HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.26.18 SDC Review Committee SlideshowTransportation &
Wastewater SDC Update
SDC Advisory Committee Meeting #2
June 26, 2018
Agenda
Project List Update
Growth Share Analysis
Updated System-Wide Cost per Trip
SDC Schedule by Land Use
Next Steps
2
Updated Project List
Projects Included:
o Fiscally-constrained list from 2012 Transportation
System Plan (TSP)
o Completed projects removed (e.g., P7 Hersey St.)
o Project substitutions (R17 Nevada Street Bridge
removed; R9 Ashland St added)
Project Cost Updating:
o 2018 unit costs & ADA factors
o External funding sources estimated
3
See Table 1 for Updated Project List
Project Costs by Type
(Net of Other Funding*)
4
Studies
0%Transit
16%
Pedestrian
20%
Bike
19%
Intersection &
Roadway
(Studies)
1%
Intersection &
Roadway
(Improvements)
44%
*$28.3 million net total
Growth Share Summary
5
Type Project
Cost
(%)
Updated Basis
(Growth %)
2016 Study Basis
(Growth %)
Studies & Transit 16 Population growth
(11%)
Population growth
(18%)
Bike & Pedestrian 39 Miles per capita for
growth (96% Ped, 33%
Bike)
Population growth
(18%)
Intersection &
Roadway –
Capacity only
<1 1 –existing deficiency
(R5 = 100%)
Population growth
(18%)
Intersection &
Roadway –
Performance
45 Growth share of link
volume (varies 30%
Average)
Population growth
(18%) & some 100%
(average 52%)
See Tables 1 & 2 for growth share by project
Growth Share –Intersection
Example
6
1.Performance Improvement –Intersection
Realignment (R8)
o Current volume = 530; future volume = 699
o Growth share = (699-530)/699 = 24%
2.Capacity Only Improvement (R5)
o Base year volume/capacity = 0.55; future year (no
build) v/c >1
o Improvement 100%needed for growth
Growth Share –Stand-Alone
Bike Improvements
7
1.Determine Total future miles /1,000 population
o (22+9.6+2.4)/(23,183/1,000) = 1.47 miles/1,000
2.Multiply #1 X population growth
o 1.47 X (2,483/1,000) = 3.6 miles total growth need
3.Subtract facilities added from road projects to
determine need from stand-alone bike projects
o 3.6 –0.4 = 3.2 miles
4.Divide total stand-alone bike project mileage by
growth miles
o 3.2 / 9.6 = 33%
See Tables 3 & 4 for detailed analysis
Growth Costs by Type *
8*$11.7 million (41%) total
Studies
0%
Transit
4%
Pedestrian
47%
Bike
17%
Intersection &
Roadway
(Studies)
1%
Intersection &
Roadway
(Improvements)
31%
9
Growth Cost
$11.66m
improvement +
$0.8m
reimbursement =
$12.4 m total
Growth Trips*
38,066 Daily or
4,431 PM Peak
$/Trip
$327/ Daily
$2,805/ Peak
Updated $/Trip
Meeting
#1
*From current Travel Demand Model (RVCOG)
Increase in $/Trip:
Daily = 53% from current
PM Peak = 33% from 2016 study
See Table 5 for calculations
TSDC Assessment Review
10
Trip Rate
(trips/unit)
Trip Rate
Adjustments Units
Total
Development
Trips
Where:
•Trip rates by land use category are:
•updated to reflect 10th Edition ITE Trip generation manual
•either based on average daily or afternoon (P.M.) peak hour
•Trip adjustments reflect:
•Current methodology = trip length and pass-by adjustments
•Updated methodology = diverted link and pass-by adjustments
See Table 6 for TSDC impacts by land use (based on current $/trip)
Sample Daily vs. PM Peak
Trips from ITE
11
*System average PM Peak : Daily ratio in updated Travel Model = about 0.12
Description Unit of Measure Daily Trip
Rate
PM Trip
Rate
PM Peak/
Daily
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING PER DU 9.44 0.99 0.10
APARTMENTS PER DU 7.32 0.56 0.08
GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING PER TGSF 9.74 1.15 0.12
HOSPITAL PER TGSF 10.72 0.97 0.09
SUPERMARKET PER TGSF 106.78 9.24 0.09
HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT PER TGSF 112.18 9.77 0.09
GASOLINE/SERVICE STATION PER VEH.FUEL.POS.172.01 14.03 0.08
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PER STUDENT 1.89 0.17 0.09
DRIVE-IN BANK PER TGSF 100.03 20.45 0.20
TSDC Impacts
12
Table 6 shows impacts from changes to trip rates
and adjustments only
o About 10 categories increase > 100%
Table 7a overlays updated $/trip on Table 6
o About 20 categories increase > 100%
Table 7b compares Daily and PM Peak based on
updated $/trip
o Most categories lower under PM peak (compared to average)
due to different ratio of Peak/Average in travel demand model
(12%) and ITE (about 10%)
o In order to be revenue neutral, increases and decreases
should average out
TSDC Comparison –
Single Family Dwelling
13
*Ashland reflects updated Daily Trip Basis; primary source for other communities
is Oregon Building Officials Association 2017 Survey
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
Da
l
l
a
s
Pe
n
d
e
l
t
o
n
Mi
l
w
a
u
k
i
e
As
h
l
a
n
d
(
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
)
Co
r
v
a
l
l
i
s
As
h
l
a
n
d
(
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
)
Eu
g
e
n
e
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Wo
o
d
b
u
r
n
Al
b
a
n
y
Gr
e
s
h
a
m
Si
l
v
e
r
t
o
n
Cl
a
c
k
a
m
a
s
C
o
.
Po
r
t
l
a
n
d
Be
n
d
Be
a
v
e
r
t
o
n
Ha
p
p
y
V
a
l
l
e
y
La
k
e
O
s
w
e
g
o
Wi
l
s
o
n
v
i
l
l
e
Ti
g
a
r
d
TSDC Comparison –
Convenience Market (24 hour)
14
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Ashland -
Current
Ashland -
Revised
Eugene
(Proposed)
Portland Newberg Clackamas
County
*Ashland reflects updated Daily Trip Basis
SDC Committee Feedback
Trip rate type
Trip rate adjustments
Implementation strategy
o Update all at once vs. phase in?
15
Next Steps
Final refinements to SDC Schedule
o Land use categories
o Estimated trip characteristics
Wastewater methodology
SDC ordinance
o Incentives, discounts, etc.
o General updating
16
Next Meeting
July 19: Ordinance Issues and
Recommendations
17