HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-10 VailTranspImpactFeeDRAFT STUDY.pdf
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY
March 10, 2017
Prepared By
www.tischlerbise.com
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
COLORADO IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION .................................................................................................................. 2
ADDITIONAL LEGAL GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................................................ 2
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE TOWN OF VAIL ................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1 – Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area ........................................................................................ 5
LOWER FEES IN CORE AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas .................................................................................... 5
Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas ................................................................................................................. 6
Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas .................................................................................................................... 6
CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES ............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 – Transportation Impact Fee Comparison .............................................................................................. 8
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ........................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 – Conceptual Impact Fee Formula .......................................................................................................... 9
TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 10
Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 4 – Summary of Projected Travel Demand .............................................................................................. 11
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5 – Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share ........................................................ 12
CREDIT FOR OTHER REVENUES ....................................................................................................................................... 13
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FORMULA AND INPUT VARIABLES .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 6 – Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables ....................................................................................... 14
MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES .................................................................................................. 15
Figure 7 – Transportation Impact Fee Schedule ................................................................................................. 15
FUNDING STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................... 16
Figure 8 – Impact Fee Revenue Projection ......................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX A – DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ................................................................................................................... 17
TRIP GENERATION BY TYPE AND SIZE OF HOUSING ............................................................................................................. 17
Figure A1 – PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House ................................................ 18
TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA OF DETACHED HOUSING................................................................................................. 19
Figure A2 – PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet .................................................................................. 20
APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................... 21
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 21
TOWN-WIDE SERVICE AREA ........................................................................................................................................... 21
DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES........................................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX C: REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 23
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
2
INTRODUCTION
Although Colorado is a “home-rule” state and home-rule municipalities were already collecting
“impact fees” under their home-rule authority granted in the Colorado Constitution, the
Colorado Legislature passed enabling legislation in 2001, as discussed further below.
Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation
For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation
improvements is to determine basic options and requirements established by state law. Some
states have more conservative legal parameters that basically restrict local government to
specifically authorized actions. In contrast, “home-rule” states grant local governments
broader powers that may or may not be precluded or preempted by state statutes depending
on the circumstances and on the state’s particular laws.
Impact fees are one-time payments imposed on new development that must be used solely to
fund growth-related capital projects, typically called “system improvements”. An impact fee
represents new growth’s proportionate share of capital facility needs. In contrast to project-
level improvements, impact fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple development
projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship between
the new development and the need for the growth-related infrastructure. Project-level
improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to
transportation improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes.
According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, impact fees must be legislatively
adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad
class of property. The purpose of impact fees is to defray capital costs directly related to
proposed development. The statutes of other states allow impact fee schedules to include
administrative costs related to impact fees and the preparation of capital improvement plans,
but this is not specifically authorized in Colorado’s statute. Impact fees do have limitations, and
should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one
component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities.
Because system improvements are larger and more costly, they may require bond financing
and/or funding from other revenue sources. To be funded by impact fees, Section 29-20-104.5
requires that the capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. By law,
impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs.
Also, development impact fees cannot be used to repair or correct existing deficiencies in
existing infrastructure.
Additional Legal Guidelines
Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as
a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect
against regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are
subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
3
just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be
shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees,
that interest is the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, by ensuring development is
not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The means to this end are also
important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to
receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings)
provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees.
There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on
other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most
important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing
exactions on development must demonstrate an “essential nexus” between the exaction and
the interest being protected (see Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more
recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be
“roughly proportional” to the burden created by development.
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are
closely related to “rational nexus” or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a
number of state courts. Although the term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize
the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S.
Constitution, TischlerBise prefers a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements:
“need,” “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only
the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by
the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus standard are
discussed further in the following paragraphs.
All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public
facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy
that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community
will deteriorate. Development impact fees may be used to cover the cost of development-
related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of
development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that
development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments
upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to impact fees. In this study, the
impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable
relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities,
based on applicable level-of-service standards.
The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly
stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a
proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify
development-related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various
types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
4
terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g. a typical housing unit’s
vehicular trip generation rate).
A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other
funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of
impact fees should also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities
funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S.
Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues
be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to
a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and
expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as
well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the
impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees
is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of
subdivision or zoning review.
Impact fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects
include, but are not limited to the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e.,
turning lanes, signalization or roundabouts) and “complete street” improvements to provide
multimodal infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, bike lanes and sidewalks). Whenever improvements
are made to existing roads, non-impact fee funding is typically required to help pay a portion of
the cost.
Development Pattern in the Town of Vail
Vail is a resort community of approximately 5,000 year-round residents that surges to
approximately 40,000-45,000 persons during peak tourism season when employees and visitors
are present. The occupied bed base of the community swells from 5,000 to 35,000 during these
peak periods. Figure 1 delineates the core area of Vail. Actual boundaries of the Town extend
six miles to the east and four miles to the west of the core area (see map inset). Given its
location in a mountain valley, the Town has a compact development pattern and a multi-modal
transportation system that relies on pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular travel. Consistent
with this setting, the proposed impact fees will fund multi-modal transportation improvements
necessary to accommodate projected development within the Town of Vail.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
5
Figure 1 – Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area
Lower Fees in Core Area
Development of attached housing units and hotels in the core area will facilitate pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit use, thus requiring less vehicular travel. In recognition of lower vehicular
travel demand in the core area, proposed transportation impact fees are lower in the core area.
This policy recommendation is consistent with the literature summarized in the three
subsections below and a recent analysis of mixed-use developments in six regions of the United
States. This study found an average 29% reduction in trip generation as a function of “D”
variables, including: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit,
demographics, and development scale (see Ewing, Greenwald, Zhang, Walters, Feldman,
Cervero, Frank, and Thomas 2011).
Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas
Single-family housing is generally located in low-density suburbs where there are few
alternatives for travel except by private motor vehicle. On average, urban housing has fewer
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
6
persons and vehicles available, thus lowering vehicular trip generation rates per unit when
compared to housing in the suburban unincorporated area. Currans and Clifton (2015)
developed and tested methods for adjusting ITE trip generation rates for urban settings. They
recommend mode-share adjustments based on the number of residents and jobs per acre,
which serves as a proxy for urban form.
Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas
Urban areas have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce vehicle trips,
such as higher internal capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking, and
superior transit service. Urban areas with grid streets and small blocks offer a variety of routes
that encourage walking and biking. Interesting streetscapes with human-scale design features
encourage people to walk and bike farther in urban areas, while lowering our perception of
distance (Jacobs 2001). Urban areas also have more diverse travel options including public
transportation and muscle-powered mobility. A study titled “Trip Generation Rates for Urban
Infill Land Uses in California” documented auto trips for infill development averaged
approximately 50% of the modal share, compared to 90% or higher auto dependency in most
metropolitan areas (Daisa and Parker, 2009). Lower dependency on private vehicles reduces
the need for street capacity and supports an impact fee reduction for new development within
the core area of Vail.
Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas
Mixed land use and better job-housing balance reduces average trip length. By balancing the
number of jobs with nearby housing units, urban areas have the potential for reducing journey-
to-work travel. The magnitude of effect is dependent on matching job and housing locations of
individual workers, which can be aided by offering a variety of housing styles and price ranges.
Inclusionary policies, such as requiring at least 10% affordable housing units within each
development, can foster a better jobs-housing balance and reduce the need for street capacity
(Nelson, Dawkins and Sanchez 2007).
Mixed-use areas like the center of Vail exhibit lower vehicular trip rates because of “internal
capture” (i.e., many daily destinations do not require travel outside the area). For example, a
study titled “Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses” examined 20 mixed use communities in
South Florida, documenting internal capture rates up to 57 percent with an average of 25
percent. In addition to a percent reduction for the jobs-housing balance, credit can be given for
local-serving retail. Urban, transit-oriented development offers coffee shops, restaurants,
general retail stores and services that reduce the need for vehicular trips outside the area
(Ewing, Dumbaugh and Brown 2003).
The report “Driving and the Built Environment” (TRB 2009) found a strong link between
development patterns and vehicle miles of travel, encouraging mixing of land uses to reduce
vehicle trip rates and reduce trip lengths. Reductions up to 24% for transit service and
pedestrian/bicycle friendliness are recommended for nonresidential development in a 2005
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
7
study titled “Crediting Low-Traffic Developments” (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates
2005).
Current and Proposed Transportation Fees
Figure 2 provides a comparison of current and proposed transportation fees for new
development in the Town of Vail. Current amounts are shown with dark shading and white
numbers. Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends
generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions
given for multi-modal travel. The Town currently assesses transportation-related mitigation
fees (see Vail code section in the footnote1). This requirement is specific to certain zone
districts and does not provide a codified fee schedule. The current fees are determined and
agreed upon by the Town and developers during the development entitlement process.
Proposed fees are shown with light shading and black numbers in the table below. For
consistency with a national impact fee survey, the fee amount for a detached house assumes
construction of an average size unit, which in Vail and Pitkin County is approximately 4,000
square feet (i.e. twice the national average). Fee amounts for nonresidential development are
expressed per thousand square feet of floor area.
1 12-7A,H,I,J: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for
mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a
reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by
qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals
of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of
development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to,
the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements,
streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar
improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development
projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1)
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
8
Figure 2 – Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
Single Family Multifamily Retail Office
National Average (1)$3,228 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430
Durango (1)$2,169 $1,298 $3,810 $2,823
Ft. Collins 2016 Draft (2)$6,217 $4,095 $8,113 $5,977
Vail current*$0 $2,366 $10,569 $9,685
Proposed in Core Area of Vail (2)not applicable $5,960 $13,900 $6,200
Proposed Outside Core Area (2)$9,686 $7,450 $13,900 $6,200
Eagle Co. (1)$4,378 $3,034 $9,026 $5,164
Jefferson Co. (1)$3,276 $2,725 $7,120 $4,790
Larimer Co. (2)$3,418 $8,812 $4,726
Pitkin Co. (2)$9,339 $5,115 $10,910 $5,130
Weld Co. (2)$2,377 $3,296 $2,174
Incorporated Areas in Colorado
Counties in Colorado
Per Housing Unit Per 1,000 Sq Ft
Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family
assumes 2,000 square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a
building with 100,000 square feet of floor area.
(2) TischlerBise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4,000 square feet.
* Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends
generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
9
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
Basic steps in a conceptual impact fee formula are illustrated below (see Figure 3). The first
step (see the left part of the equation) is to determine an appropriate demand indicator, for a
particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of demand units
for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for roads is
vehicle trips. The second step in the conceptual impact fee formula is shown in the middle
section of the equation. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called Level-Of-
Service (LOS) or infrastructure standards. Road impact fee studies for suburban communities
often establish a relationship between lane miles and vehicle miles of travel (note: a lane mile is
a rectangular area of pavement one lane wide and one mile long). Because the Town of Vail
has a more compact, urban development pattern, multi-modal transportation improvements
were identified in a recently approved Transportation Master Plan. In essence, the Town of Vail
has combined the second and third step in the conceptual impact fee formula (see the right
side of the equation below). The cost of growth-related transportation improvements was
allocated to the expected increase in vehicle trips.
Figure 3 – Conceptual Impact Fee Formula
When applied to specific types of infrastructure, the conceptual impact-fee formula is
customized using three common impact fee methods that focus on different timeframes. The
first method is the cost recovery method. To the extent that new growth and development is
served by previously constructed improvements, local government may seek reimbursement
for the previously incurred public facility costs. This method is used for facilities that have
adequate capacity to accommodate new development, at least for the next five years. The
rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the
useful life or remaining capacity of an existing facility that was constructed in anticipation of
additional development. The second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the
incremental expansion cost method. This method documents the current infrastructure
standard for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures. The local
government uses impact fee revenue to incrementally expand infrastructure as needed to
accommodate new development. A third impact fee approach is the plan-based method. This
method is best suited for public facilities that have commonly accepted engineering/planning
standards or specific capital improvement plans. Proposed transportation impact fees for the
Dollars
per
Infrastructure
Unit
Infrastructure
Units
per
Demand
Unit
Demand
Units
per
Development
Unit
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
10
Town of Vail are derived using a plan-based method, with one cost recovery item for the
recently completed I-70 underpass.
Trip Generation
Transportation models and traffic studies for individual development projects typically use
average weekday or afternoon (PM), peak-hour trips. The need for transportation
improvements in Vail was determined through the Transportation Master Plan process using an
extensive engineering analysis. In contrast to the engineering analysis, the impact fee
methodology is essentially an accounting exercise whereby the cost of growth-related system
improvements is allocated to new development within the Town of Vail. For the purpose of
impact fees, trip generation is based on attraction (inbound) trips to development located in
the Town of Vail. This approach eliminates the need for adjustments to account for pass-
through trips (i.e. external-external travel) and trips to destinations outside Vail (i.e. internal-
external travel).
One of the major trip destinations in Vail is the base of the ski mountain. In addition to people
working in Town and those staying over night, the ski mountain draws thousands of 'day skiers'
that typically leave their vehicles in a parking garage while in Town. Because parking structures
are ancillary uses, impact fees are typically not imposed on the floor area of a garage, but the
floor area of nearby development that actually attracts people to the area. Given this practice,
future growth of 'day skiers' will not be directly accounted for in the development projections
shown in Figure 4. However, the Town and Vail Resorts have agreed the maximum skiers at
one time that can be handled by the Town’s infrastructure is 19,900, as specified in the
agreement titled “Town of Vail & Vail Associates, Inc. Program to Manage Peak Periods.”
Therefore, if the maximum-skiers agreement or lift capacity is increased without a significant
increase in nonresidential buildings, a traffic impact fee for additional day skiers should be
contemplated.
Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail
The relationship between the amount of new development anticipated within Vail and the
projected increase in vehicle trips is shown in Figure 4. Expected development in Vail is based
on trends within the Town, Eagle County, and the state of Colorado. The projected increase in
development and afternoon, peak-hour trips are consistent with Appendix E in Vail’s
Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and the development stats database, updated by Town
staff. Although the specific year is not important to the analysis, the net increase in
development is expected to occur by the year 2040. A faster pace of development would
accelerate the collection of impact fees and the construction of planned improvements.
Conversely, slower development would reduce fee revenue and delay the construction of
capital improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, planned
development in Vail is expected to generate an additional 838 PM-Peak inbound vehicle trips.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
11
Figure 4 – Summary of Projected Travel Demand
Transportation Impact Fee System Improvements
Transportation system improvements to be funded by impact fees are shown in Figure 5.
Specific projects were identified in the Transportation Master Plan for the Town of Vail and
updated by Town staff. Road sections listed below will be constructed as “complete streets”
with bus, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. Town staff prepared the planning-level cost
estimates and identified the growth share of projects that will be funded with impact fees,
based on the expected increase in vehicular trips.
The total cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development
through 2040 is estimated to be approximately $95 million in current dollars (not inflated over
time). Impact fees will fund approximately $20.8 million, which is 28% of systems
improvements. Funding from non-impact fee sources, such as the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT), Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), and the Town of Vail General Fund will
cover the remaining cost of system improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the
table below, the capacity cost of $24,836 per additional trip is equal to the growth share of
transportation improvements divided by the increase in PM-Peak inbound vehicle trips.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
12
Figure 5 – Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share
Transportation Improvements Estimated Project-
Town of Vail, Colorado Cost Level Percent Funded Percent Other Cost by Cost by
ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Millions)Cost By Impact Fee Revenue Impact Fee Other Revenue
A West Vail Commercial
Roundabout & Medians 6.70$ 6.70$ 0%0%-$ -$
B Buffehr Creek Turn Lanes 1.20$ -$ 52%48%0.62$ 0.58$
C Buffehr Creek NRT connection to
Marriott Roost 0.50$ 0.50$ 0%0%-$ -$
D Marriott Roost Turn Lanes 1.20$ 1.20$ 0%0%-$ -$
E Timber Ridge Turn Lanes 1.20$ 1.20$ 0%0%-$ -$
F Lions Ridge Loop Turn Lanes 1.20$ -$ 35%65%0.41$ 0.79$
G Red Sandstone Drive Turn lanes 1.20$ -$ 35%65%0.41$ 0.79$
H Main Vail North Roundabout
Expansion to Two Lanes 5.60$ -$ 35%65%1.98$ 3.62$
I Main Vail Underpass Revesible
Lane 2.00$ -$ 35%65%0.71$ 1.29$
J Gore Creek Drive Turn Lanes 1.20$ -$ 14%86%0.17$ 1.03$
K Underpass (Cost Recovery)9.10$ -$ 22%78%1.96$ 7.14$
L Underpass to Forest Road
Imrpovements (5 Lane/Walk)7.00$ 7.00$ 0%0%-$ -$
M Vail Spa to ELHC Improvements
(5 Lane/Walk)4.50$ -$ 46%54%2.05$ 2.45$
N ELHC to LH Parking Structure
Entrance Medians 0.75$ -$ 46%54%0.34$ 0.41$
O LH Parking Structure Entrance to
Municipal Bldg (5 Lane & Rdabt)9.00$ 2.25$ 39%36%3.55$ 3.20$
P
Village Ctr Road to Vail Valley
Drive (Medians, TC Device,
Compact Rdabt)
6.50$ -$ 29%71%1.92$ 4.58$
Q PW/VVD Turn Lanes 1.20$ -$ 27%73%0.33$ 0.87$
R Booth Creek Turn Lanes 1.20$ -$ 27%73%0.33$ 0.87$
S GVT Dowd Junction to WV Rdabt 8.50$ -$ 22%78%1.83$ 6.67$
T Donovan to Westhaven Drive
Walk 1.50$ -$ 22%78%0.32$ 1.18$
U WLHC walk (Vail Spa to S. Frtge)0.75$ 0.75$ 0%0%-$ -$
V VVD Path imrpovements 1.20$ -$ 22%78%0.26$ 0.94$
W Vail Rd (Willow Way to Forest
Rd) Walk 0.50$ -$ 22%78%0.11$ 0.39$
X ELHC (LHWC to Dobson) Walk 1.00$ -$ 22%78%0.22$ 0.78$
Y West Vail Pedestrian Overpass 6.00$ -$ 22%78%1.29$ 4.71$
Z VMS to Bighorn Path 1.50$ -$ 22%78%0.32$ 1.18$
AA ELHC (Vantage Point to S.
Frontage Road) Walk 0.20$ -$ 22%78%0.04$ 0.16$
BB Chamonix (Arosa to Chamonix)1.00$ -$ 22%78%0.22$ 0.78$
CC Chamonix (Chamonix to Buffehr
Creek Rd)1.00$ -$ 22%78%0.22$ 0.78$
DD Line Haul Transit Stop
Improvement Projects 1.60$ -$ 22%78%0.34$ 1.26$
EE Vail Bus Stops (10 Shelters)1.50$ -$ 22%78%0.32$ 1.18$
FF Arosa Transit Parking 2.50$ -$ 22%78%0.54$ 1.96$
GG Frontage Road Lighting
Improvements 5.00$ -$ 0%100%-$ 5.00$
HH Structured Parking Expansion &
Buses -$ -$ 0%100%-$ -$
Grand Totals 95.00$ 19.60$ 28%72%20.81$ 54.59$
Net New PM Peak Inbound Trips =>838
Capacity Cost per Additional PM Peak Inbound Trip =>24,836$
System-Level Improvements
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
13
Credit for Other Revenues
A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits.
A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from
the one-time payment of an impact fee plus other revenue payments that may also fund
growth-related capital improvements. The determination of credits is dependent upon the
impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Vail’s transportation impact fees are derived
primarily using a plan-based method, with a minor cost recovery component for the recently
completed I-70 underpass. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to
accommodate new development. Given the plan-based approach, the credit evaluation
focuses on the need for future bonds and revenues that will fund planned capital
improvements. Because the Town does not expect to bond finance transportation projects, a
revenue credit for future principal payments is not applicable.
Some impact fee studies include a credit for gas taxes and/or General Fund revenue. A credit
for future revenue generated by new development is only necessary if there is potential double
payment for system improvements. In the Town of Vail, transportation impact fees are derived
from the growth cost of system improvements, not the total cost of capital improvements.
Impact fee revenue will be used exclusively for the growth share of improvements listed in
Figure 5. Other, non-impact fee funds, such as the General Fund and gas tax revenue, will be
used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies and for making
improvements not listed in the transportation CIP. Based on expected development in Vail (see
Figure 8), future impact fee revenue approximates the growth cost of planned system
improvements (approximately $21 million). If elected officials in Vail make a legislative policy
decision to fully fund the growth share of system improvements from impact fees, a credit for
other revenue sources is unnecessary.
Transportation Impact Fee Formula and Input Variables
Input variables for the transportation impact fee are shown in Figure 6. Inbound trips by type
of development are multiplied by the net capital cost per trip to yield the transportation impact
fees. For example, the transportation impact fee formula for an attached residential unit in the
core area is 0.24 x $24,836 = $5,960 (truncated) per housing unit. Because the core area of Vail
has a walkable, urban development pattern, impact fees for attached housing and hotel rooms
are lower in the core area, as supported by the engineering analysis in the adopted
Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009). Trip generation rates are from the Transportation
Master Plan, except for detached dwellings, which are only expected outside the core area.
Inbound trip rates per detached dwelling, by heated floor area, are documented in Appendix A.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
14
Figure 6 – Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables
Residential (per Houing Unit)Heated Sq Ft Vehicle Trips
Attached in Core Area all sizes 0.24
Attached Outside Core all sizes 0.30
Detached 2099 or less 0.33
Detached 2100 to 2599 0.34
Detached 2600 to 3099 0.35
Detached 3100 to 3599 0.37
Detached 3600 to 4099 0.38
Detached 4100 to 4599 0.39
Detached 4600 to 5099 0.40
Detached 5100 to 5599 0.41
Detached 5600 to 6099 0.41
Detached 6100 or more 0.42
Hotel (per room)
Hotel in Core Area 0.24
Hotel Outside Core 0.30
Nonresidential (per 1,000 Sq Ft of floor area)
Commercial 0.56
Hospital 0.40
Office & Other Services 0.25
Infrastructure Standards
Cost per Trip =>$24,836
Revenue Credit Per Trip =>$0
PM-Peak Inbound
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
15
Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees
The input variables discussed above yield the maximum supportable impact fees shown in
Figure 7. Fees for most types of nonresidential development are listed per square foot of floor
area. At the bottom of the table are some nonresidential development types that have unique
demand indicators. For example, the impact fee for lodging is based on the number of rooms.
Figure 7 – Transportation Impact Fee Schedule
Residential (per housing unit)Heated Sq Ft
Attached in Core Area all sizes $5,960
Attached Outside Core all sizes $7,450
Detached 2099 or less $8,195
Detached 2100 to 2599 $8,444
Detached 2600 to 3099 $8,692
Detached 3100 to 3599 $9,189
Detached 3600 to 4099 $9,437
Detached 4100 to 4599 $9,686
Detached 4600 to 5099 $9,934
Detached 5100 to 5599 $10,182
Detached 5600 to 6099 $10,182
Detached 6100 or more $10,431
Hotel (per room)
Hotel in Core Area $5,960
Hotel Outside Core $7,450
Nonresidential (per square foot of floor area)
Commercial $13.90
Hospital $9.93
Office & Other Services $6.20
Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
16
Funding Strategy for Transportation System Improvements
Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the maximum supportable
transportation impact fee. Projected revenues essentially match the growth share of the
capital improvements plan for transportation (i.e. $20.8 million). Impact fee revenue can be
accumulated over several years to construct major projects, but annually completing at least
one capital project will ensure benefit to fee payers. The percentage of total impact fee
revenue expected from each development type is shown below in the right column. New
housing units in Vail will generate approximately 58% of the transportation impact fee revenue.
New hotels will generate approximately 11%, while other types of nonresidential development
will yield approximately 31% of projected revenue.
Figure 8 – Impact Fee Revenue Projection
Development
Type
Additional
Development
Units
Fee per
Development
Unit
Projected
Revenue
Percent
of
Impact
Fees
Attached Housing Units in Core Area 705 $5,960 $4,202,000 20%
Attached Housing Units Outside Core 554 $7,450 $4,127,000 20%
Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 $5,960 $244,000 1%
Employee Housing Units Outside Core
310 $7,450 $2,310,000 11%
Detached Housing Units 120 $9,686 $1,162,000 6%
Hotel Rooms in Core Area 270 $5,960 $1,609,000 8%
Hotel Rooms Outside Core 102 $7,450 $760,000 4%
Commercial KSF 320 $13,900 $4,448,000 21%
Hospital KSF 140 $9,930 $1,390,000 7%
Office & Other Services KSF 88 $6,200 $546,000 3%
Total =>$20,798,000 100%
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
17
APPENDIX A – DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
In this Appendix, TischlerBise documents the demographic data used to derive trip rates by size
of detached housing. In the Town of Vail, the fiscal year begins on January 1st. Impact fees are
calibrated using 2016 as the base year and 2017 as the first projection year.
Trip Generation by Type and Size of Housing
Although the Town of Vail only expects a few detached housing units to be constructed each
year, TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule whereby larger units pay higher transportation
impact fees. Benefits of the proposed methodology include: 1) proportionate assessment of
infrastructure demand using local demographic data, 2) progressive fee structure (i.e. smaller
units pay less and larger units pay more), and 3) more affordable fees for workforce housing.
Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual
survey responses provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) published by the U.S.
Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS files
are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the Town of Vail is included in Public Use
Microdata Area (PUMA) 400 that includes Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties.
At the top of Figure A1, cells with yellow shading indicate the survey results, which yield the
unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per dwelling. These multipliers are
adjusted to match the control totals for Vail. According to ACS table B25033 (five-year
estimates) Vail had 5,277 year-round residents in 2014 and table B25032 indicates Vail had
2,451 households in 2014, or an average of 2.15 persons per household. TischlerBise used ACS
tables B25046 and B25032 to derive the average number of vehicles available per household.
In 2014, there were 3,738 aggregate vehicles available and 2,451 households, or an average of
1.53 vehicles available per household.
The middle section of Figure A1 provides nation-wide data from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). VTE is the acronym for Vehicle Trip Ends, which measures vehicles coming and
going from a development. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per person yields an
average of 2.17 persons per occupied condominium/townhouse and 3.78 persons per occupied
single dwelling, based on ITE’s national survey. Applying Vail’s current housing mix of 77.7%
condominium/townhouses and 22.3% single-family dwellings yields a weighted average of 2.53
persons per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail only has an average of 2.15
persons per household.
Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per vehicle available yields an average of 1.68
vehicles available per occupied condo/townhouse and 1.52 vehicles available per occupied
single dwelling, based on ITE’s national survey. Applying Vail’s current housing mix yields a
nation-wide weighted average of 1.64 vehicles available per household. In comparison to the
national data, Vail has fewer vehicles available, with an average of 1.53 per housing unit.
Rather than rely on one methodology, the recommended trip generation rates shown in the
bottom section of Figure A1 (see Vail PM-Peak VTE per Household), are an average of trip rates
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
18
based on persons and vehicles available, for single detached housing units by bedroom range.
In the Town of Vail, each household in a single detached unit is expected to generate an
average of 0.57 PM-Peak Vehicle Trip Ends, compared to the national average of 0.63 trip ends
per household.
Figure A1 – PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
19
Trip Generation by Floor Area of Detached Housing
To derive afternoon peak hour inbound trips by square feet of detached housing, TischlerBise
combined demographic data from the Census Bureau (discussed above) and detached house
size data from the County Assessor’s parcel database. The number of bedrooms per housing
unit is the common connection between the two databases. In Vail, the average size detached
housing unit with two or less bedrooms has 1,594 square feet of heated space. The average
three-bedroom unit has 2,667 square feet of floor area. The average size of a four-bedroom
unit is 3,698 square feet of floor area. Detached housing units with five or more bedrooms
average 5,706 square feet of floor area.
Average floor area and number of inbound trips by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A2,
with a logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in the Town of Vail.
TischlerBise used the trend line formula to derive estimated average PM-Peak, inbound trips by
size of detached housing unit, in 300 square feet intervals. Square feet measures heated floor
area (excluding porches, garages, unfinished basements, etc.).
Based on the size of detached housing units in Vail, TischlerBise recommends limiting
transportation impact fees for detached housing to the floor area range shown below. In other
words, a detached house with 2,099 or less square feet would pay a transportation impact fee
based on 0.33 inbound vehicle trips. Likewise, detached units with 6,300 or more square feet
of heated space would pay a maximum transportation impact fee based on 0.42 inbound
vehicle trips.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
20
Figure A2 – PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet
Bedrooms Square Feet Inbound Trips Square Feet Inbound Trips
0-2 1,594 0.31 2099 or less 0.33
3 2,667 0.37 2100 to 2599 0.34
4 3,698 0.38 2600 to 3099 0.35
5+5,706 0.41 3100 to 3599 0.37
3600 to 4099 0.38
4100 to 4599 0.39
4600 to 5099 0.40
5100 to 5599 0.41
5600 to 6099 0.41
6100 or more 0.42
Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted-Curve Values
y = 0.076ln(x) -0.2431
R² = 0.9513
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000Inbound Trips per Housing UnitSquare Feet of Heated Area
PM-Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips
per Detached Dwelling by Size within Vail, CO
Average dwelling size by bedroom
range is from County Assessor
parcel database. PM-Peak vehicle
trip ends are derived using ACS
PUMS data and calibrated to Town
of Vail demographics. Inbound
trips are 64% of trip ends (ITE
2012).
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
21
APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION
Development impact fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data.
One approach is to adjust for inflation using an index, such as the Engineering News Record
(ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be
applied to the adopted impact fee schedule. If cost estimates or demand indicators change
significantly, the Town should redo the fee calculations.
Colorado’s enabling legislation allows local governments to “waive an impact fee or other
similar development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or
affordable employee housing, as defined by the local government.” However, projected impact
fee revenue from employee housing accounts for approximately 12% of the growth cost to be
funded by impact fees. Given this magnitude, waiving impact fees for workforce housing will
create a significant funding gap.
Credits and Reimbursements
Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements
will be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the transportation impact fees. Project-
level improvements, normally required as part of the development approval process, are not
eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement (see
the impact fee funded improvements listed in Figure 5), it will be necessary to either reimburse
the developer or provide a site-specific credit. The latter option is more difficult to administer
because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. TischlerBise recommends
establishing reimbursement agreements with the developers that construct a system
improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no
more than ten years and the Town should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The
developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system
improvement. The Town should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or
the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the Town pays more than the cost used in
the fee analysis, there will be insufficient impact fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements
should only obligate the Town to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee
collections from the service area. If the Town collects impact fees for other types of
infrastructure, site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system
improvement does not negate payment of impact fees for other types of infrastructure.
Town-wide Service Area
The transportation impact fee service area is defined as the entire incorporated area within the
Town of Vail. Even though Colorado’s enabling legislation uses the phrase “direct benefit” Vail
is a relatively small geographic area with a strong core area. Transportation improvements
along the I-70 corridor will benefit new development throughout the entire Town.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
22
Development Categories
Proposed transportation fees for residential development are by square feet of finished living
space, excluding unfinished basement, attic, and garage floor area. Appendix A provides
further documentation of demographic data by size threshold.
Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar
vehicle trip generation rates.
“Commercial” includes retail development and eating/drinking places, along with entertainment
uses if they are located in a shopping center (e.g. movie theater).
“Office & Other Services” includes offices (e.g. professional, medical and dental), personal
services and business services (e.g. banks). Also included in this category are public and quasi-
public buildings that provide educational, social assistance, or religious services.
Even though churches are a common type of development, they do not have a specific impact
fee category due to a lack of sufficient data. For churches and any other atypical development,
staff must establish a consistent administrative process to reasonably treat similar
developments in a similar way. When presented with a development type that does not match
one of the development categories in the published fee schedule, the first option is to look in
the ITE trip generation book to see if there is land use category with valid trip rates that match
the proposed development. The second option is to determine the published category that is
most like the proposed development. Churches without daycare or schools are basically an
office area (used throughout the week) with a large auditorium and class space (used
periodically during the week). Some jurisdictions make a policy decision to impose impact fees
on churches based on the fee schedule for warehousing. The rationale for this policy is the
finding that churches are large buildings that generate little weekday traffic and only have a few
full time employees. A third option is to impose impact fees on churches by breaking down the
building floor area into its primary use. For example, a church with 25,000 square feet of floor
area may have 2,000 square feet of office space used by employees throughout the week. At a
minimum, impact fees could be imposed on the office floor area. An additional impact fee
amount could be imposed for the remainder of the building based on the rate for a warehouse.
An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a
particular development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer
or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in the transportation
impact fee methodology. The independent fee study will be reviewed by Town staff and can be
accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee
study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to elected
officials for their consideration.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
23
APPENDIX C: REFERENCES
Been, Vicki. 2005. “Impact Fees and Housing Affordability”, Cityscape: Journal of Policy
Development and Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 139-185.
Blanton, Whit. 2000. “Integrating Land Use and Transportation” Planning Commissioners
Journal, Number 40: 9-13.
Bochner, Brian, Kevin Hooper, and Benjamin Sperry. 2010. “Improving Estimation of Internal
Trip Capture for Mixed-Use Development” ITE Journal 80(8): 24–28, 33.
Cherry, Nathan and Kurt Nagle. 2009. Grid / Street / Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable
Urban Districts. American Planning Association Planners Press.
Currans, Kristina and Kelly Clifton. 2015. “Using Household Travel Surveys to Adjust ITE Trip
Generation Rates” Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 85-119.
Daisa, James and Terry Parker. 2009. “Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in
California” ITE Journal.
Daisa, James, M. Schmitt, P. Reinhofer, K. Hooper, B. Bochner and L. Schwartz. 2013. “Trip
Generation Rates for Transportation Impact Analyses of Infill Developments” Transportation
Research Board NCHRP Report 758.
Downs, Anthony. 1992. Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion.
Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institute.
Dumbaugh, Eric, and Robert Rae. 2009. “Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the Relationship Between
Community Design and Traffic Safety.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75(3):
309–329.
Ewing, Reid, Eric Dumbaugh and Mike Brown. 2003. “Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses”
Transportation Research Record 1780.
Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. “Travel and the Built Environment” Journal of the
American Planning Association, 76:3, 265-294.
Frank, Lawrence and Gary Pivo. 1992. “Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of
Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking” Transportation
Research Record 1466.
Frank, Lawrence. 1994. Analysis of Relationships Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior.
PhD Dissertation, University of Washington.
Frank, Lawrence. 2000. “Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public
Health and Quality of Life” Journal of Planning Education and Research 20, 6-22.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
24
Giuliano, Genevieve. 1989. “New Directions for Understanding Transportation and Land Use”
Environment and Planning A, Volume 21: 145-159.
Hanson, Susan, and Genevieve Giuliano, eds. 2004. Geography of Urban Transportation.
Guilford Press.
Holian, Matthew and Matthew Kahn. 2012. Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural
Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation. Mineta Transportation Institute,
Report 11-13.
Jacobs, Allan. 2001. Great Streets (sixth edition). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Jones, David. 1985. Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice-Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Layton, Colleen, Tawny Pruitt and Kim Cekola (editors). 2011. Economics of Place: The Value of
Building Communities Around People. Michigan Municipal League.
Leinberger, Christopher. 2009. The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream.
Island Press.
Litman, Todd. 2015. Analysis of Public Policies that Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize
Urban Sprawl. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute.
Mathur, Shishir and Adam Smith. 2012. Decision-Support Framework for Using Value Capture
to Fund Public Transit: Lessons from Project-Specific Analyses. Mineta Transportation Institute,
College of Business, San Jose State University.
Moore, Terry, and Paul Thorsnes. 1994. The Transportation / Land Use Connection. Planning
Advisory Service Report no. 448/449. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Moore, Terry, Paul Thorsnes and Bruce Appleyard. 2007. The Transportation / Land Use
Connection (new edition). PAS Report 546-47. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
Myers, Dowell (editor). 1990. Housing Demography: Linking Demographic Structure and
Housing Markets. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Nelson, Arthur, ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press.
Nelson, Arthur, Casey Dawkins and Thomas Sanchez. 2007. Social Impacts of Urban
Containment. Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Nelson, Arthur, Liza Bowles, Julian Juergensmeyer, and James Nicholas. 2008. A Guide to
Impact Fees and Housing Affordability. Island Press.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
25
Nelson, Arthur. 2013. Reshaping Metropolitan America: Development Trends and
Opportunities to 2030. Island Press.
Nelson / Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2005. Crediting Low-Traffic Developments.
Nicholas, James, Arthur Nelson, and Julian Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner’s Guide to
Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press.
Pucher, John and Lefevre, Christian. 1996. The Urban Transportation Crisis. London:
MacMillan Press.
Reconnecting America. 2008. Capturing the Value of Transit. Federal Transit Administration.
Reid Ewing, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, Mark Feldman, Robert Cervero,
Lawrence Frank, and John Thomas. 2011. “Traffic Generated by Mixed-Use Developments: Six-
Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures” Journal of Urban Planning and
Development 137(3): 248–61.
Resource Systems Group, Fehr & Peers, Robert Cervero, Kara Kockelman, and Renaissance
Planning Group. 2012. Effect of Smart Growth Policies on Travel Demand. Strategic Highway
Research Program 2 Report S2-C16-RR-1. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies.
Ross, Catherine and Anne Dunning. 1997. Land Use Transportation Interaction: An
Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Schiller, P., E. Bruun, and J. Kenworthy. 2010. Introduction to Sustainable Transportation:
Policy, Planning, and Implementation. Earthscan.
Schneider, Robert, Susan Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh. 2014. “Trip Generation for Smart
Growth Projects” Access 45, University of California Transportation Center.
Seggerman, Karen, Kristine Williams, Pei-Sung Lin, and Aldo Fabregas. 2009. Evaluation of the
Mobility Fee Concept. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
Shoup, Donald. 2011. High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association.
Speck, Jeff. 2012. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time.
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Steiner, Ruth, and Siva Srinivasan. 2010. VMT-Based Traffic Impact Assessment: Development
of a Trip Length Model. Center for Multimodal Solutions at the University of Florida.
Transportation Research Board. 1994. Curbing Gridlock: Peak-Period Fees to Relieve Traffic
Congestion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Special Report 242.
Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17
26
Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work. National Academy Press Special
Report 257.
Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment. National Academy
Press Special Report 298.
Urban Land Institute and National Multi Housing Council. 2008. Getting Density Right: Tools
for Creating Vibrant Compact Development.
Vuchic, Vukan. 2000. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Center for Urban Policy Research.