n1A alvp M nnm m A,..nmm M4<m1fn. Fl. ILL IW 1l um FNUnevn. 14 AE112 Im n4 O._ 1, 1 Y w KMxW mxCNnANm.wemmwwm'mmu1u 1 A _ - - m 511U5Y1SV n ,v n w �rm¢m ` v y 4 91 IIA A nm ll brIIllmlnmm e (1."(o hl. U p tm[+ Y]n 6L 11Wnef111vvA Ammmlw le w n 1hkMAlV _ 11 A l ]u 1mk1 -4 A-1— 1w�(utl 1W (Y4s - Iaxl 1 mefa n. {InLe['nll. _ e.m I..I,0n —nA-- i•mJeieoYw6 Ne¢mv strG,. l'I. �„ ,11.In 6:41 ti 0fi ]nb 1tl9? N/n T41NbOlevA NVeenm In _ 11:1]i 11,14 T111mbOnvv II nuwuuv 1 L IACU4 lY4 A 1 xll Th111x1HILVVA+ucmc A x5X xy1 WA Td4 TmNbl @ Iluuui4 nitt ' JI` 516 xll ] ! NId NIA RSW ImNM L Ilunenb f1. Fl. ).1 A 1L) ^p ]1 JIN N/n 1111 ImmIM @ 'ulo Ito Cv. Ft A Jit tll) N/ lx iinJxlnp A IluwMrC¢Il. J1] 1.16 ]iL1 Wn R iinJehp h 1au1,a v.ev ,W AVe aTrl 1 6N W.q WAVevPCiul (iuo ...•M ]]i" ..un1 fly nuweprlltinGAll Nlc YSt MC wvWlmnvumrvMl. 51 xt NmcGm� pin nlWlvmurnmNtlel in mlmuy,ulln.n MNw VN1, 4B.9U Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 B -2 SF Trip Characteristics Study Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 185 of 187 Table B-4 Single Family Detached Housing (ITE LUC 210) — Florida Studies (including 2008 Collier Studies) }Y[mll^x SbelUNh ONe T^hlp Imerv: XTrIV fA'^PIM1 lmemex Tr1V Cm^ flan llme PerlM 1T69 TNV Pe.Nm T, VMT Swm fiwmmnfn fiA } /II�IX /P. iXU 141 11 12 ,Ymelxmmfa Gvmmn @. GA ILI] -IX/J} 510 Alll ]3 �W Xwv XmvAUCm I'L ]6 IOp! figl NA IAIX W. mu('v rmin CU 1M1. lY Im'I] Y,]] I% Wnva Cv .wrrWe CrvR 1]5 Xll! I 5'X1141 HIA ypeyp(': wm:nllf..la Isz eFV� x1? rvrA u} xxwel Xarona!'.v Fi AvWI I}t I�5 4X5 N/A 1151 M1mu C'u ]1 Il]11 llp HI Wmuu CUmry IY, 6fil 110 SS} Xmuvu ['u.IL _ JI I—fb tilrwwfbAx Ilmx __ 111 Xlll J1.?! 15 1m1Y1bJ11rvvk Amxula llmurvN @11 (, !111 y1i.61 14,11 11nMMH111rmY Anwxlm Ilnnlr4i @.IL Io 1:vek tamrvl Lq 1 . T'IllmtpiYnIlkMpnOf{lXA1llmwrvVom. I A,1 lNYa s 1 y(p 6_ 1 o r v &YL@@AAMAerymSuV:kwc.mun',1ule vu 11 14 1X1 11 :I! . lS!XS. t N9< r. IAr WA .._ A M1I p yn? l IJ WA }i III Y? J,11 N/A 1 X11 1.— Iknl A,.— u•YI ll A . 5N,— 1x6 k l Nmm.a.x.e. 164,4.r 1 1/.1X 1 iiImm:nilnnlbed1X)1I1 k xwl ¢ - k 4111 1,l� 1 11 1A -rvwey AAM a Mw 1]) F]? to I'nxnfl•XI. ]11 A r -0l iKl 6111 .It A—L.- 1 -11.1. YAauW1¢ A L} IXtl 5 91 IXLI 1m11.i1n1 Nnvul. !61 lM: fi]JI1 T1nLleOliva @Amxw,¢ I 1111 INm NAnlrnlvx :�. 11. .1, WA ILV11 Y naa[x1n IT 1�4 _ I)V /J4 7.." 11 14mIxIWm @AUVU1n Mvnx fv.. 11 w.INmq Awvxa rcv L ]ttl 114 T'Al, I Kiml I— A,..... (1nm(mIL 5.11 JXl 1A 2112 111vYINXna@Mruvvm Clmu(':�Il 11 A1 1. 1. NA mw Cw Fl. RHC lyl 4.I1 WA III 1Imu1JUKK1eOILnVwVYYAA.mrcrux11¢ ¢ C M1 Mtl WA XY k 11d411e.1v.tlAnllvlvs 1.N(11 II} 11 N, WA 11nd11eOIrv.YAwenl¢ IA ITV 111, 111. IXjI 111 111JII 11niblMllrm YAaw1¢ Io6 {'u 41. IJI 11oJx+OIrvmYAwxslc WIe(w Fl. IYJ _ 5 }]rl Imdb011wYAa:wvlw I W[fu Fl. WA Ll b! 1L1JeleOLVmk Nwgm Ilmxny:f4 YL A,111 Ap? xlb WA ISM Ilembl8v (/n A Il] }Sfi 1xF N/A Slil Tvry1101rwry Awkvlld l.I1, v -1A—wm 1, IlmuMr Cli. 4L 11 n -01 ]1X 9'l) 5x6 a1lM TuvY14•n11w NAmcmlw IWVmh: CU. II. ApL1 IP__ !J6 dJY SI.bX luLLVlNlln'. @Apumx @ILa CT FL _____ 13X1 105 Ialnle0l wYAm <umv (TIL.(r l'1. _ X]X IISJ IoWyo1111w @ACwcwn f:V1 1v CV�ll. Tla Mm-1M I�JT In 4] _ ti:r,+ 65? Y1A 6565 I Wulc(ILVVpNxvum' Lv(u.Fl InY1A YS! 6Ntl Ig0.Afi_ levblcOlxvYAwlm¢ :nul.5 ve Iww - fi.'ll -.A W YYi Avv T eLL: fit Wv pl el AVxaxeRVfivxn i . III.AV:xP•Inll GemxlNUXn¢�• XIWeyn:N AV:rnpv vMY Whelp RU awLn:ncnovirvLNUtmrvmovnry rc:mu MW wo VMI'. eX tlO Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc. Collier County May 2008 B -3 SF Trip Characteristics Study ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE COMPARISON Agenda Item 10 January 13, 3, 2009 9 Page 186 of 187 CURRENT PROPOSED 1/7/2007 LAND USE RATE RATE RATE Rate was effective 6/30/06 and is 29.7% less than current rate. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY <1500 Sq. Ft. Dwelling Unit $8,247.62 $8,668.00 $6,359.00 SINGLE FAMILY 1,500 to 2,499 Sq, Ft. Dwelling Unit $11,522.55 $11,760.00 $8,884.00 SINGLE FAMILY 2,500 Sq. Ft. or Larger Dwelling Unit $12,819.55 $13,130.00 $9,884.00 MULTI- FAMILY 1 -10 Stories* Dwelling Unit $8,220.39 $7,464.00 $6,338.00 MULTI- FAMILY >10 Stories Dwelling Unit $4,954.54 $4,784.00 $3,820.00 ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY Dwelling Unit $1,032.41 $1,347.00 $796.00 CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE Dwelling Unit $7,858.52 $8,738.00 $6,059.00 HIGH -RISE CONDOMINIUM Dwelling Unit $5,488.90 $6,246.00 $4,232.00 MOBILE HOME Dwelling Unit $5,361.80 $4,314.00 $4,134.00 RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Dwelling Unit $2,91106 $3,754.00 $2,246.00 LODGING HOTEL Per Room $7,765.14 $6.578.00 $5,987.00 MOTEL Per Room $4,964.92 $4,222.00 $3,828.00 ALL SUITES HOTEL* Per Roam $4,526.53 $3,891.00 $3,490.00 RV PARK Per Site $4,280.10 $2,299.00 $3,300.00 RECREATION GOLF COURSE 18 Holes $1,043,392.40 $850,022.00 $840,466.00 MOVIE THEATER Per Scrcen $54,978.53 $46.217.00 $42,389.00 MARINA Per Berth $4,6436 $3,980.00 $3,580.00 DANCE STUDIOS /GYMNASTICS* Per 1,000 sf $13,451.19 $11,339.00 $10,371.00 INSTITUTIONS HOSPITAL Per 1,000 sf $18,414.81 $20,382.00 $14,198.00 NURSING HOME Per Bed $1,486.36 $1,261.00 $1,146.00 CHURCH Per 1,000 sf $10,404.53 $8,619.00 $8,022.00 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Per Student $1,111.53 $1,005.00 $857.00 MIDDLE SCHOOL Per Student $1,540.84 $1,439.00 $1,188.00 HIGH SCHOOL Per Student $1,740.57 $1,526.00 $1,342.00 UNIVERSITY /JR. COLLEGE <7,501 Students* Per Student $2,926.03 $2,688.00 $2,256.00 UNIVERSITY /JR. COLLEGE >7,500 Students* Per Student $2,153.02 $2,001.00 $1,660.00 DAYCARE Per Student $1;232.15 $1,445.00 $950.00 OFFICE OFFICE 50,000 Sq. Ft. or Less Per 1,000 sf $20,074.97 $16,763.00 $15,478.00 OFFICE 50,001 -100,000 Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 sf $17,019.23 $14,257.00 $13,122.00 OFFICE 100,001 - 200,000 Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 sf $14,413.56 $12,115.00 $11,113.00 OFFICE 200,001400,000 Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 sf $12,206.07 $10,296.00 $9,411.00 OFFICE >400,000 Sq. Ft. Per 1,000 sf $11,054.33 $9,348.00 $8,523.00 MEDICAL OFFICE Per 1,000 sf $47,585.63 $40,517.00 $36,689.00 t ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE COMPARISON LAND USE RETAIL SPECIALTY RETAIL RETAIL 50,000- 100,000 Sq. Ft. RETAIL 50,001 - 100,000 Sq. Ft. RETAIL 100,001 - 150,000 Sq. Ft. RETAIL 150,001- 200,000 Sq. Ft. RETAIL 200,001- 400,000 Sq. Ft. RETAIL 400,001 - 600,000 Sq. Ft. RETAIL 600,001- 1,000,000 Sq. Ft. RETAIL >1,000,000 Sq. Ft. FURNITURE STORE* PHARMACYIDRUG STORE HOME IMPROVEMENT SUPERSTORE RESTAURANT - High Turnover ** RESTAURANT - Quality* * RESTAURANT - Dri ve -In GASOLINE /SERVICE STATION SUPERMARKET QUICK LUBE CONVENIENCE STORE CONVENIENCE STORE w /Gas Pumps TIRE STORE NEW/USED AUTO SALES LUXURY AUTO SALES BANK/SAVINGS: Walk -In BANK/SAVINGS: Drive -In SELF - SERVICE CAR WASH AUTOMATED CAR WASH* Per 1,000 sf Per 1,000 sf Per 1,000 sf Per 1,000 sf Per 1,000 sf Per 1,000 sf Per IMo sf Per 1,0W sf Per 1,000 sf Per 1,000 sf Per 1,000 Sf Per 1900 Sf Per Seat Per Seat Per 1,000 Sr Per Fuel Pus. Per 1,000 Sf Per Bay Per 1,000 sf Per Fuel Pos. Per Bay Per 1.000 sf Per 1,000 sf Per 1,000 st Per 1,000 sf Per Bay Per 1,000 sf CURRENT RATE $28,517.14 $18,097.04 $17,117.81 $16,486.17 $16,385.00 $15,195.65 $16,487.46 $17,608.07 $21,508.15 $4,025.89 S17.260.48 $17,141.15 $2,735.38 $1,849.53 $171,093.76 $9,791.05 $21,713.08 $17,491.34 $116,656.07 $48,734.78 $13,045.23 $33,637.70 $17,920.65 $55,381.90 $108,545.93 $43,976.08 $47,062.95 PROPOSED RATE $26,877.00 $19,823.00 $20,041.00 $18,661.00 $17,883.00 $16,893.00 $16,847.00 $18,255.00 $19,187.00 $3,545.00 $13,958.00 $9,901.00 $2,440.00 $1,553.00 $137,444.00 $8,221.00 $26,570.00 $14,522.00 $97,636.00 $37,652.00 $10,930.00 $27,131.00 $14,996.00 $39,429.00 $40,158.00 $36,367.00 $39,066.00 Agenda Item No. 10C January 13, 2009 Page 187 of 187 1/1/2007 RATE $21,987.00 $13,953.00 $13,198.00 $12,711.00 $12,633.00 $11,716.00 $12,712.00 $13,576.00 $16,583.00 $3,104.00 $13,308.00 $13,216.00 $2,109.00 $1,426.00 $131,915.00 $7,549.00 $16,741.00 $13,486.00 $89,943.00 $37,575.00 $10,058.00 $25,935.00 $13,817.00 $42,700.00 $83,690.00 $33,906.00 $36,286.00 INDUSTRIAL GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Per 1,000 sf $9,176.28 $7,73100 $7,075.00 BUSINESS PARK Per 190o Sf $16,855.81 $14,021.00 $12,996.00 MINI - WAREHOUSE Per 1,000 5f $1,770.41 $1,436.00 $1,365.00 *New Land Use in 2008 Study. 1/1/2007 rate calculated using 2006 Study. * *Rate is per seat in 2008 study. Rate currently per 1,000 sq. ft. 1/1/2007 rate calculated using 2006 Study. 2