Roadway Development Impact Fee Update

• Service Areas• Land Use Assumptions• Consumption Calculation• Level of Service• Cost Attributable to Development• Projects Plan

SERVICE AREAS

Service Areas

Proposed – 7 areasExisting -10 areas

Added Mt. Lemmon

Service Areas• Ensure project nexus/benefit• Large enough to support projects

Altar Valley had very little development: $718,000 collected in 22 years/$33,000 per year. Not enough to fund improvements.

Formerly Altar Valley

Existing

Proposed

Formerly Altar Valley

SOUTH

WEST

LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS

Growth Assumptions Population and Employment

• PAG Transportation Improvement Program 2017-2022

• US Census Bureau

• AZ Department of Economic Security

• Pima County Housing Permits

• PAG Regional Mobility and Accessibility Plan

• UA Economic and Business Research Center

Development Activity2015-2018

Hot development areas

Routes from growth areas to employment

Population Growth

2017-2022by TAZ, per square mile

Employment Growth

2017-2022by TAZ, per square mile

CONSUMPTION CALCULATION

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

1 2 3

Travel per Unit• Measured in Vehicle Miles of Travel

• Based on peak hour – highest demand/stress on road network

10.6 mi

Amount of Travel Per Residential Unit

Trips per House (PM Peak) 0.99 ITE Trip Generation

Average Trip Length (mi) 10.7 US Census NHTSVehicle-Miles Traveled in peak 10.6 # trips x Length

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

All Roads

• FHWA - 86% of Travel on Arterials/Collectors (2017)• AASHTO - 80% of Travel on Arterials/Collectors• Study assumes 80% • Arterial/Collector Travel = 10.6 mi x 80% = 8.5 mi

Travel per Unit Arterials/Collectors

8.5 mi

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

All Arterials/Collectors

• Some travel is on City or ADOT roadways• County is very spread out, with long arterial trips

County benefit areas > 1,900 square milesAll Incorporated areas = 410 square miles (20% of total)

• Assumed 50% of travel on County roadways (conservative)• Travel on County Arterials/Collectors: 8.5 mi x 50% = 4.2 mi

Travel per Unit County Arterials/Collectors

4.2 mi

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

County only

Example 1: From Tucson Estates and further west to Tucson International Airport

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

Travel per Unit County Arterials/Collectors

12.2 miles

7.9 miles

6.9 miles

Example 2: From the Foothills, Vail, and Corona de Tucson to Raytheon

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

Travel per Unit County Arterials/Collectors

12.2 miles

8.3 miles

9.8 miles

Example 3: From north and northeast to Williams Center, Park Place

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

Travel per Unit County Arterials/Collectors

4.5 miles

8.4 miles

Cost to Provide CapacityPer Lane-Mile of Roadway

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

Construction Cost = $2M (2019 dollars) Not adjusted for inflation (2029 = $2.6M)

+ Non-construction costs* = $1M

(50% of construction per PAG RSC Study)

=Total Cost = $3M

*Non-Construction Costs include Right of Way, Planning, Design, Construction Management)

Project Agency YearLength

(mi)Lanes

Total Lane Miles

Construction Cost

Construction Cost/Lane-mi

Tangerine Rd, Dove Mountain Blvd to La Cañada Dr

Marana/Oro Valley/Pima County

2016 5 4 20 50,400,000$ 2,520,000$

Grant Rd, Stone Ave to Park Ave Tucson 2016 1.2 6 7.2 14,480,000$ 2,011,111$

Valencia Rd, Wade Rd to Ajo Wy Pima County 2018 3.2 4 12.8 20,224,000$ 1,580,000$

Cortaro Farms Rd Pima County 2017 1.4 4 5.6 9,954,000$ 1,777,500$ Valencia Rd Extension, Houghton Rd to Old Spanish Tr

Rocking K/Pima County

2018 2.4 2 4.8 7,900,000$ 1,645,833$

Magee Rd, La Cañada Dr to Oracle Rd Pima County 2013 1.2 4 4.8 9,975,000$ 2,078,125$

Houghton Rd, UPRR to I-10 Tucson 2018 1.1 6 6.6 7,713,000$ 1,168,636$ Broadway Blvd, Cmo Seco to Houghton Rd

Tucson 2018 2 4 8 13,638,000$ 1,704,750$

Sabino Canyon Rd Extension, Tanque Verde Rd to Kolb Rd

Tucson 2015 0.6 4 2.4 8,187,000$ 3,411,250$

Hughes Access Rd, Nogales Hwy to Alvernon Wy

Pima County 2015 2.8 2 5.6 6,661,000$ 1,189,464$

77.8 149,132,000$

1,916,864$

Totals

Average Construction Cost per Lane Mile

Cost to Provide CapacityPer Lane-Mile of Roadway

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

Cost to Provide CapacityPer Vehicle Mile

Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

Hourly Capacity = 960 vehicles/lane (Level of Service D)

Source: Florida DOT Capacity Tables

Cost per VMT = $3,000,000 / 960 vehicles/lane =

$3,125 per vehicle mile

Cost Per Residential Unit Amount of travel

Cost to Provide Capacity

Cost per Residential

Unit

• Base Fee = $3,125 per mile x 4.2 miles/home = $13,128

• Residential Adjustment Factor 65%Adjusts for non-residential and multi-purpose trips

Raw Residential Fee = $13,125 x 65% = $8,592

• RTA Credit = $69 • Amount paid per home for Pima County Impact Fee projects in RTA• Based on sales tax paid on the materials to build a house

• Net Residential Fee = $8,523

New vs Existing Fees

Current Fee assumes 3% annual increase in ENR CCI (same as 2013-2018 rate)

• New fee and existing fee nearly same after 10 years• Proposed fees – no annual inflation adjustment

• Existing fees increased 3% per year per Construction Cost Index.

• Project budgets based on 2015-18 bids, but new fee not indexed.

• Construction costs will be up to 30% higher by 2025 due to inflation.

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Current Fee Proposed Fee

LEVEL OF SERVICE

Level of Service

A.R.S. 11-1102 (V.)(10.)• “Service Unit” means a standardized measure of

consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development...

• calculated using data specific to the service area in which the facility will be located and…

• pursuant to generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of necessary public services or facility expansions.

Level of Service

Rural Minor Collector 2003 Roadway Design Manual

4-Lane Urban Arterial2003 Roadway Design Manual

• Roadway design largely unchanged for 15+ years

• Consistent for both Developer-led or County-led projects

• Travel Lanes• Drainage• Shoulders• Medians• Sidewalks

(urban areas)

Level of Service

Major Urban Collector (2006 Subdivision Street Standards)

Major Rural Collector (2006 Subdivision Street Standards)

COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEVELOPMENT

Cost Attributable to DevelopmentMajor Roadway Projects

Impact Fees pay for portion of added capacity used by new development

Existing Capacity15,000

Added Capacity20,000

Existing Use10,000

Unused6,000

New Development

4,000

Existing Use15,000

Existing Capacity (veh/day) 15,000Future Capacity (veh/day) 35,000Added Capacity (35K-15K) 20,000

Current Traffic Volume (veh/day) 25,000Future Traffic Volume (veh/day) 29,000New Development Volume (29K-25K) 4,000

% of Added Capacity from Development 20%Project Cost $10,000,000 Cost Attributable to Development $2,000,000

• Traffic Signal ITS improvements add 10% capacity (based on City of Los Angeles allowance for ITS improvements)

• Turn lanes add 10% of roadway capacity (from FDOT Capacity Tables)

• 100% of 10% capacity increase is consumed by new development in 10 year IIP(VMT growth = 1.1% per year x 10 years = 11.0%)

Cost Attributable to DevelopmentTraffic Signal, Intersection, Turn Lanes

PROJECTS PLAN

• Roadway Widening• New Roadways• Intersections• Traffic Signal ITS• Turn Lanes• Right of Way Purchase

Impact Fee Projects

Roadway Widening

70%

New Roads22%

Intersections4%

ITS Signals2%

Turn Lanes2%