Laserfiche WebLink
the trip length (in miles). He stated that each land use has different average trip length that <br />accounts for trips made to/from land use. <br />Vice Chairman Davis questioned the calculation of the 4.3 lane mile or if they <br />were just going with the data from Duncan & Associates, and Director Keating explained how <br />they calculated the cost for lane -mile, noting that it was calculated for this study, and is not the <br />same cost that was used in the Duncan study; it went up significantly. <br />Administrator Baird added that because the study was a year and a half old, it was <br />dated and the costs were a lot higher. Now with the slow economy the costs per lane -mile are <br />down, so the numbers have changed. <br />Mr. Leftwich provided Traffic Impact Fee examples and description for single- <br />family greater than 2,500 sq. ft., retail greater than 200,000 sq. ft., and general industrial, ITE <br />Code, daily trip rate, percentage of new trips, and trip length. He gave trip -chaining examples <br />(from home to Daycare, the Bank and back home) and compared primary with diverted trips <br />explaining how each works. <br />Vice Chairman Davis was more agreeable with the examples of trip chaining. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan argued the merits of trip length, and asked why we were <br />charging people for impact fees when there are places (e.g. banks) people could walk to that do <br />not count as a trip. Mr. Leftwich explained the survey results for trip rates. <br />Director Keating interjected that one of the ways they could reduce impact fees <br />and trip lengths is doing better land use planning. He felt that if retail and commercial uses are <br />closer to where people live, we can reduce trip lengths, reduce vehicle miles traveled on the road, <br />reduce the need for infrastructure, and reduce impact fees. He said traffic analysis is done to <br />September 17, 2008 7 <br />Public Workshop <br />