HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A2. Transportation Master Plan Presentation and Discussion
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Craig Woolard, Public Works Director
Rick Hixson, City Engineer SUBJECT: Transportation Master Plan Presentation and Discussion
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2017
RECOMMENDATION: Listen to presentation, discuss, and provide direction to staff and
consultant prior to final adoption of the Transportation Master Plan 2017 Update
BACKGROUND: The current Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan was last updated in
2007, using data that was acquired as long ago as 2005. In a community as vibrant as Bozeman a
lot changes in ten years. Even though the last ten year period bracketed several years that have been referred to as lean, even recessionary, the city population grew in every one of those intervening years, the population of Montana State University (MSU) significantly so. Those
years of slower growth are receding in the rear view mirror and development is once again
speeding up. The communities values, goals and priorities as reflected in their commission has
also evolved. In August of 2015 the City Commission authorized Public Works and Engineering to enter into a contract with Robert Peccia and Associates prepare a new Transportation Master Plan which would address not only the tangible, physical infrastructure required to support more
users of the system, but also the ever evolving values of the community. After a robust public
process which included 50 stakeholder outreach meetings and 20 months of hard work, a final
draft of that plan will be presented to you tonight. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The commissions input and direction on the final draft is the only
unresolved issue. Discussion and direction on how well the plan meets overall goals, the concept
of designing corridors as a whole rather than discrete segments, including the concept of
considering final intersection designs from the beginning as opposed to incremental improvements based on levels of service are sought.
125
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
ATTACHMENTS (LINKS): Please note that due to the size of the files involved with this project we are providing links rather than attachments to all appendices.
Exhibit A – Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Scope of Services
Transportation Master Plan
Appendices: Appendix A – Comments
Appendix B – TMP Survey Results
Appendix C – Public Engagement Plan
Appendix D – Study Area Boundary
Appendix E – Goals & Objectives Appendix F – Socioeconomic Data and Growth Trends
Appendix G – Existing & Projected Conditions
Appendix H – Facility Recommendations
Appendix I – Additional Transportation Considerations
Appendix J – Traffic Operations Standards & Best Practices Appendix K – Corridor Striping Plan
Draft Report Comments
126
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 1 of 25
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan
SCOPE OF SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
The Bozeman Master Transportation Plan will guide development of and investment in the community’s
transportation systems. The Plan will do so in a comprehensive manner by assessing applicable
background information, analyzing options and alternatives, incorporating meaningful input from citizens
and local officials, and providing a framework for future efforts within the context of state and federal
rules, regulations, and budget allocations.
The overall goal of the project is to update the existing 2007 Transportation Plan, which built upon prior
transportation planning efforts. Although this effort will be updating the past planning document, the
overall intent is to take an entirely fresh look at the condition of transportation issues in the Bozeman
community.
The Transportation Plan is intended to facilitate community
goals and improve the transportation infrastructure and
services within the City of Bozeman and that portion within
Gallatin County that is likely to include future urban area
expansion. It is essential that the Transportation Plan meet
the needs of existing and future land use. It must also
address regional transportation issues, overall travel
convenience, traffic safety, and property access, in addition
to sustainability, complete streets, funding, transportation
demand management (TDM), multi-modal connections, and
historic preservation. The Plan must include
recommendations for short-term Transportation System
Management (TSM) improvements as well as recommended
modifications and capital improvements to the Major Street
Network. It must also present policy suggestions to align with
the community’s vison.
A Transportation Plan that is fully compatible with state and
federal codes, including provisions of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), while responding to the changing nature of the community, will
allow for a successful update. The Transportation Plan will address all modes of transportation in a
balanced attempt to meet the current and future transportation needs of the City of Bozeman while in
compliance with state and federal requirements.
The satisfactory completion of the Transportation Plan within resource constraints requires that the RPA
team begin the project with a good understanding of all relevant local, state and federal issues, and move
efficiently through each stage of development. As a result, we will approach Plan development through a
series of distinct work tasks. The preliminary tasks anticipated to develop the Transportation Plan from
beginning to completion are identified in this Exhibit A.1.
All work on the Transportation Plan will fall under
one of five “themes” as shown in the diagram above.
127
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 2 of 25
TASK DESCRIPTIONS
The following tasks have been identified to fulfill the scope of services and are based on our
understanding of what is needed to ensure a viable transportation system that is within the appropriate
context for the Greater Bozeman Area. The following major tasks have been identified and are defined
throughout this exhibit:
TASK 1: Project Management and Administration
TASK 2: Study Area Boundary / Public Engagement Plan
TASK 3: Identify Goals and Objectives
TASK 4: Develop Socioeconomic and Land Use Baseline / Projections
TASK 5: Travel Demand Modeling of Existing and Projected Conditions
TASK 6: Existing and Projected Conditions Analysis
TASK 7: Non-Motorized Transportation
TASK 8: Alternative Network Modeling and Assessment
TASK 9: Community Survey
TASK 10: Other Transportation System Considerations
TASK 11: Develop Recommendations and Major Street Network
TASK 12: Transportation Funding
TASK 13: Report Preparation
TASK 14: Public Engagement and Meetings
Task 1: Project Management and Administration
This task has been created for overall project management aspects associated with managing this study,
both internal and external. Included in this task is the effort required to develop both a monthly progress
report as well as a monthly invoice over the duration of the study. The monthly invoice is prepared by
RPA’s staff accountant, and reviewed by RPA’s project manager prior to distribution. General
management and coordination duties include the following, and do not logically fall under other tasks/sub-
tasks identified for this study:
• Phone conversations and email correspondence with the public and interested citizens;
• Phone conversations and email correspondence with City and/or MDT staff;
• Informal meetings with City and/or MDT that are not part of the regularly scheduled meetings; and
• Internal project management duties at RPA to monitor scope, schedule and budget.
At the conclusion of the study, after all deliverables have been made and the final evaluation meeting has
been completed, RPA implements its project closeout and archive process. This process requires the
assemblage of all project related materials, summarization of project financials (which includes a detailed
comparison of actual man-hours and costs expended compared to budget), and electronic and hard copy
archiving of the project.
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 1.1 Prepare Scope of Services, Fee Estimate, and Schedule
Sub-Task 1.2 General Management and Coordination Duties
Sub-Task 1.3 Project Invoicing and Progress Reports
Sub-Task 1.4 Project Setup and Closeout
Task 1 Deliverables:
Scope of Services, Fee Estimate, and Schedule (Electronic)
Monthly Progress Reports (Hard Copies / Electronic)
128
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 3 of 25
Monthly Invoices (Hard Copies / Electronic)
Task 2: Study Area Boundary / Public Engagement Plan
This task will involve a review of the proposed study area boundary and a recommendation of any
possible changes. It is important that the study area include all outlying land that is expected to develop
during the planning horizon while also including areas where transportation issues are expected to impact
or influence the regional community and growth needs. Therefore, RPA will examine the study area and
determine if the boundaries are appropriate for the 20-year planning horizon of this planning effort.
The review will consider previous and anticipated land use changes, local government jurisdictions,
Bureau of Census data, updated housing and employment data, and other planning area boundaries.
Special attention will be paid to the interface between this Plan’s boundary and that proposed for the
Bozeman Community Plan boundary. This review would be done in consultation with community
planners, MDT traffic modelers, and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC is envisioned to
be the oversight committee created just for the Transportation Plan, and composition would be by
appointment from the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC).
A Public Engagement Plan (PEP) will also be developed under this task. The PEP sets forth the
expected public outreach and engagement activities necessary for the development of the Transportation
Plan. The Transportation Plan will guide public opportunities and input as the Plan develops. This PEP
builds on historical processes that the community has used on past planning efforts, and utilizes several
traditional and non-traditional public participation strategies. It is the intent of the PEP to identify the
appropriate strategies to be used, define the sequencing within which the various strategies will be
implemented, and chart out a course of action to be followed as the planning process commences.
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 2.1 Prepare Draft Study Area Boundary Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 2.2 QA/QC Draft Study Area Boundary Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 2.3 Prepare Final Study Area Boundary Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 2.4 Prepare Draft Public Engagement Plan
Sub-Task 2.5 QA/QC Draft Public Engagement Plan
Sub-Task 2.6 Prepare Final Public Engagement Plan
Task 2 Deliverables:
Study Area Boundary Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Public Engagement Plan (Electronic)
Task 3: Identify Goals and Objectives
The intent of establishing goals and objectives is to provide guidance in the development of the
Transportation Plan. Formulation of goals and objectives for the Transportation Plan will begin with a
review of the current and developing transportation issues in the study area, and the performance
measure guidance that is emerging from MAP-21 implementation. Early in this process, RPA will assess
the continuing relevance of goals and objectives set forth in the past transportation plans and other City
planning documents. RPA will review and reaffirm the goals and objectives with the TAC. Our team feels
that this task will be a key activity that will lay the foundation for recommendations that optimize
Bozeman’s transportation system encompassing a variety of different mobility options.
129
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 4 of 25
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 3.1 Compile and Review Existing Community Goals, Policies and Objectives
Sub-Task 3.2 Prepare Draft Goals and Objectives Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 3.3 QA/QC Draft Goals and Objectives Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 3.4 Prepare Final Goals and Objectives Technical Memorandum
Task 3 Deliverables:
Goals and Objectives Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 4: Develop Socioeconomic and Land Use Baseline / Projections
Socioeconomic and land use information will be developed for the study area. This data will summarize
the area's land ownership characteristics, land use, land development status, population, income, and
housing characteristics, employment centers and economic development potential. Socio-economic and
land use data will be compatible with other public planning efforts in the Bozeman area.
2010 US Census and 2012 American Community Survey information will provide information relating to
population, income, and housing. This task will include developing and verifying the projections of
population, income, housing, and employment, and projecting the areas where new development will
occur.
Existing business and employment information used in the baseline 2010 TransCad Travel Demand
Model is based on the employment database that MDT purchased from GeoResults for Gallatin County.
The information represents year 2010 conditions. An overview of area economic characteristics and
trends will be developed using employment and income data available from the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) and the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DLI).
The modeling area has been subdivided into individual Census Blocks for use by the MDT Travel
Demand Modeler. Census Blocks were used to develop the current model for the study area. Future
socioeconomic information and land use data assignments will be reviewed and correlated with individual
Census Blocks as inputs to the development of the travel demand model for this project. The identification
and review of the Census Blocks will be done in consultation with the TAC and members of the City
planning staff.
Land use projections will be developed in terms of “control totals” to quantify projected changes in
population, housing, retail, and non-retail jobs. Information from City planning staff will aid in
geographically allocating the projected growth to areas within the study area boundary. The travel
demand model will use these predictions of the distribution of future land uses within Census Blocks to
project the characteristics and distribution of future travel demand in the study area.
Development of land use projections will require considerable input from planners and other local
professionals knowledgeable of area development factors. Importantly, the methodology used to predict
future conditions is dynamic; it allows for the testing of alternative economic and population growth
locations, and analysis of different assumptions about future land use distributions.
130
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 5 of 25
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 4.1 Review Census Data and Local Projections for Population, Housing and
Employment
Sub-Task 4.2 Develop Baseline Socioeconomic and Land Use Conditions
Sub-Task 4.3 Project 10- and 20-Year Planning Horizon Conditions
Sub-Task 4.4 Prepare Draft Socioeconomic and Land Use Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 4.5 QA/QC Draft Socioeconomic and Land Use Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 4.6 Prepare Final Socioeconomic and Land Use Technical Memorandum
Task 4 Deliverables:
Baseline Socioeconomic and Land Use Data (Electronic)
Planning Horizon Year Data (Electronic)
Socioeconomic and Land Use Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 5: Travel Demand Modeling of Existing and Projected Conditions
We would identify the committed improvements to be included in the model, and provide this information
to MDT. MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section will conduct all “hands on” modeling work, while our
team assists with calibration assessment, interpretation, and post-processing of model output.
Under this task, the RPA team will coordinate with the MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section to
ensure that the most current travel model input data are provided to MDT’s modelers in a timely manner.
We will coordinate with MDT to review calibration results for trip generation, distribution and assignment.
Trip assignment calibration will use traffic count data from state and local sources, with all counts
adjusted by MDT to a common base year prior to their use in the calibration effort.
Once the calibrated base year model is ready, we will provide MDT with the input data for creating a “no
build” or “existing plus committed” model for the planning horizon years. RPA will identify the committed
transportation projects in consultation with the TAC and MDT. RPA will also assess future year housing
and employment allocation throughout the study area in consultation with local officials and professionals
knowledgeable on community development and likely growth patterns. This effort will produce population
and employment growth projections for the individual zones in the travel demand model. We will review
these projections with the TAC and arrive at consensus projections.
We will provide the committed project list and socioeconomic projections to MDT for conducting the “no
build” future model runs. We will analyze the no-build model results to assess travel patterns on a
network-wide basis and identify specific locations with capacity-related deficiencies or opportunities. As
part of this travel pattern review, we may conduct select-link analyses to better understand the traffic mix
at key locations, which will in turn provide qualitative guidance on the likely impacts of different types of
investment strategies
We understand that the City is working with the Western Transportation Institute (WTI) to develop and
maintain a traffic simulation model which can be used to predict demands and levels of service on a case-
by-case basis at an individual project/subdivision level. RPA is fully able to coordinate all necessary
activities between WTI, MDT and the City. RPA will provide the results of the land use visioning exercise
to WTI for their use for future year modelling scenarios. This is allocated by Census Block and includes
new dwelling units, retail jobs and non-retail jobs between a base year and a planning year. Baseline
conditions will be obtained from MDT for the base model and delivered to WTI. RPA will also be available
to collaborate with WTI on an as-needed basis via conference calls, face-to-face meetings, and general
technical discussions about both work efforts.
131
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 6 of 25
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 5.1 Miscellaneous Meetings with MDT Travel Demand Modeler
Sub-Task 5.2 Identify Committed Project List and Deliver to MDT for Baseline Model
Sub-Task 5.3 Develop Socioeconomic and Land Use Assumptions for Travel Demand Modeling
Sub-Task 5.4 Assess Model Validation According to Accepted Calibration Methods
Sub-Task 5.5 Prepare Draft Travel Demand Model Calibration Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 5.6 QA/QC Draft Travel Demand Model Calibration Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 5.7 Prepare Final Travel Demand Model Calibration Technical Memorandum
Task 5 Deliverables:
Committed Project List (Electronic)
Planning Horizon Year Socioeconomic and Land Use Assumptions (Electronic)
Travel Demand Model Calibration Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 6: Existing and Projected Conditions Analysis
This task involves collecting data that relates to the transportation planning process. Our team will
acquire and evaluate the information and data that is already available, and collect or develop any
additional information required to accomplish the study. Existing local documents such as Growth
Policies, Master Plans, etc. will be reviewed for existing information, future projections, and recommended
improvements. Any existing information will be referenced in the study documents to allow users and
reviewers to locate sources of the material. We will also review and incorporate concurrent planning
projects such as the Bozeman Area Alternative Transportation Study (being developed by the Western
Federal Lands Highway Division) and the Montana State University Bicycle Master Plan.
We will compile and review existing traffic data that is available through the City, County and MDT. We
will conduct an analysis of the existing traffic conditions in the project study area based on existing and
historic traffic volume counts, combined with new traffic count data that will be collected as part of this
task.
We will collect turning movement data during the AM and PM peak periods at up to 25 major intersections
(to be determined in conjunction with the TAC). We will utilize Miovision Traffic Data on Demand (TDOD)
for intersection turning movement data collection. Miovision TDOD utilizes video and web-based
technology to collect, analyze and report accurate traffic data. In addition, we will utilize recent turning
movement counts collected by MDT to supplement our data collection effort. Note that only 25
intersections have been planned for individual data collection as almost 50 intersections have recently
had data collected as part of MDTs signal coordination and timing upgrade project. Furthermore, previous
presentation(s) by City of Bozeman staff have focused on approximately 21 intersections that are or are
planned to deteriorate to a level of service of D, E or F. As a budget efficiency, we plan to only focus on
those intersections in the community that are known to be failing or approaching failure.
At the same time we would collect turning movement counts, we would also collect information at each
intersection relating to truck traffic, as well as pedestrian and bicycle traffic. We will incorporate an
analysis of historical bicycle counts including September counts that have been collected from 2011-2015
by the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB). Other information such as signal timing, phasing
and lane-use, queue lengths and special intersection geometrics would also be collected at each
intersection. This information is essential in the evaluation of intersection and corridor operation.
Our team will analyze existing data and new information collected earlier in the study, in an effort to
identify the traffic-related problems that need to be addressed in the Transportation Plan. We will begin
by analyzing operational conditions of major signalized and unsignalized intersections using existing and
projected traffic volumes. The level of service for each of these intersections will be determined.
132
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 7 of 25
Historic crash data for the past five years will also be compiled. This information will be used to identify
locations that have a high crash frequency or a high level of crash severity. We will conduct a safety
assessment using crash data and recommendations from MDT’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
and implementation process. We will assess crash data at major intersections and at a system-wide
level. Information contained in the Bozeman Area Community Transportation Safety Plan will be used to
supplement our analysis. If necessary, we will examine the 911 call database to assess crash “near
misses” based on community comment or our initial data analysis findings.
The crash analysis will result in a listing of major operational and safety considerations associated with
the transportation network, the underlying factors that contribute to these considerations, and the actions
and policies that might be appropriate for addressing the factors. These considerations and factors will
be addressed by project and policy recommendations developed later in the planning process.
Intersection and roadway geometric data will also be collected. Information such as lane use, horizontal
curvature, vertical alignment, sight distances, clear zones, queue lengths and lane widths will help identify
opportunities and constraints for potential improvement projects.
The analysis of existing and projected conditions will assist in identifying deficiencies and areas of
concerns. Collectively, these inform where gaps existing in the transportation network for all travel modes.
The listing of gaps and areas of concerns in the transportation network will be included in the existing and
projected conditions analysis for consideration by the TAC.
The results of this task will provide direction to the planning process. Once the transportation-related
considerations have been clearly identified, out team will make recommendations on how these
deficiencies can be corrected.
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 6.1 Request and Compile Existing Data and Reports
Sub-Task 6.2 Complete Turning Movement Counts at Major Intersections (up to 25)
Sub-Task 6.3 Analyze all Existing and Collected Data
Sub-Task 6.4 Perform Intersection and Corridor Performance Analysis
Sub-Task 6.5 Conduct Safety Analysis
Sub-Task 6.6 Project Future Conditions
Sub-Task 6.7 Identify Operational Deficiencies and Safety Issues
Sub-Task 6.8 Prepare Draft Existing and Projected Conditions Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 6.9 QA/QC Draft Existing and Projected Conditions Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 6.10 Prepare Final Existing and Projected Conditions Technical Memorandum
Task 6 Deliverables:
Intersection Turning Movement Count Data (Electronic)
Intersection and Corridor Performance Analysis (Electronic)
Safety Analysis (Electronic)
Existing and Projected Conditions Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 7: Non-Motorized Transportation
Since adoption of the 2007 Bozeman Area Transportation Plan many high profile bicycle and pedestrian
projects have been completed. Bike lanes have been added on Kagy Blvd, Peach St, 23rd Ave, and parts
of 11th Ave, College and Baxter. New shared-use paths have been added along College, Huffine, Oak
and Fowler. Sidewalks have been added with new construction and as stand-alone improvements. ADA
upgrades have been annually improved and policies have been improved such as subdivision sidewalks.
The goal in this update process will not be to start over with a wholesale reimagining of the non-motorized
133
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 8 of 25
network, but to explore how residents are using and want to use it in the future. We will be examining the
previous plan’s recommendations and looking for opportunities to further enhance user comfort as well as
place a greater emphasis on spot improvements to help overcome real and perceived safety issues.
This non-motorized element of the Transportation Plan is an opportunity to gather a specific set of
recommendations that can be advanced through the City and State process for implementation and
ultimately meet the needs of the community. Our team will provide non-motorized expertise throughout
the development of the Transportation Plan Update.
PUBLIC AND PROJECT OUTREACH
Bozeman residents have proven to be engaged in their community, with this being particularly true with
transportation issues. Our team will use our experience working in many communities including our
detailed experience in Bozeman to maximize public outreach and overall participation in the
Transportation Plan Update.
Conduct Stakeholder Events
Our team will arrange stakeholder meetings with the following groups as needed:
• Gallatin Valley Bike Club
• Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
• Gallatin Valley Land Trust
• Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee
• MSU Bicycle Taskforce
• Bozeman Police Department
• Downtown Bozeman Partnership
• Bozeman Deaconess Health Services
• Up to four (4) other groups as needed
ANALYZE EXISTING CONDITIONS
As the authors of the previous plan, we do not envision a wholesale revision of the recommendations in
the previous plan, rather we feel that recommendations for some changes and enhancements will
ultimately be provided, along with greater detail to help the City improve the active transportation network.
Our team will determine the existing level of adequacy of existing conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians
through data contained in City and County’s records and field observations. We will summarize progress
made since the 2007 plan and identify lingering issues and gaps in facilities that remain. Given the varied
needs of bicyclists and pedestrians, we will conduct separate reviews for bicycle and pedestrian
circulation.
Throughout the course of this analysis, we will keep in mind the needs of a variety of users. We can
divide bicyclists according to their level of comfort in mixed traffic and whether they are utilitarian or
recreational in nature. Utilitarian cyclists need to be able to bicycle all the way to their destinations,
whether that is a commercial center, a store, school, or to a doctor’s office. On the other hand, many
recreational cyclists would prefer to stay away from such destinations and prefer routes that are away
from busier streets and commercial areas. We also need to keep in mind the varying skill levels and
preferences of bicyclists. Experienced bicyclists often prefer to ride on arterial and collector streets
because destinations are located along them. They also like these streets because they are the most
direct, have the traffic signals timed for their direction, and are the best lighted. Bicyclists with moderate
experience often need to go to the same destinations but prefer to use quieter streets or off street trails.
Children and cyclists with little experience often avoid traffic and busy intersections altogether. The
needs of pedestrians vary as well. Able-bodied adults frequently maintain walking speeds that are
greater than children, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. They are also more skilled at navigating
134
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 9 of 25
through intersections. As we examine existing pedestrian conditions, we will keep in mind the needs of
those who do not walk fast, those with less peripheral vision and awareness, and people who are
otherwise disabled. As part of the pedestrian analysis, we will conduct a detailed analysis of the existing
curb ramp inventories from the City of Bozeman and MDT and perform supplemental field work if
necessary. The curb ramp information is available in the City’s GIS platform and will be reviewed against
2015 aerial photography and our field observations to determine where gaps exist.
Bicycle Count Analysis
Volunteers have been conducting annual bicycle intercept counts since 2011 each September. We will
examine this data and look for conclusions that can be made regarding the state of bicycling in Bozeman.
Demand and Benefits Analysis
We will develop existing and future daily bicycle and walking trip projections. The American Community
Survey represents the only existing large data set and is limited to commute trips. In reality, commute
trips make up a small fraction of overall other utilitarian and recreational based trips. Projections will be
based on our Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand Model methodology that is being used by FHWA. We will
also utilize our nationally recognized benefit models to estimate reductions in vehicle trips, vehicle miles
traveled, and related items such as air quality implications. We will also estimate economic and health
benefits of bicycling and walking. Alta’s work on the Montana State University Bicycle Master Plan may
yield significant benefits as the impact of the University on travel behavior is better understood. As part of
that effort, a GIS spatial analysis has been performed that portrays student and faculty address points, as
well as the addresses of parking permit holders. This is represented graphically and shows the areas
where students, staff and faculty reside and commute to and from. The availability of this information will
help inform improvements and priorities.
Examine Existing Documentation
We will review documentation of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Many of these documents have
not been updated since the previous plan. We will review any changes in these documents, and chronicle
any changes in policy or the UDO since the previous plan, or as a result of the previous plan.
Solicit Comments Comments provided by the TAC and by the public via events such as the first public meeting and
electronically via the project website will be instrumental in gaining an understanding of the adequacy of
existing non-motorized facilities and programs. We will gather information about general bicycle and
pedestrian issues in Bozeman, as well as specific locations that need improvement.
Field Review
We will conduct a street-level field review and analyze the condition and adequacy of existing bicycle
facilities. We will verify existing inventories of shared-use paths, bike lanes and any other bicycle facilities
such as signed bike routes. We will examine the location, design, and functionality of those facilities. We
will also explore some opportunities for future facilities depending on roadway configuration and available
right-of-way.
We will conduct supplemental fieldwork to review the condition of crosswalks, Streamline bus stops, and
heavy pedestrian use areas such as Downtown Bozeman, MSU, and schools.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
We will use available data on roadway characteristics to conduct a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis
based on existing data. The methods used for the Level of Traffic Stress Analysis were adapted from the
2012 Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity.
For bicyclists, a “low stress” network (meaning facilities comfortable for most adults) is likely to attract a
larger portion of the population because it accommodates people who are uncomfortable with or do not
135
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 10 of 25
wish to ride in mixed traffic on major streets. A low traffic, low-speed roadway and a shared-use path are
two examples of low stress links in a bikeway network.
LTS analysis is a points-based evaluation model that classifies each roadway segment, with or without a
delineated bikeway, into a level of traffic stress. The premise for this analysis is that stress increases as
factors such as traffic speed or traffic volume increase. Level of Traffic Stress modeling results in four
possible street type outcomes based on roadway (link) and intersection (node) characteristics:
• LTS 1 – Most children are comfortable
• LTS 2 – Most adults are comfortable
• LTS 3 – Confident cyclists are comfortable
• LTS 4 – Only the strongest and most experienced cyclists are capable (but not necessarily
comfortable)
In addition to the classification of the roadway system into levels of traffic stress, we will run a network
analysis on the low stress network of the roadway system to demonstrate how connected or disconnected
the transportation network is for a bicyclists at varying levels of stress. As a result, islands of low stress
connectivity can be identified and utilized in recommendations and project prioritization as tools to
increase bicycle mode share.
Analyze Existing Facilities
Next, we will determine the adequacy of the existing bicycle facilities for the following criteria:
• Safety
• Connectivity
• Completeness of network
• Ability to serve work centers, shopping, residential areas, parks, schools, and other important
destinations
• Accessibility
• Convenience
• Ability to serve the needs of different types of bicyclists
We will identify gaps in the system and areas of the region that are not well served. We will also identify
the needs of the various users that are not well served.
We will conduct a general review and analysis of those pedestrian facilities which experience the highest
levels of activity, including:
• Employment Centers
• Shopping Destinations
• Downtown
• Schools
• Streamline Bus Connections
• Local and Regional Parks
• MSU
The existing pedestrian facilities in Bozeman will be evaluated for continuity, convenience, barriers for
disabled persons, and access. The existing system will be reviewed to determine existing gaps, barriers,
and bottlenecks that prevent facility users from traveling to destinations within a neighborhood,
throughout the region, and to connecting points within the region.
136
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 11 of 25
The existing system will be reviewed for general user convenience in terms of:
• Accessibility from points of origin (coverage).
• Comfort level of streets used in terms of vehicle traffic, crossing protection, lane width, driveways,
and other items.
• Opportunities and constraints associated with “mid-block” pedestrian crossings.
• Opportunities and constraints associated with grade separated (i.e. overpass and/or underpass)
pedestrian crossings.
• Coherence of the system to the average user attempting to reach an unfamiliar destination.
GIS Mapping/Inventory
Our team has recently collected updated on-campus data as part of the MSU bicycle master plan. We will
expand this effort for the rest of the study area and will assemble inventory data in a GIS ArcView format
of the non-motorized network along the Major Street Network. We will identify gaps if they seem relevant
to creating a network, or to access identified destinations. We will provide ArcView shapefile for facilities
inventoried/surveyed to supplement the City’s existing GIS dataset for non-motorized facilities.
The City already maintains a GIS layer of sidewalks, and this dataset will be reviewed against the most
recent aerial photography obtained by the City in July 2015. Supplemental data collection will be done on
foot, by bicycle and/or by automobile as dictated by efficiency considerations to determine where gaps
exist.
Analyze Collision and Traffic Data We will look at non-motorized collision data compiled by the City, County, and/or State. We will look at
the volume of collisions, their locations, as well as other information kept in records. Collision data
enables GIS mapping and analysis of bicycle and pedestrian collision location, type and frequency. If
additional data is available from local police, such as fault or situational information, this data will be
utilized as well. If necessary, we will examine the 911 call database to assess crash “near misses” based
on community comment or our initial data analysis findings.
We will review existing traffic count data and levels of service, collected by other members of the project
team, MDT, the City, and County on key study intersections as well as at the mid-block level. Traffic data
will also be compiled for other key facilities as well. This data will be utilized in subsequent tasks as they
relate to the identification of opportunities and constraints vis-à-vis new bike and pedestrian facilities.
Analyze Existing Programs and Policies
We will gather information on any existing non-motorized education and marketing programs in Bozeman.
We will collect information regarding enforcement policies of the Bozeman Police Department and the
MSU Police Department. If present, we will analyze the adequacy and effectiveness of these programs.
NEEDS ANALYSIS
We will use a combination of information gathered from the Existing and Projected Conditions Analysis
and a questionnaire to determine what the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in the Bozeman Area are,
as well as to prioritize these needs.
Administer Survey Questionnaires
Our team will develop appropriate questions in the form of an electronic bicycle and pedestrian needs
focused survey as a part of a larger survey within the project. The intent of the survey questionnaire is to
identify and prioritize some of the needs of the community. The questionnaire may solicit information
about demographics, route preferences, facility preferences, safety issues, and other behaviors related to
bicycling and walking
137
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 12 of 25
DEVELOP BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
We will build from the previous plan’s recommendations for non-motorized facilities. The majority of the
remaining un-implemented projects will still be appropriate, however some new opportunities and facility
types exist today that were not in wide spread use in 2007. We will review lane configuration, width and
traffic characteristics to provide Bozeman with a detailed plan to implement the most comfortable bicycle
facilities where none exist. As appropriate, we will confirm our measurements against data collected in
the recent Pavement Condition Inventory (PCI) project. The dataset for the PCI work recorded pavement
width between curb lines and/or outside shoulder edges, however does not specify how the pavement
width is apportioned to travel lanes, bicycle lanes, turn lanes, etc. We will also look at corridors with
existing bicycle lanes to look for opportunities to upgrade or improve these facilities. For pedestrian
facilities, we will focus on the major street network, however we will provide recommendations for key
pedestrian facilities along local roadways where their provision would have significant value to the system
as a whole.
Bicycle Facilities Network Improvements
We will recommend a network of bicycle facilities including on-street bicycle lanes, shared use paths, and
neighborhood bicycle routes (called bicycle boulevards or neighborhood greenways) and supporting
amenities. All proposed bikeway facilities will be described by the classification system developed by
AASHTO, NACTO, and by the latest research conducted by FHWA on bikeway planning and design. The
classification system consists of the following categories:
• Shared Use Paths: bicycle or multi-user paths separate from roadways, with at-grade or grade-
separated crossings
• Bike Lanes: striped bicycle lanes, typically on the right-hand side of roadways that can be
configured with buffers or varying forms of protection to enhance safety and user comfort.
• Bike Routes: shared roadways, often in neighborhoods, on which speed management,
intersection treatments, signage, and other improvements ensure safe and convenient shared
use. Also refers to major roadways that provide adequate shoulder or curb lane width and
signing, but no striping.
• Natural surface trails, which in Bozeman function as recreational and transportation corridors for
a variety of user types.
Building off of the existing network, we will propose an updated network of bikeways. Prior to
recommending specific routes, we will confer with the TAC and the larger public to learn of the
preferences for vehicle lane widths, the type of streets on which the City, and/or State is willing to put
bikeways, and other pertinent details and design standards. Inherent to this network update is the
realization of the differences between recreational and commuter routes. The Level of Traffic Stress
modelling results, and existing conditions gap analysis, will help inform priority facility improvements and
potentially establish a “Bicycle Arterial and Collector Network”. Candidate routes will be measured from
curb to curb, explored by our staff via bicycle, and assessed for its potential as a bikeway. As appropriate,
we will confirm our measurements against data collected in the recent Pavement Condition Inventory
(PCI) project. The dataset for the PCI work recorded pavement width between curb lines and/or outside
shoulder edges, however does not specify how the pavement width is apportioned to travel lanes, bicycle
lanes, turn lanes, etc.
We will describe any paving, striping, signage, and other improvements needed to create each of the
bikeways. We will also prepare a cost estimate for each bikeway. In some instances more than one
option may be available to install or upgrade a bikeway.
We will provide updated recommendations for bicycle parking and support facilities, including an
examination of the effectiveness of our previous recommendations. We will focus stakeholder interviews
138
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 13 of 25
on these recommendations and adjust them if they were not effective or required additional guidance. We
will look at the following
• Existing Bicycle Parking Requirements
• Downtown Bozeman Bicycle Parking Availability and distribution
• MSU
• High-use commercial areas with deficient amounts of parking
• Type and quality of racks.
• Long-term bicycle parking
• Secure bicycle parking areas.
Pedestrian Facilities Network Improvements Based on our findings from the existing conditions analysis and needs analysis, we will develop specific
recommendations to improve the pedestrian environment in Bozeman. We will focus on the Major Street
Network, key areas within the local street network and also trail crossings in Bozeman
Recommendations may include such intersection enhancements as:
• New crosswalks
• Enhanced crosswalks
• Refuge islands
• New pedestrian signals
• Improved signage or pavement markings
• Curb extensions
• Flashing beacons/hybrid beacons
• Countdown signals
• Wider sidewalks
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AND FINANCIAL STRATEGY
Develop Ranking and Phasing Plan Recommended bicycle, pedestrian, and safe routes to school programs and improvements will be ranked
according to long range comprehensive plan criteria and submitted to the TAC for review and comment.
A scoring matrix will be used to attach weights to each criterion and determine which recommendations
meet the highest number of criteria listed. These criteria will consist of those listed below and others
developed with TAC.
• Closure of critical gap or correction of a bottleneck in existing system.
• Improvement or program that serves an immediate safety need.
• Segment which will attract high usage.
• Current availability and/or suitability of right of way.
• Ability of improvement to be integrated into other capital projects.
• Cost effectiveness.
• Integration into the existing shared-use path/ trail system.
• Interface with other modes.
• Local political and community support.
The recommended programs and improvements will next be evaluated according to specific criteria listed
in funding sources such as MAP-21. Each source requires a different type of project and documentation
of impacts and benefits. Because of this, the selected routes or improvements will be developed in
sufficient detail to qualify for the most stringent program requirements.
139
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 14 of 25
Our team will work closely with the TAC and staff throughout the selection and ranking process, lending
expertise on funding, planning, and design guidelines when required. We will initiate and facilitate
dialogue with the TAC and public about innovative funding strategies for active transportation
infrastructure, to possibly include impact fees.
We will also conduct another Field Review to crosscheck the feasibility of certain sections, which may
present implementation challenges.
A Phasing Plan will be developed based on the ranking outcomes to see that the system grows rationally
rather than as a series of disconnected pieces over time. The Phasing Plan will recommend a ranking
(short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term) to complete a system over the next 10 to 20 years.
Develop Improvement Cost Estimates Engineering and construction cost estimates will be developed for all of the preliminary improvements
recommended as part of this work task. These estimates will be based on current construction costs from
similar projects. As appropriate, preliminary engineering (PE), inflation, potential right-of-way costs, and
incidental and indirect costs (IDIC) will be added to reflect the “true” cost of developing a project.
Develop Maintenance Costs
We will discuss with City staff maintenance of non-motorized facilities including on-street bikeways and
off-street shared-use paths and trails. We will identify deficiencies in existing policy and funding and work
towards identifying an approach that could be sustainable for the future. For example, no city-maintained
shared use paths in Bozeman have ever been seal coated.
Identify Funding Requirements We will identify major federal, State, Regional and local funding sources for the proposed bicycle and
pedestrian projects. We will also work with City staff to determine methods for designating local funding
for the purposes of completing and maintaining the non-motorized transportation system.
MARKETING AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM
In the previous plan, we developed recommendations for marketing and educational programs. We will
explore any progress made towards these goals and meet with City and local volunteers and groups to
determine the potential for these programs in the future. We will also investigate new marketing and
educational programs that may be desirable for the Bozeman community.
Develop Marketing and Educational Programs We will prepare updated recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian safety education programs that can
be implemented. Our intent is not to overburden city staff with new responsibilities and commitments, but
to identify strategic partnerships with organizations such as parent groups and local service groups to
partner with for implementation. We will reach out to discuss our recommendations with Sun Snow
Creative, a Bozeman graphic design group under contract with the City of Bozeman to develop / assist
with marketing collateral.
PREPARE NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
We will prepare draft and final Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandums. The
memorandums will be stand-alone documents that can easily be incorporated into the comprehensive
Transportation Plan. The plan will include maps and graphics that depict facility improvements. All
versions of the report will be provided electronically.
Prepare Draft Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum
A draft Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum will be developed. The technical
memorandum will document the information and analysis discussed in the previous sub-tasks.
140
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 15 of 25
QA/QC Draft Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum A QA/QC of the draft Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum will be completed.
Prepare Final Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum We will finalize the draft Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum based on the QA/AC
process an on comments received from the technical working group.
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 7.1 Conduct Stakeholder Events
Sub-Task 7.2 Bicycle Count Analysis
Sub-Task 7.3 Demand and Benefits Analysis
Sub-Task 7.4 Examine Existing Documentation
Sub-Task 7.5 Solicit Comments
Sub-Task 7.6 Field Review
Sub-Task 7.7 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Sub-Task 7.8 Analyze Existing Facilities
Sub-Task 7.9 GIS Mapping / Inventory
Sub-Task 7.10 Analyze Collision and Traffic Data
Sub-Task 7.11 Analyze Existing Programs and Policies
Sub-Task 7.12 Administer Survey Questionnaires
Sub-Task 7.13 Bicycle Facilities Network Improvements
Sub-Task 7.14 Pedestrian Facilities Network Improvements
Sub-Task 7.15 Develop Ranking and Phasing Plan
Sub-Task 7.16 Develop Improvement Cost Estimates
Sub-Task 7.17 Develop Maintenance Costs
Sub-Task 7.18 Identify Funding Requirements
Sub-Task 7.19 Develop Marketing and Educational Programs
Sub-Task 7.20 Prepare Draft Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 7.21 QA/QC Draft Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 7.22 Prepare Final Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum
Task 7 Deliverables:
Stakeholder Event Materials (Electronic)
GIS Mapping / Inventory of Existing Non-Motorized Network (Electronic)
Non-Motorized Questionnaire (Electronic)
Non-Motorized Transportation Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 8: Alternative Network Modeling and Assessment
As noted in Task 5, MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section will conduct all “hands on” modeling
work, while our team assists with calibration assessment and review, interpretation, and post-processing
of model output.
The traffic model will be used to examine the effect of possible alterations to the major street network.
We assume that MDT will be able to provide travel modeling support for up to 10 future year model runs.
These runs will test the effectiveness of individual major projects or polices, groups of similar projects,
network-wide investment strategies, or alternative growth projections.
The future year alternatives will be developed in consultation with the TAC. We anticipate that many of
the alternatives will be structured to address the various considerations identified in Task 6. However,
some “what-if” alternatives, such as modifications to projected growth patterns or system operation
strategies, could also be tested.
141
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 16 of 25
Once alternatives are finalized, our team will convert the alternative assumptions into modeling
parameters for use by MDT’s modelers. As MDT completes alternative model runs, our team will review,
post-process and evaluate the model results and report the findings.
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 8.1 Develop Modeling Alternatives (up to 10)
Sub-Task 8.2 Meet with MDT Travel Demand Modeler to Incorporate Alternatives
Sub-Task 8.3 Analyze Alternative Network Modeling Results
Sub-Task 8.4 Prepare Draft Alternative Network Modeling Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 8.5 QA/QC Draft Alternative Network Modeling Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 8.6 Prepare Final Alternative Network Modeling Technical Memorandum
Task 8 Deliverables:
Network Modeling Alternatives (Electronic)
Alternative Network Modeling Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 9: Community Survey
During the 2007 Transportation Plan Update a non-motorized survey was conducted to gain opinions and
preferences of the public with regard to walking and bicycling. The survey garnered over 3,200 responses
which made it by far the most utilized public involvement tool. Our team proposes to repeat the success
of 2007, except that the content of the survey would be focused on issues that are critical to the overall
planning process. This survey could be expanded in scope to gather opinions on future policy and goals,
opinions of various funding mechanisms that could raise additional local funding to complete projects in
the plan at a faster rate, and to gather information about barriers to residents using alternatives to driving.
We view this survey as an important way to validate the direction of the plan and provide justification to
staff and elected officials for the eventual recommendations that will be contained in the Transportation
Plan Update. Our proposed scope does not seek to conduct a statistically valid survey as the funding
required would be extensive. Rather, we propose to again maximize overall participation through
outreach to a wide variety of community groups and a diverse representation of the public through
proposed elements of the public engagement plan.
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 9.1 Develop Electronic Survey
Sub-Task 9.2 Administer Survey Questionnaires
Sub-Task 9.3 Summarize/Analyze Survey
Sub-Task 9.4 Prepare Survey Analysis Technical Memorandum
Task 9 Deliverables:
Survey Analysis Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 10: Other Transportation System Considerations
Throughout the entire planning process we will be cognizant of the future potential that Bozeman will
become a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) after the 2020 Census, which heightens
transportation planning requirements within the community. Clarification as to what being an MPO relative
to transportation planning will be offered in Task 10. In addition, good planning practice (and in some
cases compliance with state and federal transportation planning regulations) calls for considering other
key issues. Some of these issues include:
142
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 17 of 25
LEVEL OF SERVICE POLICY REVIEW AND GUIDANCE
We will review current Level of Service (LOS) policy as it relates to Bozeman’s various regulations and
planning documents, and suggest possible policy changes and guidance. Inherent to this will be a
discussion of what the potential effects of allowing a lower level of service (i.e. less than LOS “C”) in
Bozeman’s policies would have on the transportation network and resident’s quality of life. Information will
be presented in narrative, tabular and graphical formats. The results of this analysis will be vetted with the
TAC and ultimately shared with the TCC and City Commission for in-depth discussions on whether a
lower level of service makes sense for the community going forward.
MPO PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
We will prepare a summary of how becoming an MPO would impact transportation planning activities as
compared to how the City currently performs this role. Some of the major MPO requirements will be
accommodated throughout the development of other tasks (such as Safety, Freight, Liveability, etc.).
However within Task 10 we will also describe using text, graphics and tables what other measures are
necessary to develop a MPO compliant Transportation Plan. We can describe how measures such as air
quality, environmental coordination, security, transit and fiscal constraint all factor into the MPO planning
process. Also inherent to this discussion will be how the organization structure would change if Bozeman
becomes an MPO as compared to the current structure in place for transportation planning.
The process to “amend” the Transportation Plan will also be described within Task 10 and offered both
within a non-MPO and MPO organizational structure. This will allow for minor Transportation Plan
amendments over the short term until which time the 2020 Census takes place and the population within
the urban boundary is analyzed to determine if the urban area meets MPO criteria.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a part of transportation planning which deals with
techniques for reducing automobile based travel demand, or adjusting times of travel to minimize peaking
on facilities. This work task would include transit planning, land use planning, developing facilities for
bicycle and pedestrian travel, encouragement programs, and potential implementation of carpool or
vanpool programs. Alta maintains a ‘programs department’ which focuses exclusively on developing and
customizing various types of TDM and encouragement strategies for the unique characteristics of each
community. As a component of this analysis, we will explore recent efforts by the City of Bozeman,
Montana State University, MDT, Gallatin County and other organizations such as the Gallatin Valley Land
Trust, the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board, the Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee and others.
We will also reexamine the program recommendations from the previous Transportation Plan to ascertain
if the recommendations were implemented or why they weren’t. This analysis, along with public
involvement and close coordination with City, County and MDT staff will lead to revised TDM
recommendations that will position these agencies with a greater chance of success.
CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN
Areas where transportation projects can enhance the context of transportation within the community will
be identified in the Transportation Plan. Recommended projects will be analyzed to determine if
opportunity exists to improve the role of transportation in the community, including its interface with
adjoining lands.
Opportunities to implement context sensitive design fundamentals will also be analyzed. Context
sensitive design principles balance safety, mobility, community, and environmental goals. The idea is to
achieve a design that works for all users and one that fits into the implementation area.
143
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 18 of 25
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 10.1 Level of Service Policy Review and Guidance
Sub-Task 10.2 Identify / Describe MPO Planning Requirements
Sub-Task 10.3 Identify and Rank Alternative Transportation Demand Management Strategies
Sub-Task 10.4 Identify Methods for Incorporating Livability and Context Sensitive Design into Improvement Projects
Sub-Task 10.5 Prepare Draft Other Key Considerations Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 10.6 QA/QC Draft Other Key Considerations Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 10.7 Prepare Final Other Key Considerations Technical Memorandum
Task 10 Deliverables:
Other Key Considerations Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 11: Develop Recommendations and Major Street Network
This task will involve developing a list of short- and long-term recommendations. The short-term
recommendations may focus on Transportation System Management (TSM) type improvements that
address ways to fine-tune the existing transportation infrastructure without making relatively expensive,
major modifications. TSM projects typically focus on traffic signal systems, pavement markings, signing,
and other roadway features that complement the basic street system. Our team will conduct a thorough
review of delay at intersections, lane utilization, traffic control effectiveness, and other related factors.
This information will be used to develop specific recommendations for low-cost, minor projects that often
result in significant improvement in traffic flows. Major Street Network (MSN) and TSM projects will
include applicable bicycle/pedestrian improvements as complete streets projects. Additionally a separate
list of bicycle and pedestrians specific recommendations will be proposed. For streets that require
reconfiguration to accommodate new on-street bikeways, detailed descriptions including cross-sectional
dimensions will be presented.
As part of the short-term recommendations, we will develop strategies and projects to address traffic
problems occurring in the community as a result of inadequacies on the major arterial network. The long-
term recommendations will focus on the major infrastructure modifications that will be needed. In
addition, prior recommendations made relative to transit will be evaluated and incorporated as
appropriate into the Transportation Plan.
Engineering and construction cost estimates will be developed for all of the improvements recommended
as part of this work task. These estimates will be based on current construction costs from similar
projects recently bid in Montana. As appropriate, preliminary engineering (PE), inflation, potential right-of-
way costs, and incidental and indirect costs (IDIC) will be added to reflect the “true” cost of developing a
project.
In general, project recommendations will consider benefits to users of the transportation system,
estimated costs, implementation ease, and other criteria identified with the TAC and the general public.
Additional considerations may arise as MAP-21 implementation / reauthorization continues.
The list of recommended improvements to the major street network will be provided to MDT for inclusion
in a final model run. This final model run will provide the data necessary to develop the recommended
major street network traffic volumes for the planning year horizon(s).
TSM, MSN and non-motorized project recommendations would be judged against their benefits,
estimated costs, and ease of implementation. Project prioritization would be based on several factors
including significance of meeting system needs and/or resolving system problems, urgency of addressing
targeted needs or problems, and effectiveness and cost efficiency of addressing targeted needs or
144
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 19 of 25
problems. A prioritization would be developed through close coordination with the TAC and City staff. This
process would include public participation. Based on the results of the financial analysis, the
recommendations would be prioritized and grouped into general timeframes of expected work completion.
We understand that prioritization guidance for non-motorized specific projects would be particularly
helpful as both the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board and the Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee
have struggled with recommendations to the city regarding which projects to proactively pursue. As a
result, the vast majority of improvements in recent years have been components of roadway projects or
new development. The goal of our implementation plan is to strike the right balance between a bold future
vision and an achievable real-world strategy. We will work with the City of Bozeman and the TAC to
formulate a mutually acceptable methodology for ranking projects. The City will then be able to use this
methodology on an ongoing basis following the project to assist with future decision making. Potential
bicycle and pedestrian facility ranking criteria could include the following:
• Suitability for bicycling/walking without improvements.
• Suitability for bicycling/walking with improvements
• Closure of critical gap
• Improvement that addresses bicyclist/pedestrian conflict or comfort
• Key destinations served
• Segment that will likely attract high usage
• Current availability and/or suitability of right-of-way
• Cost effectiveness
• Integration into the existing local and regional bikeway system
• Local political and community support
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 11.1 Assess Existing and Future Major Street Network
Sub-Task 11.2 Develop Preliminary Transportation System Management (TSM)
Recommendations
Sub-Task 11.3 Develop Preliminary Major Street Network (MSN) Recommendations
Sub-Task 11.4 Develop Planning Level Cost Estimates
Sub-Task 11.5 Prioritize Recommended Improvements
Sub-Task 11.6 Evaluate Recommended Network Travel Demand Model
Sub-Task 11.7 Prepare Draft Preliminary Recommendations Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 11.8 QA/QC Draft Preliminary Recommendations Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 11.9 Prepare Final Preliminary Recommendations Technical Memorandum
Task 11 Deliverables:
Final Recommended Travel Demand Model (Electronic)
Prioritized Recommended Improvements (Electronic)
GIS Mapping Files of TSM and MSN Improvements (Electronic)
Preliminary Recommendations Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 12: Transportation Funding
All recommendations developed through the analysis and review stages of the project would be evaluated
in terms of financial feasibility at this point. This component of the work would begin with a review of
funding sources and strategies available for transportation improvements. Local, state, and federal
funding packages would be reviewed and projected to the extent possible. Local regulations or
preferences related to impact fees and other private financing alternatives would also be considered.
Innovative partnerships and coordinated development plans would also be evaluated, given their
145
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 20 of 25
opportunities for increased federal attention and consequent potential for increased federal funding. We
will research innovative funding strategies used in other cities and present our findings to the TAC and
stakeholders to try to close the historic budget gap of available funding to proposed projects.
We propose that the issue of shared-use path maintenance and funding be addressed within this
Transportation Plan. The majority of the City’s shared-use path system has received little maintenance
over the years. Several sections have begun to deteriorate and the only path that has been seal coated
was done though HOA maintenance. Great Falls and Billings have recently taken an extensive look at
trail maintenance and funding approaches. The long-term sustainability of Bozeman’s off-street paved
trails will depend on a pro-active approach.
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 12.1 Assess Financial Feasibility of Recommendations
Sub-Task 12.2 Identify Funding Sources and Strategies
Sub-Task 12.3 Prepare Draft Transportation Funding Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 12.4 QA/QC Draft Transportation Funding Technical Memorandum
Sub-Task 12.5 Prepare Final Transportation Funding Technical Memorandum
Task 12 Deliverables:
Transportation Funding Technical Memorandum (Electronic)
Task 13: Report Preparation
Preparation of the Transportation Plan report is the culmination of all previously completed work. This
report document will include the results of all aspects of the planning process, address all of the issues
established during the process, and list all of the recommended short- and long-range improvement
projects and programs. This document will be produced in administrative draft (e-copy only), public draft,
and final versions.
The administrative draft version of the Transportation Plan will first be provided in electronic format only
for internal review and comment by the TAC. A public draft will be developed that incorporates any and
all relevant comments from the TAC. Upon resolution of issues raised in the public draft, we will
assemble a final version of the Transportation Plan document. This document will rely upon quality
graphics to present the information in a concise and easy to understand format. Final reviews will be
conducted with the agency staff and the TAC to ensure that all aspects of the documents are acceptable,
and then the specified copies of the final documents will be provided as the primary products and formal
documentation for the project. An e-copy of the final Transportation Plan will be provided to the city in
both MSWORD and PDF formats. It is our intent to structure both file formats to be ADA accessible
compliant in accordance with Section 508 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) provided by the
General Services Administration (GSA). Although strictly intended for Federal government agencies,
Section 508 WCAG provides guidance for making electronic documents easy and accessible to all
individuals through strict file formatting that uses a variety of headers, sub-headers and paragraph styles
in MSWORD that can then be translated as a PDF with appropriate “tags” and file sizes.
We will produce up to twenty-five (25) bound copies of the public draft Transportation Plan document, and
ten (10) copies of the final Transportation Plan document. All other documents will be provided
electronically only; they will be posted to the plan website for public availability.
146
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 21 of 25
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 13.1 Prepare Draft Report
Sub-Task 13.2 QA/AC Draft Report
Sub-Task 13.3 Prepare Public Draft Report
Sub-Task 13.4 Revise Public Draft Report after Public Review
Sub-Task 13.5 Prepare Final Report
Task 13 Deliverables:
Draft Report (Electronic)
Public Draft Report (Electronic)
Final Report (10 Copies / Electronic)
Task 14: Public Engagement and Meetings
Public engagement is a crucial component of this planning process. The future of the Bozeman area
would unquestionably be affected by the implementation of (or failure to implement) an effective
Transportation Plan. All of these considerations contribute to the need to understand the public’s needs
and desires, and to address them honestly and in a straightforward manner. Out team understands that
public engagement is an important component of any successful urban transportation planning process.
For this project, we propose a number of public engagement strategies designed to work together to
reach the most people possible and elicit meaningful participation. In reviewing the proposed public
engagement program, it is important to note that the public has to have adequate time and pertinent
information to properly review thoughts, ideas and solutions to some of the concepts being undertaken in
the Transportation Plan. Formal hearings of the complete document towards the end of the project are
too late! The public needs to be engaged from the start to make sure their issues and concerns are
known and kept in the process.
EASY ACCESS
Our team will make our lead planners and engineers available to all interested parties for the purposes of
receiving comments and answering questions. This would be accomplished by several methods,
including: an 800 Telephone Number (published in all materials); an Internet e-mail access to our lead
planners and engineers (published in all materials); an Internet Web Page dedicated to the Bozeman
Master Transportation Plan; regular attendance at all TAC meetings during the project; attendance at
Planning Board, TCC and City Commissioner meetings as requested; and attend other local group
meetings as requested. These local groups would likely include the Downtown Bozeman Partnership, the
Gallatin Valley Land Trust, the Bozeman Chamber of Commerce, Montana State University, Bozeman
Deaconess Health Services, School District representatives, Emergency Service Providers (hospital,
police, fire, etc.), and possibly others.
PERSONAL CONTACTS
Our team will make its lead engineers and transportation planners available for personal contacts or
meetings with smaller groups, such as neighborhood groups or special interest groups for one-on-one
communications about the project. These interactions would be developed and conducted on a case-by-
case basis.
PUBLISHED INFORMATION
Our team would produce a monthly newsletter, in PDF/electronic format only, that describes work in
progress, results achieved, preliminary recommendations, and other related topics. These newsletters
would be user-friendly, with little or no engineering jargon. They would closely mimic technical
memorandums, but at a lower level of technical content. The newsletters would be published and
147
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 22 of 25
distributed to all members of the TAC, Bozeman TCC, Bozeman City Commissioners, members of the
public on the mailing list, and other City, County and State offices as desired. They would also be
available on the project website.
TAC MEETINGS
The team’s project manager will attend monthly meetings with the TAC to make regular presentations
covering the current work effort. During these meeting the issues, problems, and possible solutions
would be identified and discussed. These meetings would provide the team with essential feedback
during the development of the Plan. These meetings would also provide the TAC with numerous
opportunities to guide the consultant.
TAC WORKSHOPS
Our team would conduct two TAC workshops to do detailed reviews at project milestones. These would
be in addition to the regular monthly TAC meetings. The first workshop would focus on preliminary
recommendations, including both major and minor actions. The second TAC workshop would occur near
the end of the project, to solidify project prioritizations, and implementation strategies. This last step,
often ignored in transportation plans, can make the difference between success and failure in the long
term.
MEETINGS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS
Our team proposes to meet with key stakeholder groups identified during the scoping process for the
project to discuss the specific needs in their area of the community. Examples would include Downtown
Bozeman Association, Bozeman School District, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services, Montana State
University, Oracle, neighborhood groups, human services organizations, and others. The intent of these
meetings would be to obtain meaningful public input about the major transportation issues and concerns.
These meetings would occur about one-third of the way through the planning process, after we have had
an opportunity to study the transportation system and again at the 75-percent stage of the project (when a
preliminary list of problems and deficiencies have been identified). These neighborhood meetings would
provide the planning team with an opportunity to meet with the public and discuss the findings of the
study to date and get verification that we have identified all of the major problems. We would use this
opportunity to explore possible solutions and ideas with the public. A final list of stakeholder groups to
reach out to will be developed with the TAC during review of the Public Engagement Plan (PEP)
described under Task 2.
COMMISSION WORKSHOP
Our team will attend two city commission workshops. The first workshop will be held early in the planning
process to review the potential content of and process for developing the Transportation Plan. The
second workshop will be approximately two-thirds of the way through the planning process and will be
held to ensure that the goals, objectives, and decisions are acceptable with the elected officials.
MEDIA OUTREACH
It is expected that the local newspaper, television station and identified radio stations will be used at
various times to “get the word out” about the project. Whether structured interviews or submitted press
releases, we are accustomed to dealing with the various media outlets and using them as appropriate on
the various Transportation Plan projects we have worked on.
ELECTRONIC OUTREACH
The previous Transportation Plan proved the power of utilizing existing means of information distribution
through the email lists and newsletters of organizations within the Bozeman Area. For this Transportation
148
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 23 of 25
Plan we will further take advantage of these channels to obtain focused and expansive public
engagement that will allow residents to participate on their own time and still provide meaningful
feedback. As part of our project website we will gather contact information from participants and notice
these individuals as well as our network of organizations. At the beginning of the project we will publish
an interactive ‘wikimap’ that will allow the public to provide feedback on the performance of the existing
transportation network in many of the same ways as a paper map would serve during a public meeting.
Visitors to the website will be able to leave notes, draw routes and identify problem areas just as if they
were present at an official project event. While this feature will not reach everyone, it will be a convenient
way to provide feedback for a large portion of the population. We will also present our draft project
recommendations in a similar web-based map format that will be more user friendly to the public than a
document map. Finally, we will maintain an active presence on Facebook to act as an additional conduit
to the public.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Our team will hold three formal public meetings. The first public meeting will be in the form of a highly
participatory community planning workshop knows as a charrette. The charrette is an intensive, broad-
based, community driven process that has a record of success by crafting meaningful community
engagement and acceptance. This meeting will be used to discuss and identify the issues and visioning
that will help define community perceptions and goals, as well as identifying issues that should be
addressed as part of the planning effort. The purpose will be for our team to define the transportation
planning process, and then engage the community through the execution of the charrette workshop.
The second public meeting will occur after we have completed our initial field studies and have defined
the transportation-related problems. The purpose of this gathering will be to review the identified
problems with the public to assure that all of the major transportation problems have been included in our
analysis. This meeting will be more of a typical public meeting, whereby an informal open house will be
held where attendees could visit with project personnel at several displays, followed by a formal
presentation by the team and questions and answers.
The third public meeting will present the preliminary recommendations and findings. Individual work
stations will be set up for participants to move about to their areas of interest and review and comment on
the preliminary findings. It is hoped that participants can become fully engaged through this mechanism
and alleviate many of the “confrontational” situations that can occur in large, traditional public forums. The
purpose of this venue will be to present the types of recommended improvements and receive initial
feedback from the community.
Our team will facilitate these public meetings and will have the project manager present, as well as other
staff members as needed. The City will be responsible for arranging the locations of the various public
meetings and advertising them in the local newspaper (we will provide a display-ready ad for this
purpose).
PRESENCE AT LOCAL EVENTS
Traditional public involvement strategies rely on asking the public to take time out from their lives to
attend meetings or events. This approach can generate interest in the project, but it will only appeal to a
certain spectrum of the population. Our team proposes to complement this traditional approach with one
where we seek out events and activities that the public is already enjoying in high numbers. This could
include informational sessions at the summer or winter Farmer’s Markets, Sweet Pea Festival, Music on
Main, etc. These events host thousands of residents who all have valuable opinions on transportation
issues. Our team has three project staff who live in Bozeman and can cost effectively engage the public
in a focused manner on their own terms.
149
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 24 of 25
PUBLIC HEARINGS
RPA would plan to hold five formal public hearings on the project after the draft Transportation Plan has
been published. It is assumed that these public hearings would be held before the City Commission and
City Planning Board, as well potentially other standing committees. These hearings would be formal
public hearings to obtain official comments from the public prior to final consideration of adoption of the
document. Formal adoption of the Transportation Plan is desired and will be sought separately from the
Transportation Coordination Committee (TCC) and the Bozeman City Commission. The decision to adopt
or not adopt the final Transportation Plan from each of these bodies is considered the final action
associated with the planning process, aside from the actual production of the final Transportation Plan.
CONCLUSION
In summary, it is imperative to keep the public and special entities involved in the development of the
Transportation Plan. It is extremely important to gain their knowledge and concerns early on in the
project, extract useful information as applicable, meet with them as necessary, and bring them back into
the process. The public experiences the frustrations and deficiencies of the transportation system on a
daily basis, and are integral players in the entire process. Also, the public should be allowed to participate
in discussions on policy ideas and funding programs prior to outreach with the city commission, as the
city commission may be open to innovative strategies if the community overwhelmingly supports them.
Our team will summarize all meetings via meeting notes and minutes. These summaries would be
provided on an on-going basis throughout the course of the project and delivered in both an electronic
and hard format as applicable.
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Sub-Task 14.1 Create and Maintain Project Website and Facebook Page
Sub-Task 14.2 Miscellaneous Project Contacts
Sub-Task 14.3 TAC Meetings (12 total)
Sub-Task 14.4 Develop Project E-Newsletters (12 Total)
Sub-Task 14.5 Public Meetings (3 Total)
Sub-Task 14.6 Create WikiMap
Sub-Task 14.7 Commission Workshop (1 Total)
Sub-Task 14.8 Public Hearings (5 Total)
Sub-Task 14.9 Other Meetings (up to 20)
Task 14 Deliverables:
Project Website Materials (Electronic)
Technical Committee Meeting Materials (Electronic)
Three Project Newsletters (Electronic)
Public Meeting Materials (Electronic)
Various Other Meeting Materials (Electronic)
BUDGET
RPA proposes to complete the Bozeman Master Transportation Plan for the lump-sum fee of $276,220.
Exhibit B.1 contains a detailed fee proposal.
SCHEDULE
The anticipated study schedule for the Bozeman Master Transportation Plan follows an approximate
twelve-month time frame. As such, all work on this study is expected to be completed within twelve
months after a notice-to-proceed is given. An anticipated schedule is shown on the following page.
150
Bozeman Master Transportation Plan Exhibit A.1 – Scope of Services
Page 25 of 25
151
Robert Peccia & Associates www.rpa-hln.com Alta Planning + Design www.altaplanning.com prepared by: DRAFT February 06, 2017 Transportation Master Plan & 152
February 06, 2017 DRAFT i Transportation Master Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... vi Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................................................. viii Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4. Outreach and Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: State of the Community ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.1. Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.1. Population and Demographic Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.1.1. Age Distribution ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 2.1.1.2. Montana State University Student Population ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 2.1.1.3. Personal Travel and Commuting Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1.4. Housing Units ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.1.2. Employment and Income Trends .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.2. Land Use and Development ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.2.1. Historic Development Patterns and Current Land Uses .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.2.2. Recent Annexations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 2.2.3. Future Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 2.3. Transportation Network ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 2.3.1. Major Street Network .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 154
Table of Contents Bozeman Transportation Master Plan ii 2.3.2. Active Transportation Network .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 2.3.2.1. Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 2.3.2.2. Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 2.3.2.3. Transit Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 2.3.2.4. Active Transportation Facility Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 2.3.2.5. Active Transportation Programs and Events ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 2.3.3. Freight and Rail Network ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 2.4. Transportation Conditions .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 2.4.1. Roadway Volumes and Capacity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 2.4.2. Active Transportation Data .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 2.4.3. Intersection Operations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45 2.4.4. Bicycle Operations .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 2.5. Safety ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 2.5.1. Crash Severity ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 2.5.2. Intersection Crashes ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 2.5.3. Bicyclist and Pedestrian Crashes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Chapter 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs ................................................................................................................................. 57 3.1. Future Growth and Development ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 3.1.1. Population and Housing Projections ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 3.1.2. Employment Projections............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1 3.1.3. Allocation of Future Growth ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 62 3.2. Projected Transportation Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 63 3.2.1. Projected Roadway Volumes and Capacity .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 3.2.2. Projected Intersection Operations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 63 3.2.3. Active Transportation Benefits ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Chapter 4: Improving the System .......................................................................................................................................................... 71 4.1. Recommended Major Street Network Improvements ............................................................................................................................................................... 71 4.1.1. Committed MSN Improvements ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 4.1.2. Recommended MSN Improvements ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 4.1.3. Future Road Connections ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 76 4.2. Recommended Transportation System Management Improvements ................................................................................................................................ 79 155
February 06, 2017 DRAFT iii Transportation Master Plan 4.2.1. Committed TSM Improvements ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 79 4.2.2. Recommended TSM Improvements ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 80 4.3. Pedestrian Improvements ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 4.3.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 85 4.3.2. Specific Pedestrian Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 85 4.3.3. Crossing Improvements ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 86 4.3.4. General Intersection Improvements ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 91 4.4. Bicycle Improvements ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 95 4.4.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 96 4.4.2. Downtown Bozeman Bicycle Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................................ 105 4.4.3. Enhanced Bicycle Wayfinding System .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 105 4.4.4. Shared Use Path Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 105 Chapter 5: Policy and Planning Framework ....................................................................................................................................... 109 5.1. Triple Bottom Line Influence .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 110 5.1.1. Economic Health ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 110 5.1.2. Environmental Health ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 111 5.1.3. Social Equity ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 5.2. Transportation Demand Management .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 5.2.1. Role Of Transportation Demand Management ............................................................................................................................................................................... 112 5.2.2. TDM Strategies .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 112 5.2.3. Effectiveness of TDM Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 118 5.2.4. TDM Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 118 5.3. Active Transportation Programs ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 119 5.4. Traffic Operations Standards ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 122 5.5. Metropolitan Planning Organization Planning Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. 123 5.5.1. Organizational Structure ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 123 5.5.2. Core Functions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 124 5.6. Livability ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 5.6.1. Livability and the TMP ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 126 5.6.2. Alignment of Goals with FAST Act and Livability Principles ........................................................................................................................................................ 127 156
Table of Contents Bozeman Transportation Master Plan iv Chapter 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies ........................................................................................................................ 129 6.1. Visionary Transportation Network ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 129 6.2. Performance Measures and Targets ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 132 6.2.1. Proposed Performance Measures and Targets ................................................................................................................................................................................ 132 6.3. Funding ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 134 6.3.1. Overview of Traditional Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 135 6.3.2. Federal Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 135 6.3.2.1. National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 135 6.3.2.2. Surface Transportation Program (STP) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 136 6.3.2.3. Highway Safety Improvement Program................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 138 6.3.2.4. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) .................................................................................................................................................... 139 6.3.2.5. Transportation Alternatives Program ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 140 6.3.2.6. Federal Lands Highway Program (FLAP) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 141 6.3.2.7. Congressionally Directed Funds ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 142 6.3.3. State Funding Sources ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 142 6.3.3.1. State Fuel Tax .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 142 6.3.3.2. State Funds for Transit Subsidies ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 143 6.3.3.3. State Special Revenue/State Funded Construction ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 143 6.3.3.4. TransADE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 143 6.3.3.5. Rail/Loan Funds ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 144 6.3.4. Local Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 144 6.3.4.1. City of Bozeman ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 144 6.3.4.2. Private Funding Sources ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 145 6.3.4.3. Future Potential Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 147 6.3.5. Summary Of Current Financial Status .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 148 References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 151 157
February 06, 2017 DRAFT v Transportation Master Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Bozeman TMP Study Area .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2.1: Fall Enrollment at MSU ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 2.2: Existing Land Use in the City of Bozeman (2016) ............................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 2.3: City of Bozeman Annexations (1996-2015) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 2.4: Future Land Use Map for the Bozeman Area ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2.5: Existing Major Street Network ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.6: Existing Bicycle Network ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 2.7: Existing Pedestrian Network ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 2.8: Freight and Rail Network ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 2.9: Existing Roadway Volume to Capacity Ratios ...................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 2.10: Commute by Census Tract Data ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 2.11: Commute Mode Share Changes from Year 2000 ............................................................................................................................................................ 44 Figure 2.12: Mode Share at Select Intersections ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 2.13: Existing Intersection Level of Service .................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 2.14: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 2.15: Crashes per Year ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 2.16: Crash Density .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 50 Figure 2.17: Severe Crash Locations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 2.18: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Crash Statistics .............................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Figure 3.1: Projected Roadway Volume to Capacity Ratios .................................................................................................................................................................. 64 Figure 3.2: Projected Intersection Level of Service ................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 4.1: MSN Facility Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 4.2: TSM Facility Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 84 Figure 4.3: Pedestrian Facility Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 4.4: Mileage of Existing and Proposed Active Transportation Facilities within the Study Area ................................................................................ 95 Figure 4.5: Bicycle Facility Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 107 Figure 6.1: Visionary Major Street Network .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 130 Figure 6.2: Visionary Active Transportation Network ............................................................................................................................................................................ 131 158
Table of Contents Bozeman Transportation Master Plan vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Population Change (1970-2014) ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 2.2: Age Distribution (1980-2010)....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 2.3: Mode of Transportation to Work (2009-2013) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 2.4: Housing Units ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 2.5: Active Transportation Programs and Events .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 2.6: Heavy Vehicle Traffic at Select Locations ................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 2.7: Theoretical Roadway Capacity ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 2.8: Commute Mode Share and Travel Time .................................................................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 2.9: High Crash Severity Locations ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 3.1: Population Projections for Gallatin County ............................................................................................................................................................................ 58 Table 3.2: Population Projections for the City of Bozeman .................................................................................................................................................................. 59 Table 3.3: Population and Housing Unit Projections ............................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 3.4: Employment Projections to 2040 for Gallatin County ........................................................................................................................................................ 61 Table 3.5: Employment Projections to 2040 for the TMP Study Area ............................................................................................................................................... 62 Table 3.6: Projected Mode Share .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Table 3.7: Health Benefit Estimate .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 67 Table 3.8: Environmental Benefit Estimates ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 68 Table 3.9: Transportation Benefit Estimates ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 68 Table 3.10: Total Benefit Estimates ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69 Table 3.11: Potential Vehicle Trip Reduction from Increased Active Transportation Mode Share in 2040 ........................................................................ 69 Table 4.1: Committed MSN Improvements (FY 2018 to FY 2022) ...................................................................................................................................................... 72 Table 4.2: Recommended MSN Improvements ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Table 4.3: Future Road Connections .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 77 Table 4.4: Committed TSM Improvements (FY 2018 to FY 2022) ....................................................................................................................................................... 79 Table 4.5: Recommended TSM Improvements .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Table 4.6: Recommended Spot Improvements ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Table 4.7: Recommended Bicycle Improvement Projects ...................................................................................................................................................................... 97 Table 5.1: Potential Future Non-motorized Program Ideas ................................................................................................................................................................ 119 Table 5.2: Alignment of Goals with FAST Act and Livability Principles ........................................................................................................................................... 128 159
February 06, 2017 DRAFT vii Transportation Master Plan Table 6.1: Proposed Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 133 Table 6.2: Projected Funding (Estimated) .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 149 APPENDIX Appendix A: Comments Received during TMP Process Appendix B: TMP Survey Results (City of Bozeman) Appendix C: Public Engagement Plan Technical Memorandum Appendix D: Study Area Boundary Technical Memorandum Appendix E: Goals and Objectives Technical Memorandum Appendix F: Socioeconomic Data and Growth Trends Technical Memorandum Appendix G: Existing and Projected Conditions Technical Memorandum Appendix H: Facility Recommendations Technical Memorandum Appendix I: Additional Transportation Considerations Technical Memorandum Appendix J: Traffic Operations Standards and Best Practices Technical Memorandum Appendix K: Corridor Striping Plans 160
Acknowledgments Bozeman Transportation Master Plan viii Acknowledgments The successful completion of this project was made possible through cooperation and assistance of many individuals. The following people provided guidance and support throughout the course of this Plan: Technical Working Group (TWG) Craig Woolard, City of Bozeman Public Works Department Rick Hixson, City of Bozeman Engineering Department Chris Saunders, City of Bozeman Community Development De-partment Jon Henderson, City of Bozeman GIS Department Katie Potts, MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section Robert Lashaway (retired), Montana State University Dan Stevenson, Montana State University Patrick McGowen, Western Transportation Institute Ralph Zimmer, Bozeman Area Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Com-mittee Lee Hazelbaker, Streamline/Galavan Bill Cochran, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Bozeman City Commission Carson Taylor, Mayor I-Ho Pomeroy, Commissioner Cynthia Andrus, Commissioner Jeff Krauss, Commissioner Chris Mehl, Commissioner Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) Robert Lashaway (retired), Montana State University Dan Stevenson, Montana State University Christopher Scott, Gallatin County Planning Dept. Jeff Krauss, Bozeman City Commission Steve White, Gallatin County Commission Brett Potter, Bozeman City Planning Board Randy Visser, Gallatin County Planning Board Jennifer Nelson, MDT Butte District Bill Brownell, Gallatin County Road Department Craig Woolard, Bozeman City Public Works Department Chris Kukulski, Bozeman City Manager Ralph Zimmer, Bozeman Area Pedestrian & Traffic Safety Committee Carol Strizich, MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section Jeff Ebert, MDT Butte District Dan Martin, Bozeman City Citizen representative Sam Gianfrancisco, Gallatin County Citizen representative Bill Cochran, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Jeff Patten, FHWA Montana Division Kyle DeMars, MDT Bozeman Maintenance 161
February 06, 2017 DRAFT ix Transportation Master Plan City of Bozeman Staff Chris Kukulski, City Manager Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager Craig Woolard, Public Works Director Rick Hixson, City Engineer Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager Katherine Maines, Public Works Technician Jessica Johnson, Neighborhood Coordinator Montana Department of Transportation Staff Carol Strizich, Statewide and Urban Planning Supervisor Katie Potts, Transportation Planner Jeff Ebert, Butte District Administration Jennifer Nelson, Butte District Engineering Tom Kahle, Travel Demand Modeler Sheila Ludlow, Travel Demand Modeler Alice Hecht, Transportation Planner Consultant Team The Traffic and Transportation Group of the consulting firm of Robert Peccia and Associates was the prime consultant for this Plan. The following team members were contributors to this Plan: Robert Peccia and Associates Jeffrey Key, PE, Senior Project Manager Scott Randall, PE, PTOE, Senior Traffic Engineer Dan Norderud, AICP, Senior Planner Shane Forsythe, EI, Traffic Engineering Specialist Joe Hauck, EI, Engineering Technician Kari Slyder, Production Manager Alta Planning + Design (Non-Motorized Transportation) Joe Gilpin, Principal Tom Millar, Planner 162
Acronyms Bozeman Transportation Master Plan x Acronyms AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AAGR Average Annual Growth Rate ACS American Community Survey ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ASMSU Associated Students of Montana State University BABAB Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board BNSF BNSF Railway CEIC Census & Economic Information Center CIP Capital Improvement Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency eREMI Regional Economic Models, Inc. FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year GVLT Gallatin Valley Land Trust HAWK High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HRDC Human Resource Development Council HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development ITS Intelligent Transportation System LOS Level of Service LPI Leading Pedestrian Interval LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan LTS Level of Traffic Stress MACI Montana Air Congestion Initiative MCA Montana Code Annotated MDT Montana Department of Transportation MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRL Montana Rail Link MSN Major Street Network MSU Montana State University NHTS National Household Travel Survey PCI Pavement Condition Index PDO Property Damage Only PROWAG Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines PTSC Pedestrian Traffic Safety Committee RPA Robert Peccia and Associates RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle TA Transportation Alternatives 163
February 06, 2017 DRAFT xi Transportation Master Plan TBL Triple Bottom Line TCC Transportation Coordinating Committee TDM Travel Demand Model TDM Transportation Demand Management TMP Transportation Master Plan TPCC Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee TSM Transportation System Management TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee TWG Technical Working Group TWLTL Two-way, Left-turn Lane UDO Unified Development Ordinance URD Urban Renewal District USC United States Code USDOT US Department of Transportation v/c Volume to Capacity Ratio VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel vpd Vehicles per day W&P Woods and Pool Economics, Inc. WTI Western Transportation Institute 164
Acronyms Bozeman Transportation Master Plan xii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 165
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 1 Transportation Master Plan Chapter 1 Introduction The Bozeman Transportation Master Plan (TMP) serves as a guide for development of and investment in the community’s transportation systems in a comprehensive manner. The TMP was developed through a collaborative approach with city and state staff, elected officials, and local residents and provides the blueprint for a transportation system that will serve the community’s citizens well into the future. The TMP provides for guiding transportation infrastructure investments based on system needs and associated decision-making principles. Land use changes in the surrounding area, substantial upgrades to the community's transportation system, and the community's increasing interest in transportation-related matters have necessitated development of the TMP. The Plan incorporates all applicable background infor-mation, includes detailed analysis of options and alternatives, incorporates meaningful input from citizens and local officials, and provides a framework for future efforts within the context of State and Federal rules, regulations, and funding allocations. This comprehensive plan identifies community goals and improvements to the transportation infrastructure and services within the city of Bozeman and that portion within Gallatin County that is likely to include future urban area expansion. The Plan addresses regional transpor-tation issues, overall travel convenience, traffic safety, sustainability, complete streets, funding, transportation demand management (TDM), and multi-modal connections. The Plan includes recommendations for short-term improvements as well as recommended modifications and capital improvements to major roadways. The Plan also includes policy suggestions to align with the community’s vison for the Bozeman area. 1.1. BACKGROUND As a community rich in history, committed to economic development, and poised for continued growth, Bozeman faces a future of opportunity balanced against the impacts of that growth. A well-planned transportation system can make the difference between successful growth and good quality of life verses failure to grow and a deteriorating quality of life. A comprehensive transportation master plan is needed to address the needs of the community and to help direct future growth through innovative planning. 166
CHAPTER 1: Introduction Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 2 The city of Bozeman and Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) part-nered to develop this community-wide transportation planning process. A pre-vious transportation plan was completed in 20071 which provided a blueprint for guiding transportation infrastructure investments based on system needs and associated decision making principles. The 2007 plan provided an excellent picture of infrastructure needs for the City for both motorized and non-motor-ized uses. This TMP further examines what the community values are and what the com-munity is willing to do such that the quality of life and economic vitality within Bozeman is not compromised. Rapid growth, changes in land use, substantial upgrades to the community’s transportation system, and the community’s in-creasing interest in transportation related matters necessitated a new examina-tion of transportation issues within the Bozeman area. Transportation is a major concern to area residents today and is expected to remain a concern as growth continues and the challenges of accommodating travel needs become more difficult. 1.2. STUDY AREA The Bozeman community is basically on the verge of reaching its jurisdictional growth limit. The study area boundary for this update aligns with the growth boundary of the Bozeman Community Plan2. The boundary includes the entire Bozeman urban boundary limits that resulted from the 2010 Census. The study area includes major employers in the area, as well as land that may be used for employment centers in the next twenty years that could possibly be annexed into the city limits. It also includes densely developed residential land uses in the area, and those areas likely to increase the housing supply in the future and subsequently add traffic onto the transportation network. The study area boundary is shown on Figure 1.1. Bozeman is a rapidly growing community of 43,000 and is one of the fastest growing micropolitan areas in the United States. 167
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 3 Transportation Master Plan Figure 1.1: Bozeman TMP Study Area 9090191848586411345205345235191191HIGHLAND BLVDS 3RD AVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTERLNBABCOCK STE VALLEY CENTER RDPEACH STMENDENHALL STS CHURCH AVE
S 19TH AVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEGALLATINRDHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEJACKRABBIT LNMAIN STDURSTON RDCOTTONWOOD RDDAVIS LNBABCOCK STBAXTER LNOAK STGARFIELD STPATTERSON RDFOWLER LNGOOCH HILL RDBLACKWOOD RDSOURDOUGH RDGOLDENSTEIN LNS 3RD AVESTUCKY RDFERGUSON AVEFOWLER AVE27TH STBEAR CANYON RD
LOVE LNHARPER PUCKETT RDGRAF STNASH RDBOZEMAN TRAIL TAYABESHOCKUP RDFRONTAGE RDFORT ELLIS RDGRAF ST
CATMOUNT STNELSON RDMCILHATTAN RDMANLEY RDSTORY MILL RDStudy AreaBoundary012½MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadUrban BoundarySource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPABozeman City LimitsStudy AreaMontana State University168
CHAPTER 1: Introduction Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 4 1.3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Development of goals and objectives for the TMP is a critical step in the transportation planning process. In addition to capturing all related information from previous community planning efforts, the goals and objectives lay out the general course of action for the TMP development and represent the community’s vision for the future transportation system. The goals and objectives developed for the TMP were identified in hopes of accurately reflecting the condition of planning within the general community, and more specifically, reflecting the needs and desires relative to transportation. Goals represent the overarching statements of the TMP intent and the direct elements of the community’s vision while objectives are more focused statements of specific actions, measures or procedures that reflect how a particular goal can be attained. The goals and objectives developed for the TMP are connected concepts – that is they represent the desired end result of the community’s transportation system once projects identified are implemented. Goals and objectives also provide direction on how to get to that end result. Collectively, the goals and objectives inform the planning process and set the course of action for the transportation system for years to come. Numerous local planning documents were reviewed to determine what, if any, transportation related goals and objectives have already been developed within the community. Based on a review of relevant planning efforts within the community, five primary principles were identified for the TMP: Visionary Principals 1. The community desires a connected, smarter transportation system through land use and transportation planning. This type of system allows citizens to choose what mode of travel they desire, and makes travel more convenient while promoting an active lifestyle by choice for its citizens. 2. Bozeman provides a stable economic base for a variety of services and industry. The community embraces the opportunity to attract jobs and support ongoing economic vitality. 3. Efficient travel and increased mobility is desirable to minimize transportation and associated costs. 4. Transportation influences quality of life. The community desires a transportation system that is compatible with the environment and context of the Bozeman area, with special consideration given to sustainability and conserving natural and cultural resources. 5. The community desires a safe and secure transportation system, and strives for a reduction in crashes, injuries and fatalities. 169
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 5 Transportation Master Plan Goal 1: Maintain the Existing Transportation System. Bozeman’s transportation system is aging, and available funding is not sufficient for the necessary maintenance. There is often competition between funding for new projects as compared to maintenance and operations of the existing system. The short- and mid-term focus should turn to optimizing the existing transportation system to the greatest extent possible. Objectives: 1.1. Maintain existing roadway systems to optimize their use-fulness and minimize life-cycle costs. 1.2. Monitor the performance of key facilities and work with local and regional partners to identify critical deficiencies in the roadway network. 1.3. Use transportation project selection criteria to identify and prioritize maintenance activities and project devel-opment. 1.4. Relieve pressures on the existing transportation system through minor infrastructure improvements, mainte-nance and system preservation activities rather than ex-panding the current system. 1.5. Encourage reuse and/or redevelopment around existing transportation facilities. GOAL 2: Improve the Efficiency, Performance, and Connectivity of a Balanced Transportation System. A transportation system that performs well allows users to choose multiple transportation modes and to move through those modes in a safe and efficient manner. An efficient system allows people to move from place to place in as direct a route as possible, allowing them to reduce the amount of time spent in travel, the distance that must be traveled, and the amount of time spent in congested traffic. Connectivity allows citizens to make route decisions and mode choices based on traffic and road conditions, or desired destinations. Objectives: 2.1. Ensure the current street network of collectors, minor ar-terials, principal arterials and the interstate is adequate to safely and efficiently handle projected traffic. 2.2. Promote the development of an effective roadway net-work through improvements in intersection and roadway capacity. 2.3. Improve opportunities for active transportation (non-motorized) as part of daily travel mode choice within the community by increasing pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections. 2.4. Ensure that mobility-challenged populations, such as low income, persons with disabilities, or senior citizens, have travel options in the Bozeman area. 2.5. Identify and reduce (or eliminate) freight movement im-pacts on area roadways and identify improvements to eliminate deficiencies with the objective of improving freight movement. 170
CHAPTER 1: Introduction Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 6 GOAL 3: Promote Consistency and Coordination between Land Use and Transportation Planning to Manage and Develop the Transportation System for all Modes and Users. Land use decisions affect the quality and quantity of transportation infrastructure throughout the study area. Rural, low-density developments may necessitate transportation features different than urban, high-density developments. Transportation system amenities are not always required to be similar between the different development types and forms. An urban boundary exists as delineated from the 2010 Census. Consistency in infrastructure within the urban boundary should be met if possible for continuity of urban form and function, to the extent that future urban density growth and potential annexation is realized. Additionally, as Bozeman’s population ages and the number of persons per household decreases, options in housing and transportation will be needed to meet the demands of the population. Transportation improvements should be integrated with local land use planning to ensure the proper mix of roads, trails, transit, paths and other bicycle and pedestrian features co-exist. Objectives: 3.1. Develop and implement road design and construction standards within the urban area that reflect the potential for annexations of currently unincorporated land. As ur-ban development occurs, ensure that basic transporta-tion amenities are in place within the urban area. 3.2. Recognize that land use policy discussions regarding fu-ture development and corresponding density in the “Tri-angle” between Bozeman, Four Corners and Belgrade are on-going. Land use decisions are tied to the adequacy of transportation infrastructure and may serve to constrain growth depending on policy directions both within and outside of the Bozeman city limits. 3.3. Develop and implement consistent access management and corridor preservation standards, ordinances and plans appropriate to the roadway network and land use within the study area boundary. 3.4. Integrate land use planning and transportation planning to manage and develop the transportation system. 3.5. Use transportation project programming to encourage desired development patterns within the community and ensure new development is adequately served. 3.6. Ensure an environmentally responsible and sound trans-portation system that minimizes adverse environmental impacts within the community. 171
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 7 Transportation Master Plan Goal 4: Provide a Safe and Secure Transportation System. Most community planning efforts recognize the desire for a safe transportation system. Community safety and security can be improved by transportation efforts in a number of ways. Reducing crashes, improving the ability of emergency responders to quickly and reliably respond to emergencies, and providing evacuation routes in the event of a natural disaster will all assist to improving safety and security. Educational programs that help travelers understand the particular safety concerns associated with various travel modes can also help all users travel with increased confidence and security. Objectives: 4.1. Reduce the rates of fatalities and crashes occurring on all transportation facilities. 4.2. Identify barriers to effective and prompt emergency re-sponse. 4.3. Implement safety initiatives and educational programs for all modes of transportation. 4.4. Coordinate with freight operators and agencies on pro-jects that can enhance the security of the freight trans-portation system in the region. GOAL 5: Support Economic Vitality of the Community. All economic activity relies on a functioning, diverse transportation network. Vehicle, freight, air, transit, rail and non-motorized infrastructure all have a purpose to serve when linking economic vitality to the costs of doing business. Transportation in terms of economic vitality is only one component of a successful business environment. High quality schools, diversity in housing types, low debt, availability of infrastructure, and access to a highly educated workforce all contribute to the economic success of a community. Objectives: 5.1. Optimize the transportation system to meet the needs of Bozeman and its citizens, including employment centers, and industrial and commercial areas. 5.2. Provide attractive and convenient transportation facilities that attract and retain business, young professionals, families and older adults. 5.3. Facilitate the movement of goods and freight to com-mercial and industrial centers. 172
CHAPTER 1: Introduction Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 8 GOAL 6: Protect and Enhance Environmental Sustainability, Provide Opportunities for Active Lifestyles, and Conserve Natural and Cultural Resources. Both the FAST Act planning factors and the livability principles from HUD/EPA/USDOT (see Section 5.6 for more information) point to quality of life concerns in the development of TMP’s. Not only are impacts to the environment taken more seriously, but increasingly citizens are demanding a more holistic approach to transportation. The preservation of natural, historic and cultural resources, as well as promoting a healthy, active lifestyle, are priorities of this TMP and current Federal transportation planning guidance. Objectives: 6.1. Promote transportation projects, plans and/or programs that encourage reducing fuel consumption, reducing ve-hicle miles of travel, and thereby minimizing air pollution. 6.2. Coordinate transportation planning activities with appro-priate federal, state, and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation. 6.3. Engage stakeholders and the public in the decision-mak-ing stage of the transportation planning process. 6.4. Coordinate transportation planning activities with local and regional land use planning activities, including the City’s Community Plan and Gallatin County’s Growth Pol-icy (and subsequent updates to both). GOAL 7: Promote a Financially Sustainable Transportation Plan that is Actively Used to Guide the Transportation Decision-making Process. Transportation facilities that provide options to the public, reduce the time spent traveling, reduce fuel consumption, and make the best use of limited public funds for infrastructure improvements are desirable. Not only are costs related to the cost of building facilities, but there are also associated costs of time spent in vehicles. Objectives: 7.1. Identify available funding mechanisms potentially includ-ing federal and state gas tax revenue, impact fees, trans-portation bond issues, local option gas taxes, and other revenue funding sources used in similar cities. 7.2. Encourage cooperation between public, private and non-profit organizations in the development, funding, and management of transportation projects. 7.3. Promote cost-effective recommendations that balance transportation system needs with available funding and expected expenditures. 7.4. As funds become available for transportation projects, place priority for funding on those projects and programs identified in the TMP. 173
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 9 Transportation Master Plan 1.4. OUTREACH AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Education and public outreach are essential parts of fulfilling the responsibility to successfully inform the public about the transportation planning process. The de-velopment of the TMP involved early communication with interested parties to help identify needs, constraints, and opportunities to determine reasonable im-provements given available resources and local support. Community, stakeholder, agency, and other involvement were important compo-nents to this planning process. The goal of the outreach effort was to have signif-icant and ongoing public engagement. A number of strategies were utilized to disseminate information and elicit meaningful participation. These opportunities included: Providing information on the critical elements included in the transporta-tion planning process within the TMP study area; Providing input and asking questions throughout the planning process; and Presenting findings and recommendations. Public participation means participation in planning by people within the Bozeman community, its citizens and entities, planning and engineering professionals, and those who are not professional planners or government officials. It is a process of taking part in the transportation planning and decision-making that affects the community. Efforts to secure participation were targeted to stakeholders who are individuals or entities that could be significantly affected by the TMP recommen-dations or could significantly influence implementation. A proactive approach was taken to provide an opportunity for the public to be engaged early and with a continuing involvement in all phases of the planning process. For this project, a number of public engagement strategies were utilized to reach the most people possible and elicit meaningful participation. These strat-egies are discussed in the following sections. An informational booth was provided at the Christmas Stroll in December, 2015. 174
CHAPTER 1: Introduction Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 10 Technical Working Group A Technical Working Group (TWG) was established to guide process, review deliv-erables, and provide technical oversight during the planning process. Meetings were generally held every month. The TWG included representatives from the City of Bozeman, Montana Department of Transportation, and other stakeholders. The TWG was the principal guiding force behind the TMP. Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee Much like the TWG, the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) also provided oversight during the planning process. The TCC managed the executive business of the Bozeman TMP, and is a regular standing committee that generally meets every quarter to discuss transportation matters in the community. The TCC works closely with the City, County, and State to develop and keep current urban transportation planning, design and construction in the Greater Bozeman area. Outreach to the TCC was generally conducted quarterly. Public Informational Meetings Three public informational meetings were held during the TMP planning process. The first meeting was an introductory meeting to discuss and identify the issues and visioning to be addressed as part of the TMP. This meeting focused on inform-ing the public about the scope of the planning process, key dates during its devel-opment, and a review of the study area boundary. The meeting was held on December 1st, 2015 at the Bozeman High School Cafeteria. The second public meeting was held to review the transportation system issues and areas of concern, and to assure that all of the major transportation problems were identified and included in the analysis. A summary of the existing and proposed transportation system conditions was presented. A variety of key issues were iden-tified. The issues generally fell within four categories: 1) the need to plan for future growth; 2) to relieve traffic congestion; 3) to improve traffic safety; and 4) to provide RPA and city of Bozeman staff conduct an informational meeting at the Bozeman High School Cafeteria. 175
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 11 Transportation Master Plan alternatives to the automobile. Specific problem intersections and roadway corridors were identified and presented at this second meeting. The meeting was held on May 12th, 2016 at the Bozeman High School Cafeteria. The third public meeting will be held after the project recommendations are completed and will be coincident to release of the draft TMP report. This meeting will give the public the opportunity to review the project recommendations in their entirety, including a thorough review of the draft TMP report that presents mitigation to solve existing transportation issues and measures to accommodate future growth. This meeting is been scheduled for March 2, 2017. Appendix A contains all public comments received over the course of the planning process. Special Agency and Stakeholder Involvement A number of outreach activities to special agencies and other stakeholders occurred through the planning duration. These activities included attendance at board meetings and/or special presentations. Targeted outreach occurred as follows: City Commission (6 meetings) City of Bozeman Department Directors Western Transportation Institute (WTI) North 7th Avenue Urban Renewal District Board (2 meet-ings) Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT) Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB) Gallatin County Staff & Elected Officials Inter-Neighborhood Council University Neighborhood Association Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC) City of Bozeman Parks and Recreation Department Staff Bike Kitchen MDT Modeling/Planning Staff City of Bozeman Parking Commission Downtown TIF Board Downtown BID Board Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce Northeast Neighborhood Association Christmas Stroll Bogert Park Neighborhood Association Southeast Neighborhood Association Land Use Forecasting Workshop MDT Modeling/Planning Staff Engineering Consultant Community City of Bozeman Public Works Director and Sanderson Stewart, Inc. Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association New Hyalite View Neighborhood Campus Sustainability Advisory Council & Bozeman Cli-mate Partners Gallatin Valley Bike Club 176
CHAPTER 1: Introduction Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 12 Other Public Outreach Activities A number of other public outreach activities occurred over the planning duration: Website: A website was developed for the TMP (www.bozemantmp.com) as a landing page for information developed during the planning process. Draft technical memorandum, links to additional resources, frequently asked questions, and contact information was included on the website. In addition, a Facebook site was created and maintained throughout the pro-cess to disseminate information about meetings and TMP progress. News Releases: Television and newspaper articles were used several times during the planning process to help keep the public informed. News re-leases were issued two weeks prior to public meetings to generate interest in the process, and to encourage participation by the public. Newsletters: Several newsletters were created and distributed in hard copy format during the various outreach events, including specific stake-holder meetings and the formal informational meetings. The newsletters were generally available and posted to the TMP website one month before each of the informational meetings. Wikimapping: An interactive mapping platform, called a “wikimap”, was developed for the TMP. The platform allowed the public to provide feed-back on the transportation network via an online map. Users were asked to provide comments related to transportation at spot or roadway segment locations. There were a total of 556 unique comments made on the plat-form, with an additional 931 likes or dislikes made on the comments. Survey: A survey on transportation issues was developed for the TMP. The survey was hosted by the City and was open for three-months. A total of 519 people attended the online survey with 393 providing responses. In total, 19.7 hours of public comment were made on the survey. A study website (www.bozemantmp.com) was created for the TMP.Over 550 unique comments were made on the interactive com-menting platform. 177
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 13 Transportation Master Plan Chapter 2 State of the Community To clearly understand the needs of a community, it is important to evaluate the state of the existing land use, transportation network, social, and economic condi-tions of the community. To achieve this task for the Bozeman community, infor-mation was collected on many aspects of the transportation system, socioeconomic conditions, and land use. Available and collected data were used to establish exist-ing conditions for the community. The existing conditions were used to determine issues and concerns related to the transportation system. 2.1. SOCIOECONOMICS Local and regional population and economic characteristics have important influ-ences on motor vehicle travel in the Bozeman area. The study area for the Bozeman TMP includes all of the land within the city of Bozeman and encompasses adjacent lands in Gallatin County where suburban development has occurred and will likely occur in the future. Although not directly within the study area, population and employment growth occurring in the incorporated areas of Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks and in the unincorporated Four Corners area is an important con-sideration for the TMP. Residents of these Gallatin Valley areas work, shop, attend educational institutions, and recreate in Bozeman and their commuting patterns have impacts on the local transportation system. Bozeman serves as an important hub to economic, recreational and educational interests across several counties in southwest Montana. Yellowstone International Airport, which serves Bozeman and the surrounding areas, has the highest annual boardings in the state. 178
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 14 2.1.1. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Gallatin County has been one of Montana’s fastest growing counties over the last 30 years. In terms of numeric increases, Gallatin County has seen the most new residents of any county in the state since 1980. The total population of Gallatin County grew from 32,505 in 1970 to 89,513 in 2010—adding more than 57,000 residents. With the exception of the 1980s, the county’s population has increased by more than 30% every decade since 1970. Population growth during the 1980s was still notable and the number of county residents increased by nearly 18% between 1980 and 1990. Likewise, the city of Bozeman experi-enced significant growth between 1970-2010 when the city’s population grew from 18,670 to 37,280 res-idents. Population growth within Bozeman slowed to less than 5% during the 1980s similar to the trend seen for Gallatin County. Population increases of between 15 percent and 35 percent within Bozeman were seen during the other decades of the 1970-2010 period. Both the state of Montana and the United States (U.S.) showed population increases during each decade between 1970 and 2010 but the rates of increase were well below those seen in Gallatin County and the city of Bozeman during those periods. The population of the U.S. and Montana grew by about 52% and 42%, respectively, between 1970 and 2010. Historical census data also shows that all other incorporated communities within Gallatin County grew significantly between 1970 and 2010. The population of the city of Belgrade, the second largest incorpo-rated area in the county, grew from just over 1,300 residents in 1970 to a 2010 population of 7,389. The populations of the town of Manhattan increased by 86%, the city of Three Forks increased by more than 57%, and the town of West Yellow-stone grew by 68% during the four-decade long period. The population of unincorporated areas of Gallatin County increased by 311% between 1970-2010, with significant growth seen during the 1970s and after 1990. In 2010, the number of residents living in unincorporated communities in Gallatin County was 40,184, 4.1 times higher than in 1970. The majority of the unincorporated area population in 2010 lived in the greater Gallatin Valley area between Bozeman, Belgrade and Four Corners and along the I-90/Frontage Road corridor between Manhattan and Three Forks. Table 2.1 shows historic and estimates of current (as of July 1, 2014) population for Gallatin County, the city of Bozeman, the state of Montana, and the U.S. Annual population growth rate for Gallatin County has far exceeded rates seen for the state and the nation since 1970. Similarly, the city of Bozeman’s population grew at rates higher than those seen for the state and nation. The annual average percent change in population are shown in the table. Between 1970 and 2010, the population of the City of Bozeman dou-bled from 18,670 to 37,280. Gallatin County’s population grew by 2.75 times over the same period while the population for the state of Montana grew by over 40 percent. 179
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 15 Transportation Master Plan Table 2.1: Population Change (1970-2014) Area 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014* Annual Average % Change Gallatin County 32,505 42,865 50,463 67,831 89,513 97,308 2.53% City of Bozeman 18,670 21,645 22,660 27,509 37,280 41,660 1.81% State of Montana 694,409 786,690 799,065 902,195 989,415 1,023,579 0.86% United States 203,392,031 226,545,805 248,709,873 281,421,906 308,745,538 318,857,056 1.04% * Estimate as of July 1, 2014 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Estimates Data, available at http://census.missouri.edu/acs/profiles/ 2.1.1.1. Age Distribution A comparison of resident age was made between Gallatin County, the city of Bozeman, the state of Montana, and the U.S. Table 2.2 depicts the changes in age distribution for residents between 1980 and 2010. The county’s population is shown to be younger than that of the state and nation. Demographic data shows Gallatin County and the city of Bozeman have a larger share of residents in the “less than 18 years old” category and fewer residents in the “65 years and over” category than either the state or nation. The age group from 18 to 64 generally represents the working-age population. The median age of Gallatin County residents increased from 25.1 years to 32.5 years between 1980 and 2010. The median ages for residents of the city of Bozeman showed a slightly lower increase in median age—from 23.3 years in 1980 to 27.2 years in 2010. In both geographies, the median ages of County and City residents were consistently below that seen for the state and nation. Residents aged 20-34 comprised nearly 29 percent of the county’s population and al-most 42 percent of the city’s population in 2010. Residents aged 45 to 64 accounted for about 24 percent of the county’s population and some 17 percent of the city’s popula-tion in 2010. This age group generally represents the “Baby Boom” generation and in-cludes people born from mid-1946 to 1964. Between 2000 and 2010, the share of the county and city populations within this age group increased by 4% and 2%, respectively. Area 1980 1990 2000 2010 Gallatin County Median Age 25.1 29.8 30.7 32.5 % Less than 18 Years Old 23.8 24.3 22.0 20.9 % 18-64 Years Old 68.7 66.8 69.5 69.6 % 65 Years and Older 7.5 8.9 8.5 9.5 City of Bozeman Median Age 23.3 25.7 25.4 27.2 % Less than 18 Years Old 16.8 18.1 16.0 15.7 % 18-64 Years Old 75.2 72.8 76.0 76.2 % 65 Years and Older 8.0 9.1 8.0 8.1 State of Montana Median Age 29.0 33.8 37.5 39.8 % Less than 18 Years Old 29.4 27.8 25.5 22.6 % 18-64 Years Old 59.9 58.9 61.1 62.6 % 65 Years and Older 10.7 13.3 13.4 14.8 United States Median Age 30.0 32.9 35.3 37.2 % Less than 18 Years Old 28.2 25.6 25.7 24.0 % 18-64 Years Old 60.5 61.8 61.9 63.0 % 65 Years and Older 11.3 12.6 12.4 13.0 Table 2.2: Age Distribution (1980-2010)Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population 1980-2010 180
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 16 2.1.1.2. Montana State University Student Population Montana State University-Bozeman (MSU) attracts a large number of full-time and part-time students to the city of Bozeman each year. Enrollment at MSU has in-creased steadily since 1991 and the university has seen record enrollment nine times over the past 10 years. Figure 2.1 shows the trend in enrollment at MSU since 1980. As of fall semester 2015, MSU’s enrollment was 15,688 including 12,196 (78%) full-time students and 3,492 (22%) part-time students. The Montana State University Strategic Plan 20123 indicates it is a goal of the uni-versity to continue growing the student enrollment. The 2012 plan identified a goal of increasing the total student population to 16,000 by the year 2019. It is clear from the recent enrollment numbers that the university is poised to exceed this target population well ahead of that time. In fact, fall 2016 numbers showed a rec-ord enrollment of 16,440 students. The annual influx of students to MSU means the city of Bozeman and surrounding areas must accommodate this population. Housing opportunities for students are available both on campus and off campus within the greater Bozeman area. With the addition of a new dormitory in 2016, MSU is now capable of housing more than 3,700 students in the residence halls at the university. MSU also offers family and graduate housing in nearly 600 apartments located within walking distance of the campus. Approximately 70 percent of the on-campus population is comprised of freshmen undergraduate students. MSU’s enrollment grew by 3,438 between 2005 and 2015.02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,0001980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015EnrollmentYearFigure 2.1: Fall Enrollment at MSU181
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 17 Transportation Master Plan 2.1.1.3. Personal Travel and Commuting Characteristics According to the American Community Survey (ACS) profile for the 2009-2013 period, residents in approximately 96 percent of all oc-cupied housing units in Gallatin County had access to one or more vehicles to commute to work or meet other personal needs. In the city of Bozeman, 93 percent of residents had access to at least one vehicle. In comparison, residents of nearly 95 percent of all occu-pied housing units in Montana and 91 percent of all occupied housing units in the nation had access to one or more vehicles. Information about the number of workers (16 years and older) and their commuting characteristics is also available from the ACS. The ACS information provided estimates of the total share of workers who commute or work at home, the transportation modes used by commuters, and the mean travel times to work for commuters. Ta-ble 2.3 presents commuting characteristics for workers in the var-ious geographies of Gallatin County and the city of Bozeman. Similar statistics for the state of Montana and the U.S. are provided for comparison. The table shows that approximately 81 percent of commuting workers in Gallatin County rely on personal vehicles or carpools for transportation to work destinations. Approximately 77 percent of commuting workers in the city of Bozeman drove alone or car-pooled. Workers in Gallatin County and the city of Bozeman were more likely to walk to work as compared to all workers in the state and nation. The data also shows workers in the city used public transportation for commuting more than typically seen for all workers in Montana. Workers in Gallatin County and the city of Bozeman also have notably shorter commute times than elsewhere in the state or nation. Subject City of Bozeman Gallatin County State of Montana United States Number of Workers 16 Years and Older 21,050 48,847 469,319 139,786,640 Commuted to Work 94.7% 92.5% 93.7% 95.6% Worked at Home 5.3% 7.5% 6.3% 4.3% Transportation Mode Drove alone, car, truck, van 69.5% 71.8% 75.4% 76.3% Carpooled 7.3% 9.2% 10.1% 9.8% Public Transportation (exclud-ing taxicabs) 1.3% 0.9% 0.8% 5.0% Walked to Work 9.8% 6.1% 4.9% 2.8% Other means of commuting 6.8% 4.5% 2.5% 1.8% Mean Travel Time to Work 13.6 min 16.8 min 18.0 min 25.5 min Table 2.3: Mode of Transportation to Work (2009-2013) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS) Profile Report: 2009-2013 (5-year estimates), available at http://census.missouri.edu/acs/profiles/ 182
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 18 2.1.1.4. Housing Units The Census Bureau identifies a housing unit as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occu-pancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the oc-cupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements. Table 2.4 lists the number of housing units that existed within Gallatin County and the city of Bozeman during recent decennial censuses. Overall, the number of housing units in the County increased by nearly 146 percent during the 1980-2010 period, with significant increases in the number of housing units recorded during each of the last two decades in the County. This trend is similar for the city of Bozeman which showed a 119 percent increase in housing units between 1980 and 2010 and a 51 percent increase in the number of housing units between 2000 and 2010. Historic census data for Gallatin County areas showed notable increases in the number of housing units in other incorporated communities within the Gallatin Valley. Between 1990 and 2010, nearly 1,900 new housing units were added to the city of Belgrade with 935 new housing units being added during the 2000-2010 period. The town of Man-hattan recorded an increase of 589 housing units over the 1990-2010 period with 72% of these housing units (424 units) being added between 2000 and 2010. The number of new housing units in the city of Three Forks did not increase as dramatically as in Belgrade or Manhattan. However, more than 300 new housing units were added in Three Forks over the 1990-2010 period. These communities, particularly Belgrade and Manhattan, are within commuting distance of Bozeman and likely offer housing costs lower than those generally available in Bozeman. Area 1980 1990 2000 2010 Gallatin County Population 42,865 50,463 67,831 89,513 Housing Units 17,173 21,350 29,489 42,289 Population per Housing Unit 2.50 2.36 2.30 2.12 City of Bozeman Population 21,645 22,660 27,509 37,280 Housing Units 7,971 9,117 11,577 17,464 Population per Housing Unit 2.72 2.49 2.38 2.13 Unincorporated Areas of the County Population 15,914 21,231 30,293 40,184 Housing Units 6,949 9,298 13,559 18,826 Population per Housing Unit 2.29 2.28 2.23 2.13 Table 2.4: Housing Units Source: US Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population 183
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 19 Transportation Master Plan 2.1.2. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME TRENDS Gallatin County is Montana’s fourth most populous county, while the city of Bozeman, the county seat, is the state’s fourth largest city. The economy of Gallatin County is fairly diverse with construction, govern-ment, manufacturing, technology, retail trade, services, and agriculture all playing notable roles. Bozeman’s transition into a regional trade and service center provide a solid basis for continued economic growth. Montana State University (MSU) comprises the largest component of Gallatin County’s economic base. In 2013, there were 70,269 full-time and part-time jobs with more than 98 percent of the jobs being non-farm related employment. Total full and part-time employment in Gallatin County in 2013 was 223 percent higher than that recorded in 1980. Over this 33-year period, the average annual increase in employment in Gallatin County was 3.6 percent per year. The services industry experienced the highest growth between 1980 and 2013 with the total number of jobs increased by 25,300. Other industry sectors showing sizable increases in employment since 1980 in-clude: construction (net gain of 5,166 jobs); finance, insurance and real estate (net gain of 4,752 jobs); retail trade (net gain of 4,371 jobs) and state and local government (net gain of 3,408 jobs). The industries showing the lowest gains in employment since 1980 were federal and civilian government, the military, agriculture and forestry, mining, and transportation. MSU is the largest employer in Gallatin County with 3,092 permanent faculty and staff, and 649 graduate teaching and research assistants in 2014. Of the 3,092 permanent employees, 2,321 were classified as full time and 771 were part time employees. The Bozeman Public School District, Gallatin County, and city of Bozeman are also large public employers in the county. Large private employers within Gallatin County include: Bozeman Deaconess Hospital (1,000+ employees) Right Now Technologies (500-999 employees) Walmart (250-499 employees) 17 other businesses with 100 to 249 employees The Bozeman area econ-omy experienced a sig-nificant contraction early in the 2008 recession. However, the economy began to turn around in 2010 and has continued upward ever since. Ac-cording to the 2015 Eco-nomic Outllook (by Paul Polzin, Bureau of Busi-ness and Economic Re-search) only Gallatin County and Yellowstone County significantly ex-ceeded the statewide growth rates during the recovery phase of this business cycle. 184
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 20 2.2. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Land use plays a critical role in shaping transportation networks. Land use decisions affect the transportation system and can increase viable options for people to access work and recreation sites, goods, services, and other resources in the community. In turn, the existing and future transportation system may be impacted by the location, type, and design of land use developments through changes in travel demands, travel mode choices, and travel patterns. For this reason, it is important to review community development patterns over time and understand where conditions may be favorable for new residential and commercial growth. 2.2.1. HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND CURRENT LAND USES Bozeman’s developed land use pattern has evolved steadily from the time of first settlement. The historic development of the city of Bozeman was centered on the commercial core of Main Street and later included the industrial core established around the railroad yard. The city developed around a street and block pattern that served residents by providing for most basic needs within relatively close proximity to residential areas. This pattern flourished for many years and maintained a thriving central core area within the city. The development pattern changed as automobiles became commonplace and allowed people to move greater distances over a shorter period. The newfound mobility served to create commercial corridors as business owners relocated to or expanded on parcels of less expensive land on the edges of town. The development of Interstate 90 (I-90) along the north edge of the city reinforced the commercial corridor pattern seen in the community. Commercial development, with concentrations of motels/hotels and other services, was spurred in areas along East Main Street and North 7th Avenue (and later North 19th Avenue) where interchanges were constructed along I-90. The periods of rapid residential growth seen in the Bozeman area from 1980 forward resulted in significant new residential areas on former agricultural lands that surrounded the city. This growth has manifested itself through numerous large residential developments, primarily on lands adjoining the north, west, and southwest portions of the city and through infill developments in other areas of the city. Residential and commercial development on lands near MSU has also been notable in recent years. Today, the city is seeing substantial redevelopment and enhancements within its historic downtown core area and East Main Street. This activity has contributed to making downtown Bozeman a very vibrant area. Rapid expansion of commercial uses has also continued along North 19th Avenue and portions of West Main Street. Most other major streets in the city also have some level of commercial development. Figure 2.2 depicts current land uses for the community as compiled by the city of Bozeman GIS Department. 185
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 21 Transportation Master Plan Figure 2.2: Existing Land Use in the City of Bozeman (2016) Source: City of Bozeman GIS Department, accessed December 27, 2106, http://gisweb.bozeman.net/Html5Viewer/?viewer=maps 186
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 22 2.2.2. RECENT ANNEXATIONS The city of Bozeman has increased in size over the years due to annexations. Annexations are typi-cally done to accommodate new developments and/or extend municipal services. Figure 2.3 shows annexations from 1996 through 2015. The light blue area in the map shows the municipal boundaries as of 1996 and the colored areas rep-resent annexed lands for subsequent years with orange to red colors representing the most recent annexations. In 1996, the City encompassed about 7,100 acres. Between 1999 and 2007, the city annexed nearly 4,150 acres. As of the end of 2015, the municipal boundaries of Bozeman covered approximately 12,900 acres, an increase of over 80 percent from 1996. It is apparent from the map that most lands annexed since 1996 were on the north and west perimeters of the city. Figure 2.3: City of Bozeman Annexations (1996-2015)Source: City of Bozeman GIS Department, http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/media/GIS_Media/maps/Annexation_Map.pdf 187
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 23 Transportation Master Plan 2.2.3. FUTURE LAND USE Figure 2.4 presents a future land use map for the Bozeman area taken from the Bozeman Community Plan2 adopted in 2009. In general, the future land use plan for the city seeks to move away from the auto-oriented development pattern of the past, in-creased the urban density by implementing more mixed use developments that combine uses on one site or within one building and more efficiently use land. Center-based commercial development is viewed as desirable. The city also seeks to create more options in housing choice, location, and cost. Source: Bozeman Community Plan (2009), http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/e6/e6a049b8-fad5-4886-b7f5-3ebfbd2f4556.pdf Figure 2.4: Future Land Use Map for the Bozeman Area188
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 24 2.3. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Information about the current transportation system was analyzed to estab-lish existing traffic conditions, non-motorized network gaps and limitations, and to determine potential problem areas. Existing transportation data were provided by MDT and the city of Bozeman. Additional data were collected in the fall of 2015 to supplement the available information. Using a combi-nation of the supplied and collected data, the existing operational charac-teristics of the transportation network was determined. 2.3.1. MAJOR STREET NETWORK A community’s transportation system is made up of a hierarchy of roadways, with each roadway being classified according to certain parameters includ-ing, but not limited to, geometric configuration, traffic volumes, spacing in the community’s transportation grid, speed, and adjacent land use. Func-tional classification is a method of classifying roads by the service they pro-vide as part of the overall roadway network. Most travel involves movement through a network of roads. Functional classification defines the nature of traveling within a network in a logical and efficient manner by defining the part that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips through the entire network. For this TMP, emphasis was placed on roadways that are functionally classi-fied as collectors, minor arterials, or principal arterials within the study area. Figure 2.5 presents the existing major street network. This major street net-work builds off information contained in the adopted Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) and was modified to reflect changed con-ditions. Note that the functional classifications shown in the figure may not represent the “Federally approved” functional classification system, rather, they show the local classifications which are used for planning purposes and may not be representative of existing conditions. Included in the current study area are roadways with functional classifications of interstate system, principal arterial, minor arterial, collector routes, and lo-cal streets. . The following list provides general descriptions of these func-tional classifications: Interstate: The main purpose of an interstate highway is to provide for re-gional and interstate transportation of people and goods. Primary users are all types, including local residents, commuters, travelers, and freight opera-tors. Interstate highways are characterized by having fully controlled access (provided by a limited number of interchanges), high design speeds, and a high level of driver comfort and safety. The interstate system has been de-signed as a high-speed facility with all road intersections being grade sepa-rated. Principal Arterial: The purpose of the principal arterial is to serve the major centers of activity, the highest traffic volume corridors, and the longest trip distances in an area. This classification of roadway carries a high proportion of the total traffic. Most of the vehicles entering and leaving the area utilize prin-cipal arterials. Significant intra-area travel, such as between central business districts and outlying residential areas and between major suburban centers, is served by principal arterials. Minor Arterial: The minor arterial street system interconnects with and aug-ments the principal arterial system. They accommodate trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility as compared to principal arterials, and they distribute travel to smaller geographic areas. Collector: The collector street network serves a joint purpose – provide equal priority to the movement of traffic and to access residential, business, and in-dustrial areas. This type of roadway differs from those of the arterial system in that collector roadways may traverse residential neighborhoods. The collector system distributes trips from the arterials to the user’s ultimate destinations. The collector streets also collect traffic from local streets in the residential neighborhoods, and channel the traffic to the arterial system. Local: The local street network comprises all facilities not included in the higher systems. The primary purpose of local streets is to permit direct access to abutting lands and connections to higher systems. Usually service to through-traffic movements is intentionally discouraged either through low speed limits or other traffic calming measures. 189
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 25 Transportation Master Plan Figure 2.5: Existing Major Street Network 9090191848586411345205345235191191HIGHLAND BLVDS 3RD AVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTERLNBABCOCK STE VALLEY CENTER RDPEACH STMENDENHALL STS CHURCH AVE
S 19TH AVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEGALLATINRDHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEJACKRABBIT LNMAIN STDURSTON RDCOTTONWOOD RDDAVIS LNBABCOCK STBAXTER LNOAK STGARFIELD STPATTERSON RDFOWLER LNGOOCH HILL RDBLACKWOOD RDSOURDOUGH RDGOLDENSTEIN LNS 3RD AVESTUCKY RDFERGUSON AVEFOWLER AVE27TH STBEAR CANYON RD
LOVE LNHARPER PUCKETT RDGRAF STNASH RDBOZEMAN TRAIL TAYABESHOCKUP RDFRONTAGE RDFORT ELLIS RDGRAF ST
CATMOUNT STNELSON RDMCILHATTAN RDMANLEY RDSTORY MILL RDExisting MajorStreet Network012½MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA*The functional classifications shown are recommendedas part of the Bozeman TMP and do not reflect thefederally approved functional classification criteria.Functional Class*CollectorInterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialBozeman City LimitsStudy AreaMontana State University190
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 26 2.3.2. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 2.3.2.1. Bicycle Facilities The city of Bozeman has made great progress on its active transportation network since the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) and the 2007 Parks, Recreations, and Open Space Plan. The mileage of all facility types have approximately doubled since 2007. The increase in facilities has resulted in measured increases in bicycling in Bozeman. Bicycle commuting mode share increased from 4.7 percent of commute trips in 2000 to 6.3 percent of commute trips in 2010. The city of Bozeman measured an instantaneous increase in bicycling and walking of 256 percent along West Babcock Street when bike lanes and sidewalks were installed in 2007. The following list describes the various bicycle facilities found in Bozeman and other cities. Figure 2.6 shows the existing bicycle facilities within the TMP study area. Bike Routes Bike routes include paved shoulders and shared roadways where bicyclists and cars operate within the same travel lane, either side by side or in single file depending on roadway con-figuration. The most basic type of bikeway is a signed shared roadway. This facility is used to connect other bikeways – usually bike lanes - or designate preferred routes through high-demand corridors. Bozeman has a network of signed bike routes that operate both as shared roadways and, in some instances, with paved shoulders. Some of these roadways, such as Mendenhall Street, have shared lane markings installed which raise the visibility of bicycling and promote safer behavior by both bicyclists and motorists. Bozeman has ap-proximately 18 miles of bike routes officially designated through signage. Bike Lanes Bike lanes are a type of separated bikeway that uses signage and striping to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and motorists. Bike lanes encourage predictable move-ment by both bicyclists and motorists. Bozeman has approximately 33 miles of on-street bike lanes. 191
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 27 Transportation Master Plan Shared-use Paths Shared-use paths are off-street paved trails that are designated for the use of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users such as skateboarders and rollerbladers. Ex-amples include the Oak Street shared-use path and the College Street to Huffine Lane pathway. Bozeman has approximately 23 miles of shared-use paths. Bicycle Boulevards Bicycle boulevards are streets that are comfortable for most bicyclists to ride on due to low motorized traffic volumes and speeds. They are designed to give bicycle travel priority. Bicycle boulevards are designated with signs, pavement markings, and wayfinding ele-ments. Additionally, they create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets. If necessary, they can also employ speed or volume management techniques to keep them comfortable for bicyclists by reducing speeds and cut-through traffic. The city of Bozeman has not officially designated any streets as bicycle boulevards, however, there are many streets that currently have many of these features including pavement markings, wayfind-ing signage, and even a diverter, such as South 6th Avenue. Separated Bike Lanes While not currently found in Bozeman, separated bike lanes combine the user experience of a separate path with the on-street infrastructure of conventional bike lanes through various forms of physical separation from adjacent traffic. Two such facilities are currently in place in Missoula. 192
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 28 Natural Surface Trails Natural surface trails are present in nearly every part of Bozeman. These facilities link neigh-borhoods, provide connections along streams (West Side Trail) and follow old railroad alignments like the Gallagator Trail and Story Mill Spur. These facilities fulfill, along with the rest of the sidewalk and shared use path network, both transportation and recreational functions. Bozeman has an extensive network that is constantly being expanded through developer built trails and other initiatives led by the city of Bozeman and Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT). Much of the trail system has wayfinding and kiosks with maps and other information. Bozeman has approximately 92 miles of unpaved natural surface trails. 193
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 29 Transportation Master Plan Figure 2.6: Existing Bicycle Network 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LNExisting BicycleNetwork0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA, ALTARailroadBicycle Facility TypeStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State UniversityTrailShared-use PathBicycle LaneDesignated Bicycle Route194
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 30 2.3.2.2. Pedestrian Facilities Bozeman’s pedestrian facilities are generally good, with plentiful sidewalks that are typically in good condition. The City does have several challenges to achieving a fully connected pedestrian network. The following list describes these challenges. Figure 2.7 presents the existing pedestrian network within the TMP study area. Neighborhoods Lacking Sidewalks Many County subdivisions and some City neighborhoods lack sidewalks completely. Most of these areas were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. The City has made attempts to bring sidewalks to some of these neighborhoods and met resistance from some of the residents. Incomplete Subdivisions The responsibility to construct sidewalks currently lies at the individual lot level when the lot is developed. This has resulted in piecemeal sidewalk connectivity in subdivisions that have not yet been fully built out. Developers are required to construct the sidewalks after three years if the lots are not developed. However, the economic down-turn of 2008 through 2013 left many developers bankrupt and resulted in significant gaps in the side-walk network. 195
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 31 Transportation Master Plan Arterials and Collectors Several of Bozeman’s arterials and collectors were originally constructed to County stand-ards many years ago. As the City has grown, many of these streets have been reconstructed to newer standards to include sidewalks. Many streets, such as West Babcock Street be-tween 11th to 19th Avenues, have never been reconstructed. Old Infrastructure Many of Bozeman’s older neighborhoods still have their original sidewalks, some of which have been in place for more than a century. While many are in good condition, some are cracked, heaved by tree roots, or lack accessible ramps at street corners. The City has been addressing these issues and making steady annual progress, however, there is a backlog that will still require many years of effort. According to Section 12.20.035 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, the City may notify property owners that repairs are necessary and the property owner has 30 days for repair or replacement. Crossings Many of Bozeman’s signalized and unsignalized pedestrian crossings could benefit from enhancements which would make the crossing more visible to motorists and more com-fortable to pedestrians and trail users. Many key pedestrian desire lines, such as mid-block trail crossings, are not accommodated. 196
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 32 Figure 2.7: Existing Pedestrian Network 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LNExistingPedestrianNetwork0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA, ALTANeighborhoods LackingSidewalksExisting TrailSidewalk Gap**Sidewalk gaps are only depicted for those roadwayson the Major Street Network.Study AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State UniversityExisting Shared-use Path197
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 33 Transportation Master Plan 2.3.2.3. Transit Facilities Streamline provides fixed route public transportation in Bozeman, Belgrade, and Livingston. Streamline began as a partnership between the Human Resource Devel-opment Council (HRDC), District IX, and the Associated Students of Montana State University (ASMSU). The partnership now includes the cities of Bozeman and Bel-grade and the President’s Office at Montana State University. Streamline was re-cently honored as one of five urban transit systems throughout the nation to be awarded an Outstanding Service Award by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Riders are overwhelmingly MSU students, faculty, and staff. This is both because universities tend to generate significant ridership, and because Streamline’s service is MSU-centric with routes and schedules designed to serve MSU students and em-ployees. Streamline currently offers six routes4, all of which are fare free: Daytime (Fixed Route) Latenight (Deviated Fixed Route) Bridger Bowl/Bohart Ranch (Deviated Fixed Route, Seasonal) Saturday Service (Fixed Route) Livingston Commuter (Fixed Route) Belgrade Commuter (Fixed Route) Streamline Ridership Trends Ridership data are collected by the drivers when a passenger boards the bus. Monthly ridership data for all routes between fiscal year 2007 and 2015 were pro-vided by Streamline. Streamline ridership trends can be summarized on a year-to-year and a month-to-month basis. Data show that total ridership has increased year-to-year from 2010 until 2014. A slight decrease in ridership was seen in 2015. The average annual growth between 2007 and 2015 is 7.5 percent. On a month-by-month basis, seasonal variation in ridership can be seen with winter months generally having greater ridership as compared to summer months. It can also be seen that ridership in December decreases as compared to November and Streamline has realized an average annual ridership growth rate of 7.5 percent between 2007 and 2015. 198
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 34 January. This trend could be attributed to the holiday season and university students returning home for winter break. The daytime, Saturday, and Livingston categories show less seasonal variation, possible due to more non-university users. The late night category shows the greatest variation throughout the year with peaks in April and October and a low in July. Weather and availability of other transportation modes may also contribute seasonal variation of ridership. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity to Transit Streamline’s five weekday lines are all one-way loops and have been adjusted over the years to become more efficient and beneficial to the community. Bus stop amenities are varied and range from high-quality custom designed shelters with benches and information to simple bus stop signs with a route timetable. Walking and bicycling are natural compliments to transit use. Transit use can be improved by high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities that can fill in the “first or last mile” of transit journeys. For the most part pedestrian amenities are present along bus routes, with some exceptions, such as along collector or arterial roads that have not fully been built out yet. 2.3.2.4. Active Transportation Facility Maintenance Active transportation facilities are maintained in different ways by different departments and groups within the city of Bozeman. The following describes current maintenance activities for active transportation facilities: On-Street Pavement Markings: Bike lane and crosswalk striping is replaced in conjunction with the overall pavement marking replacement. The city of Bozeman contracts restriping annually. Some pavement markings have been installed as recessed thermo-plastic which lasts much longer. For example, when South 3rd Avenue was chip sealed in 2013, the existing thermoplastic pavement markings that were applied in the late 1990s were still in good condition. Streets are snow plowed by MDT and City crews. The city of Bozeman has worked in recent years to improve plowing of bike lanes so that they are functional during the winter months and to sweep them clear of debris in the spring. Paved Shared-Use Paths: Most of Bozeman’s asphalt shared-use paths are under 15 years old, however, some are reaching the point where surface preservation is needed. One of the issues faced is the varying quality of construction as many of these facilities were built by developers. There are multiple examples of asphalt trails deteriorating due to improper construction. The city of Bo-zeman has responded to some spot location for repairs, however, there is no substantial funding or program in place to conduct maintenance. Parks and Recreation and the Streets Departments have worked together to manage the inventory of asphalt shared-use paths. Various departments including Streets, Forestry, Cemetery, and Parks and Recreation have plowing responsibilities. Parks has taken a larger role and has received additional equipment from the Streets Department. 199
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 35 Transportation Master Plan Natural Surface Trails: Natural surface trails are a cost effective facility type with nearly 100 miles of facilities in place. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department has a “Trail Boss” position which organizes and conducts maintenance on 67 miles of natural sur-face trail – including 66 bridges. Additionally, the city of Bozeman partners with the GVLT for maintenance. GVLT maintains trails that are in the County and organizes volunteer work days on City trails. Natural surface trails are not maintained during the winter months. 2.3.2.5. Active Transportation Programs and Events Since 2007, there have been many new programs created and sustained by a variety of groups within Bozeman. Table 2.5 summarizes these programs. Table 2.5: Active Transportation Programs and Events Program Summary Group/Agency Bike Counts Each September since 2011 the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB) has organized volunteers to count bicycles at 15 locations around Bozeman. The counts are conducted in accordance with the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project. BABAB Bike Swap Each May the Gallatin Valley Fairgrounds are utilized to sell used bicycle equipment. The event is well attended each year. Gallatin Valley Bike Club Bike to Work Week Each May volunteers and local businesses work together to encourage and reward individuals for biking to work. “Energizer Stations” each morning provide free coffee and breakfast treats to participating bicyclists. Additionally, other bicycle themed events are organized. BABAB, MSU Bike Training/Education Classes involving teaching the rules of the road, proper riding technique and bicycle safety are periodically taught at a variety of venues. BABAB, MSU, Bike Kitchen Bozeman Biking Website The city of Bozeman hosts a website (http://www.bozeman.net/bicycles) that has some materials in development including the recommendations from the League of American Bicyclists. There are two other websites that could cause redundancy and confusion among users. BABAB Community Bikes Complete bicycles are provided to individuals who are endorsed by a selection of participating local community organizations. Bike Kitchen, Human Resource Development Council, Gallatin Valley Food Bank, Thrive, Haven, etc. Community Shop The Bike Kitchen has open tools and repair stands available any time during regular hours for members of the public to conduct and learn bicycle repair. Bike Kitchen 200
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 36 Program Summary Group/Agency Discovery Walks In 2015, there were 15 community walks with a theme: art, history, bird watching, etc. The program reached 267 participants over 38 free guided walks. This has resulted in getting more people to know the trail system. GVLT Earn a Bike Volunteers at the Bike Kitchen can pick out a bike frame and build a complete bicycle from it after 16 hours of volunteer time. Bike Kitchen High School Driver’s Education and Safety BABAB developed a presentation aimed at raising awareness of bicycling issues for the Bozeman High School Driver’s Education class. The program was initiated in 2013. Furthermore, BABAB has a high school ambassador who has organized events targeted at Bozeman High students. BABAB Speed Enforcement Mobile speed trailers are relocated frequently around Bozeman to remind drivers of the speed limit. Permanent radar speed signs are installed near most of the City’s elementary schools. Bozeman Police Department Trail/Bike Maps Both GVLT and the BABAB publish a hard copy paper map of the city of Bozeman. The maps contain similar information, with the GVLT map costing $3 and focusing on the trail system. The BABAB map focuses more on bicycle facilities and is free. There is no user friendly on-line map as of 2015. GVLT, BABAB Trail Ambassadors Volunteers are present at trailheads and on the trail system to assist users with wayfinding, etiquette, and handing out dog bags and leashes. In 2015, there were 225 hours of patrols and 2,748 contacts made with the public. GVLT Trail Volunteers GVLT organizes volunteers to help maintain the trail system. GVLT oversees the work and the City provides materials. In fiscal year 2015, there were 753 volunteers amassing 2,823 volunteer hours. GVLT, city of Bozeman Trail Wayfinding In 2015, GVLT added or replaced 575 signs for the trail wayfinding totems. GVLT has also installed 25 kiosks with 15 additional kiosks to be installed in the future. GVLT Trails Rx In 2015, 15 health providers “prescribed” physical activity on the trail system. GVLT has provided the providers with trail maps, handouts, etc. GVLT 2.3.3. FREIGHT AND RAIL NETWORK Freight and Heavy Vehicles The city of Bozeman is situated near the junction of I-90, US Highway 191 (US 191), and State Highway 84. I-90 connects Bozeman with Billings and Interstate 94 to the east and Butte and Interstate 15 to the west. US 191 extends south to West Yellowstone were it connects to US Highway 20. State Highway 84 travels west to its junction with US Highway 287 in Norris. Each of these routes serve regional, national, and international trade. As such, it is important that delivery vehicles are able to travel through the area in a safe and effective manner. 201
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 37 Transportation Master Plan Within the study area, of major concern is the volume of heavy vehicle traffic in downtown Bozeman. A 2015 study found that of the approx-imately 300 heavy vehicles that use Main Street on a typical weekday, approximately 39 percent are through trips.5 No truck routes are designated within the City of Bozeman. Roadway capacity, functional classification, and geography generally dictate which routes heavy vehicles use. Heavy vehicle traffic on major roadways within the study area is summarized in Table 2.6. Table 2.6: Heavy Vehicle Traffic at Select Locations Location 2014 AADT 2014 Heavy Vehicles (per day average) Percent Heavy Vehicles I-90 east of Main St. 15,330 2,178 14.2 I-90 between Main St and 7th Ave 16,820 2,097 12.5 I-90 between 7th Ave and 19th Ave 17,940 2,257 12.6 I-90 west of 19th Ave 19,050 2,257 11.8 Main St east of Highland Blvd* 12,680 392 3.1 Main St west of 19th Ave* 22,920 476 1.7 Huffine Ln west of Cottonwood Road* 23,000 476 2.1 19th Ave north of Baxter Ln* 25,030 260 1.9 7th Ave north of Oak St* 21,190 312 1.5 Oak St west of 7th Ave* 16.300 295 1.8 Durston Rd west of 7th Ave* 11,170 139 1.2 19th Ave north of College St* 17,120 254 1.5 Kagy Blvd east of 19th Ave* 13,560 150 1.1 * MDT does not collect classification data at these locations due to heavy traffic. Heavy vehicle percentages are derived based on adjustment formulas. The specific location of trucking activity centers can greatly affect the transportation network as a whole. For example, if a business receives daily deliveries from heavy vehicles, they would need to ensure that the trucks have a safe location to unload goods. If a loading dock or large parking area were not available, it is possible the truck would have to stop in the roadway while unloading. This results in blocked traffic and creates a safety hazard. Many businesses that generate a high volume of truck traffic tend to be located in industrial or commercial areas that allow for large unloading areas. While not exhaustive, Figure 2.8 presents the locations of trucking activity centers located within the study area boundary. 202
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 38 Rail The main rail line through Bozeman is currently owned by BNSF Railway (BNSF) and is leased to Montana Rail Link (MRL). Speed limits range from 10 to 45 miles per hour on the main track and 10 to 35 miles per hour on turnouts, sidings, and other track. The section of track through Bozeman is designated as a “Federal Rail-road Administration Excepted Track”, effectively limiting operations to a maximum of 10 miles per hour. Data on the current number of daily trains through Bozeman are unavailable, how-ever, in 2006, a total of 5,669 trains passed through Bozeman for an average of 16 trains per day6. Through trains average approximately 110 cars per train. In Bozeman, railroad siding locations for loading and offloading (including local car gathering) currently only exist at the Idaho Pole site on North Wallace Street. The prospective Mandeville Industrial Park would include the second site. A total of nine at-grade crossings exist within the study area. Traffic control at these sites varies and includes crossbucks, gates, or post with flashing lights. Fig-ure 2.8 displays the location and traffic control for each at-grade rail crossing within the study area. Delays at at-grade train crossings affect overall transportation system performance. At-grade crossings were heavily commented on by Bozeman citizens througout the planning process. 203
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 39 Transportation Master Plan Figure 2.8: Freight and Rail Network 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LNWalmartMergenthalerTransfer & StorageConocoBulk PlantCostco WholesaleTargetUS PostOfficeHome DepotLowesKenyon NobleLumberSimkins-HallinLumberSimkins-HallinTop ShopEmpire BuildingMaterialsUS Post OfficePepsi-ColaLehrkind's BottlingEmpire Building MaterialsStorage YardBronken's DistributingSmith'sAlbertson'sSafewayRosauersTown & CountryFoodsTown & Country FoodsKarst StageFirst StudentBus BarnCity Shop ComplexMDTAg DepotKenyon NobleMDTFreight andRail Network0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPATrucking Activity CentersStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State UniversityAt-grade Railroad CrossingCrossbucksGatesPost Flashing Lights204
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 40 2.4. TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Current information about the transportation system was analyzed to establish the existing traffic conditions and to determine potential problem areas. Existing data were provided by MDT and the city of Bozeman. Additional data were collected in the fall of 2015 to supplement the available information. Using a combination of the supplied and collected data, the existing operational characteristics of the transportation network were determined. 2.4.1. ROADWAY VOLUMES AND CAPACITY Existing roadway traffic data were collected by MDT and the city of Bozeman. The data were used to establish traffic conditions and to provide reliable data on historic traffic volumes. Average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts for the year 2014 were used to represent existing condi-tions. The capacity of the roadways is of critical importance when looking at the growth of the community. As traffic volumes increase, vehicle flow deteriorates. When traffic volumes approach and exceed the available capacity, users experience congestion and vehicle delay. As such, it is important to investigate the size and configuration of the existing roadways and to determine if these roads need to be expanded to accommodate the existing or projected traffic demands. The capacity of a roadway is based on a number of features including the number of lanes, intersection function, access and intersection spacing, vehicle fleet mix, road-way geometrics, and vehicle speeds. Individual roadway capacity varies greatly and should be calculated on an individual basis. However, for planning and comparison purposes, theoretical roadway capacities were developed based on simplistic road-way configurations. Table 2.7 presents the capacities that have been used for this work. These values are not intended to be used to set any thresholds for roadway performance, but rather provide general information to be used for comparison pur-poses. A roadway’s capacity, and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, can be used as a comparison tool when looking at the transportation system. The v/c ratio of a roadway is defined as the traffic volume on the roadway divided by the capacity of the roadway. Figure 2.9 presents the resultant v/c ratios for the existing major street network. The v/c ratios help identify potential capacity deficiencies on the transportation system. Road Configuration Capacity (vpd)* 2 Lane 12,000 2 Lane – Divided/TWLTL** 18,000 4 Lane 24,000 4 Lane – Divided/TWLTL** 32,000 Interstate 68,000 Table 2.7: Theoretical Roadway Capacity * Values represent planning level daily capacities developed for this TMPand are intended for comparison purposes only. Actual physical roadwaycapacity can vary greatly depending on roadway design features andaccess control. ** Two-way Left-turn Lane 205
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 41 Transportation Master Plan Figure 2.9: Existing Roadway Volume to Capacity Ratios 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LN0.340.480.410.630.280.360.610.710.260.850.580.530.260.090.560.520.660.430 .4 8
0.440.630.560.1 80.420.520.470.680.810.120.650.260.78 0.290.580.710.670.720.630.230.750.370.430.690.160.550.500.770.24
0 .4 8 0.270.510 .15 0.740.260.840.240.450.680.280.230.450 .2 6 0.250.770.680.590.700.330.580.380.400.250.410.660.220.090.760.610.770.820.770.400.320.180.700.560.280.78
0.331.321.081.130.050.060.06
0.04Existing Volumeto CapacityRatios0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA*The functional classifications shown are containedin the 2007 LRTP and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria.Functional Class*InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State UniversityVolume to Capacity Ratio < 1.000.65Volume to Capacity Ratio ≥ 1.001.15206
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 42 2.4.2. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DATA Providing an accurate picture of pedestrian and bicycle activity within any community is difficult. Data are typically not available or not com-prehensive enough to form a complete picture of active transportation behavior. Data for vehicles is, by comparison, more readily available. Both MDT and the city of Bozeman have collected regular pedestrian and bicyclist data for years, allowing long-term trends to be understood. Overall, Bozeman exhibits high levels of walking and bicycling by national standards. Bozeman is comparable to Missoula within the state of Montana. The following subsections summarize available data pertaining to active transportation. Journey to Work/Commuting (ACS) 2010-2014 Data The US Census has long been one of the only readily available sources of data to measure general levels of transportation choices. The data are limited to commute based trips to work and do not reflect the spectrum of potential trip types available. The American Community Survey (ACS) has supplemented the 10-year cycle of the US Census to provide additional annual data. For communities the size of Bozeman, annual data are not statistically valid, therefore five-year averages are used. This method provides some insight, however, it is slow to note changes over time. For walking and bicycling, the margins of error are over one percent. Table 2.8 compares the city of Bozeman to Gallatin County and the State of Montana. City of Bozeman data are visualized in Figure 2.10 by census block to show how patterns of resident commuting change depending on location. Neighborhoods near the historic core of Bozeman and those near MSU exhibit high overall active transpor-tation modes, totaling over half of all commute trips south of Main Street. These levels reduce to approximately 30 and 15 percent as the census block generally gets farther away from downtown. It should be noted that the Valley West Area census block, defined by neighbor-hoods north of Huffine Lane and west of 19th Avenue, shows much lower levels of active transportation based on commuting. This could indicate needs with infrastructure or encouragement as the majority of this area is not any farther away from major destinations in Bozeman. Table 2.8: Commute Mode Share and Travel Time Mode Share State of Montana Gallatin County City of Bozeman Walking* 4.8% 6.0% 9.5% Biking* 1.3% 3.1% 5.5% Driving** 85.6% 81.7% 77.9% Drove Alone 75.3% 73.0% 71.3% Transit 0.9% 0.9% 1.3% Travel Time to Work (mean) 18.0 min 16.8 min 14.6 min Source: American Community Survey (ACS) Five Year Estimates, 2010-2015 * Due to small sample sizes the margin of error is approximately 1.2 percent for walking and 1.4 percent for bicycling ** Driving mode share combines single occupancy vehicles and carpools 207
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 43 Transportation Master Plan Figure 2.10: Commute by Census Tract Data 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LN32%32%15%2%9%13%4%3%4%16%53%35%4%Commute byCensus Tract0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA,US Census BureauPercent of Census TractCommuting by Transit,Foot, or BikeStudy AreaPercent Commuting by Transit†Percent Commuting by Foot†Percent Commuting by Bike††US Census Bureau, American CommunitySurvey, 2009-2013> 5%5 - 10%10 - 15%15 - 20%20 - 35%> 35%Census Tract208
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 44 Commuting patterns have changed slightly when compared with those of the 2000 Census. While the margin for error inherent in the ACS is significant, it is likely that walking has gone down slightly or is statistically similar to the year 2000. A decrease could be due to a larger number of households being constructed at a greater distance to destinations over the interceding years. Bicycling has increased slightly and transit use has fluctuated between 1.3 to 2.0 percent over the past several years within the five-year ACS averages. Overall, active forms of transpor-tation have seen a slight increase over the past 15 years. Figure 2.11 compares the year 2000 mode shares against the ACS years 2010-2014 shares. Figure 2.11: Commute Mode Share Changes from Year 2000 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) 2009 Data Data from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) provides mode share data aggregated at the national level for all trips and not just commute to work trips. For example, NHTS indicates that for every one bike to work trip, there are another 1.6 utilitarian bike trips (shopping, personal trips, transporting others, medical or dental visits, meals, or other reasons), 0.5 bike to school trips, and 4.8 social or recreational trips. Overall bike to work trips represent only approximately 7.5 percent of all bike trips nationally. It should be noted that approximately 41 percent of bike trips counted by NHTS are return home trips, indicating many bicyclists perform part of their round trip by other means. While it is likely that travel patterns in Bozeman, particularly recreational based travel, do not match the national averages, it is very likely that the ACS commute mode share noted in Table 2.8 under represents overall mode share and the overall levels of walking and bicycling in Bozeman. 4.3%5.5%0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%20000.3%1.3%0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%2000 2010‐20142010‐20142010‐201410.7%9.5%0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%2000209
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 45 Transportation Master Plan Intersection Traffic Counts (2015) Traffic counts conducted as part of the data collection phase of this TMP included pedestrian and bicyclists. While these data are not com-prehensive or city-wide, they do provide a snapshot of mode share at intersections and the variability in mode share around the city. Mode share at four intersections is presented in Figure 2.12. Figure 2.12: Mode Share at Select Intersections 2.4.3. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Urban road systems are ultimately controlled by the efficiency of the major intersection. High amounts of vehicle delay at major intersections directly reduces the number of vehicles that can be accommodated along the road during peak hours. Intersection performance is evaluated in terms of vehicle delay. The amount of vehicle delay experienced at an intersection correlates to a measure called level of service (LOS). LOS is used as a means for identifying intersections that are experiencing operational difficulties, as well as a means to compare multiple intersec-tions. The LOS scale represents the full range of operating conditions. The scale is based on the ability of an intersection or street segment to accommodate the amount of traffic using the intersection. The scale ranges from “A” which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to “F” which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion. The LOS at 63 intersections within the study area was calculated. Data were collected during the fall of 2015 at 30 of the 63 intersections (11 signalized and 19 unsignalized locations). Each intersection was counted during the peak hours, defined as 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Additionally, peak hour turning movement counts were obtained from MDT for 15 intersections (10 signalized and 5 unsignalized locations). Data at these locations were collected on various dates over the past few years. The remaining intersection counts were provided by various sources and were collected as part of recent planning efforts. The existing intersection LOS is shown in Figure 2.13. 89%7%5%College St&8th Ave60%34%7%11th Ave&Grant St99%1%0%Ferguson Ave & Babcock St95%2%3%7th Ave&Kagy210
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 46 Figure 2.13: Existing Intersection Level of Service 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LNBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCBBBCCBBCCCCCCDDCCCCDCBBBBCCFFCECCDCCCBCFFEFEFFFFFBCBCABFFCCCCCCEFCCBCFDBCDDCDBCCCDCDDEDFFBBDBCAABCCC*BBBBBABCAAExistingLevel of Service0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPASignalized IntersectionsUnsignalized IntersectionsAMPMAM PMLevel of ServiceABCDEF*Data unavailableStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State University211
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 47 Transportation Master Plan 2.4.4. BICYCLE OPERATIONS Vehicular LOS has been a standard metric to evaluate transportation networks for decades. Transportation professionals have struggled over the years to develop a comparable means of evaluation for pedestrians and bicyclists. For these modes, it is the qualitative metrics, or how a street feels that may determine how it performs. As shown previously in Figure 2.10, levels of walk and bicycle commuting varies around Bozeman. Particularly notable is the area of Bozeman north of Huffine Lane and west of 19th Avenue. Despite being within a generally comfortable distance for bicycling, the bike to work rate in this area is 0.5 percent (less than the national average of 0.6 percent). Huffine Lane and 19th Avenue essentially create a barrier around this area which discourages many people from choosing to travel by bicy-cle. Incomplete roadways such as Durston Road, Oak Street, and Baxter Lane also create impediments for many residents. One tool to analyze the level of traffic stress (LTS) for bicyclists has been outlined in the Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-197. A LTS for bicyclists is deter-mined based on factors including posted speed limit, street width, and the presence and character of bicycles lanes. The combinations of these criteria separates the bicycle network into one of four scores: LTS 1: Low-stress roadway suitable for all ages and abilities, LTS 2: Roadway comfortably ridden by the mainstream adult population, LTS 3: Roadway ridden by the “enthused and confident” cyclists, and LTS 4: Roadway ridden by the “strong and fearless” cyclists. The results of the LTS analysis help identify existing areas with a high level of stress as well as focus areas for improvement. Local streets with low traffic and low volume can be quite comfortable to most bicyclists despite being a shared lane environ-ment. The LTS analysis is specifically focused on the street environment. Adjacent shared-use offer a more comfortable facility type that is not reflected in the LTS score. The results of the LTS analysis are presented in Figure 2.14. Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is determined based on factors including posted speed limit, street width, and the presence and character of bicycles lanes. 212
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 48 Figure 2.14: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LNBicycleLevel ofTraffic Stress0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA, ALTALevel of Traffic StressRailroadStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State UniversityExisting TrailExisting Shared-Use Path3: Intrepid Adult4: Not Comfortable2: Average Adult1: All Ages and Abilities213
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 49 Transportation Master Plan 2.5. SAFETY Crash data were provided by the MDT Traffic and Safety Bureau for the five-year period between January 1st, 2010 and December 31st, 2014. The crash reports are a summation of information from the scene of the crash provided by the responding officer. As such, some of the information contained in the crash reports may be sub-jective. According to the MDT crash database, there were 3,763 crashes re-ported within the study area during the analysis time period. The number of crashes per year increased from 747 crashes in 2010 to 825 crashes in 2012. After 2012 the number of yearly crashes de-creased to 633 crashes in 2014. The number of injury crashes fol-lowed a similar trend to that of the total crashes with 191 crashes in 2010, peaking in 2012 with 246 crashes, and decreasing to 194 crashes in 2014. The number of non-injury crashes per year in 2010 was 556 crashes and increased to a peak in 2011 with 605 crashes before decreasing to 436 crashes in 2014. Figure 2.15 presents the total, injury, and non-injury crashes per year for the five-year anal-ysis period. The crash data was plotted spatially based on GPS coordinates tagged to each crash report. The spatial analysis was conducted to determine “hot-spot” crash locations. The density of crashes based on the GPS coordinates are shown in Figure 2.16. 01002003004005006007008009002010 2011 2012 2013 2014Number of CrashesInjury CrashesNon-Injury CrashesTotal CrashesFigure 2.15: Crashes per Year 214
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 50 Figure 2.16: Crash Density 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LNCrash Density0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map Legend* January 01, 2010 to December 31, 2014Crashes per500 ft x 500 ft Grid*Railroad1 - 56 - 1011 - 2021 - 35> 35Study AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State University215
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 51 Transportation Master Plan 2.5.1. CRASH SEVERITY Crash severity is categorized based on the most severe injury of the crash. For example if a crash results in two possible injuries and an incapacitating injury, the crash is reported as an incapacitating injury crash. An incapacitating injury is defined as an injury, other than a fatality, which prevents the injured individual from walking, driving, or normally continuing the activities they were capable of performing before the injury. During the five year analysis period, there were a total of 1,032 injury and 16 fatal crashes, accounting for 27 and 0.4 percent of all crashes, respectively. Of the injury crashes, 64 resulted in incapacitating injuries. As a result of multiple individuals being injured in a single crash, a total of 1,355 individuals were injured during the crash analysis period. Furthermore, 16 individuals sustained fatal injuries during the same period. The locations of severe crashes, those resulting in incapacitating or fatal injuries, were plotted in Figure 2.17. The following locations appear to have a trend of severe crashes occurring during the analysis period: Interstate 90 west of the East Main interchange, Interstate 90 west of the Valley Center Spur overpass, Intersection of Valley Center Spur and Frontage Road, The chicane on Durston Road west of Laurel Parkway, and Intersection of Cottonwood Road and Stucky Road. 216
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 52 Figure 2.17: Severe Crash Locations 9090191848586411345205345235191191HIGHLAND BLVDS 3RD AVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTERLNBABCOCK STE VALLEY CENTER RDPEACH STMENDENHALL STS CHURCH AVE
S 19TH AVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEGALLATINRDHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEJACKRABBIT LNMAIN STDURSTON RDCOTTONWOOD RDDAVIS LNBABCOCK STBAXTER LNOAK STGARFIELD STPATTERSON RDFOWLER LNGOOCH HILL RDBLACKWOOD RDSOURDOUGH RDGOLDENSTEIN LNS 3RD AVESTUCKY RDFERGUSON AVEFOWLER AVE27TH STBEAR CANYON RD
LOVE LNHARPER PUCKETT RDGRAF STNASH RDBOZEMAN TRAIL TAYABESHOCKUP RDFRONTAGE RDFORT ELLIS RDGRAF ST
CATMOUNT STNELSON RDMCILHATTAN RDMANLEY RDSTORY MILL RDSevere CrashLocations012½MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPACrash Severity*Railroad* January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014Bozeman City LimitsStudy AreaMontana State UniversityFatal accidentIncapacitating injury accident217
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 53 Transportation Master Plan 2.5.2. INTERSECTION CRASHES The 63 intersection that were studied for LOS were also investigated for crashes. The crash information was analyzed to identify those intersections with crash characteristics that may warrant further study. Crash rates were used to represent the number of crashes against the daily traffic volume. The rate is expressed as the number of crashes per million entering vehi-cles as shown in Equation 1. The severity index was calculated by applying multipliers to crashes based on severity. Severity is defined by three categories: property damage only (PDO), non-incapacitating injury, and fatal or incapacitating injury crashes. Each of these three types was given a different multiplier: 1.0 for PDO, 3.0 for injury, and 8.0 for fatal or incapacitating injury crashes. Equation 2 was used to calculate the severity index. The intersection crash severity rate was calculated by multiplying the crash rate by the severity index. The severity rate accounts for the exposure or traffic volume at a given location. For example, an intersection with a high number of PDO crashes and a high traffic volume would have a low severity rate. Alternately, an intersection with a fatal crash and low traffic volume would have a high severity rate. Table 2.9 presents the intersections with crash severity rates greater than 1.00. Table 2.9: High Crash Severity Locations Intersection Crash Rate Severity Index Severity Rate Valley Center Spur and Frontage Road 1.16 2.68 3.11 19th Avenue and Goldenstein Lane 0.58 2.44 1.41 Willson Avenue and Peach Street 0.72 1.91 1.38 Ferguson Avenue and Babcock 0.70 1.89 1.32 Wilson Avenue and Babcock Street 0.74 1.76 1.30 Story Mill Road and Bridger Drive 0.37 3.20 1.20 7th Avenue and Oak Street 0.68 1.67 1.14 19th Avenue and Baxter Lane 0.55 2.05 1.13 19th Avenue and Tschache Way 0.51 1.96 1.00 Equation 1: ܶݐ݈ܽ ܰݑܾ݉݁ݎ ݂ ܥݎܽݏ݄݁ݏ ൈ 1,000,000 ܸ݄݈݁݅ܿ݁ݏܸ݄݈݁݅ܿ݁ݏ ݁ݎ ݀ܽݕ ൈ ܰݑܾ݉݁ݎ ݂ ܻ݁ܽݎݏ ൈ 365 ݀ܽݕݏ ݁ݎ ݕ݁ܽݎൌܥݎܽݏ݄ ܴܽݐ݁ Equation 2: ሺ#ܲܦܱ ൈ 1.0ሻ ሺ#ܫ݆݊ݑݎݕ ൈ 3.0ሻ ሺ#ܨܽݐ݈ܽ ݂ ܫ݊ܿܽ ൈ 8.0ሻܶݐ݈ܽ ܰݑܾ݉݁ݎ ݂ ܥݎܽݏ݄݁ݏൌ ܵ݁ݒ݁ݎ݅ݐݕ ܫ݊݀݁ݔ 218
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 54 2.5.3. BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN CRASHES Bicycle and pedestrian crash data are part of the same data set as the vehicular crash data. All pedestrian crashes have the reported crash type listed as pedestrian. Bicycle crashes, however, could be listed as right angle, sideswipe, etc. crashes. Pedestrian and bicycle crash data are typically underreported as many minor collisions that do not involve injury or significant property damage are unlikely to be reported to the police. Crash data were reviewed for the five year period between January 1st, 2010 to December 31st, 2014 and some interesting trends were noted. Figure 2.18 provides a summary of this analysis. The vast majority of pedestrian and bicycle involved crashes occur at intersection or drive-ways; essentially, places where vehicle turning movements conflict. Most of these intersections are on Bozeman’s arterial and collector system. Many crashes occurred due to impaired driving (also impaired walking in the case of 19 percent of pedestrian crashes). The following bicyclist and pedestrian crash trends were noted: There were 88 crashes involving bicyclists, and 47 crashes involving pedestrians, in the analysis period. Of the 135 total bicycle and pedestrian crashes in the analysis period, 16 crashes (12%) resulted in incapacitating or fatal injuries. 78% of bicycle crashes, and 64% of pedestrian crashes, occurred at intersections or driveways. 23% of bicycle crashes occurred within a bicycle lane. 19% of pedestrian crashes involved impaired pedestrians. The crash data indicate a focus on intersection safety may yield reductions in the number of future crashes. Additionally, as so few pedestrian and bicycle crashes occur on local streets, they may be another place to invest future improvements such as bicycle boulevards and arterial crossing improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. 219
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 55 Transportation Master Plan Figure 2.18: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Crash Statistics 220
CHAPTER 2: State of the Community Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 56 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 221
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 57 Transportation Master Plan Chapter 3 Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs This chapter discusses the background and assumptions used to project growth in the Bozeman area to the year 2040. By using population, employment, and other socioeconomic trends as aids, the future transportation needs were projected. A travel demand model of the trans-portation system for Gallatin County was built by MDT. Information about future growth was used to allocate residential and employment development to project future conditions. Changes to the transportation system that are committed to occur in the next five years were incorporated into the model to forecast future transportation conditions. An analysis of the projected transportation conditions was performed to estimate how traffic patterns and characteristics may change from existing conditions. 3.1. FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 3.1.1. POPULATION AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS Projections are estimates of the population for future dates. They illustrate reasonable estimates of future population based on assumptions about current or expected demographic trends. Population projections (along with forecasts of the number of future housing units or house-holds and employment conditions) are used to help predict future travel patterns and assess the performance of the transportation system. Gallatin County Several sources of population projections were examined to help understand potential growth within Gallatin County. These sources consisted of both published community planning documents and recognized sources for demographic projections. The following sources provide some level of population projections for Gallatin County and are summarized in Table 3.1. Gallatin County Growth Policy (2003) Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Bozeman Community Plan (2009) Regional Economic Models, Inc. (eREMI) Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (W&P) 222
CHAPTER 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 58 Table 3.1: Population Projections for Gallatin County Estimate or Projection Source 2010 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 AAGR U.S. Census Bureau/CEIC Estimate 89,513 97,308 -- -- -- -- -- 167,438* 2.11% Gallatin County Growth Policy 82,000 -- -- -- -- 116,000 -- 137,969* 1.75% Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Low Growth Projection 84,935 -- 92,177 100,037 108,567 117,824 -- 138,774* 1.65% Moderate Growth Projection 87,406 -- 97,618 109,023 121,760 135,986 -- 169,618* 2.23% High Growth Projection 90,727 -- 105,187 121,930 141,350 163,863 -- 220,218* 3.00% Bozeman Community Plan 88,300 -- 97,780 107,100 116,450 -- -- 153,574* 1.86% eREMI Model 89,616 95,470 97,197 105,568 112,302 116,627 119,368 122,432 1.05% Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 89,587 96,989 99,352 112,214 126,452 142,028 158,662 176,191 2.28% * Estimated using average annual growth rate (AAGR). For the purposes of the TMP, the W&P projections were selected as the preferred set of population projections for Gallatin County. With a projected year 2040 population of more than 176,000, these projections reflect sustained and significant growth in Gallatin County and are generally in line with the “Moderate Growth Projection” presented in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update). City of Bozeman Population projections for the city of Bozeman are not available from eREMI or W&P. Additional sources specific to the city of Bozeman were reviewed to help project future population for the city. The following published community planning documents were reviewed and are summarized in Table 3.2: Bozeman Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update (2015) Bozeman Integrated Water Resource Plan (2013) Bozeman Community Plan (2009) Fire Protection Master Plan (2006) Bozeman Water Facility Plan (2005) Bozeman 20/20 Community Plan (2001) 223
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 59 Transportation Master Plan Table 3.2: Population Projections for the City of Bozeman * Estimated using average annual growth rate (AAGR). ** Estimated using 2010 Census and Woods & Pool Economics, Inc. AAGR calculated for Gallatin County. It is apparent from a review of Table 3.2 that substantial variation exists between the population projections for the city. This is due in part to the fact that several of the planning documents were produced before 2010 Census data became available that firmly established popula-tions for all geographies of the county. Planning studies prior to the 2010 Census data had to rely on older Census data or other information to help estimate population growth trends. Several planning documents also presented projections based on a range of growth rates to help frame the magnitude of future growth. More recent planning studies containing population projections for the city have the advantage of additional information from the 2010 Census information and current estimates of population from the CEIC to establish growth trends and project future populations. While the W&P projections are not available specifically for the city of Bozeman, the 2.28 percent AAGR calculated for Gallatin County was applied to city of Bozeman population for reference purposes. This method results in a projected city of Bozeman population of approximately 73,000 for the year 2040. Estimate or Projection Source 2010 2014 2015 2020 2024 2025 2030 2034 2035 2040 AAGR U.S. Census Bureau/CEIC Estimate 37,280 41,660 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 85,763* 2.82% Bozeman Community Plan 42,700 -- 54,500 69,500 -- 88,700 -- -- -- 184,255* 4.99% Bozeman Integrated Water Resource Plan Moderate Projection (2% annual growth) -- -- 41,160 45,444 -- 50,174 55,396 -- 61,161 67,527 2.00% High Projection(3% annual growth) -- -- 42,383 49,133 -- 56,959 66,031 -- 76,548 88,740 3.00% Bozeman Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update -- 41,056 -- -- 55,176 -- -- 63,964 -- 73,064* 2.24% Bozeman Water Facility Plan 42,700 -- 54,500 69,500 -- 88,700 -- -- -- 184,255* 4.99% Bozeman Fire Protection Master Plan Census Based Projection -- 34,029 -- -- 37,747 -- -- -- -- 44,559* 1.04% Development Based Projection -- 42,400 -- -- 49,400 -- -- -- -- 63,082* 1.54% Wastewater Facilities Plan/Bozeman Com-munity Plan (2008) 44,500 -- 56,800 72,500 -- 92,500 -- -- -- 192,275* 5.00% Bozeman 20/20 Community Plan, 2001 39,600 -- 43,120 46,600 -- -- -- -- -- 64,531* 1.64% Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.** 37,280 40,798 41,728 46,708 51,116 52,281 58,520 64,042 65,503 73,319 2.28% 224
CHAPTER 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 60 Bozeman TMP Study Area The share of the population living within the TMP study area was estimated using Census population data. GIS analysis was used to identify the total population within all census blocks entirely within or crossed by the study area boundary. This analysis established the study area population to be 49,814 in 2010 and 56,924 in 2014. The population of the TMP study area accounted for approximately 56 percent of the County’s total population in 2010 and 57 percent in 2014. For future projections, the percentage of population within the TMP study area in the year 2014 was held constant through the year 2040. The number of housing units is a key component in the traffic model. Housing units represent the population and act as a hub for traffic within the network. According to the 2014 baseline conditions, Gallatin County had 99,586 residents distributed among 47,048 housing units. Within the study area, the baseline conditions show a population of 56,924 distributed among 26,035 housing units. The number of occupants per housing unit under baseline conditions is 2.12 and 2.19, respectively, for Gallatin County and the study area. Applying this occupancy rate to the projected 2040 population for Gallatin County results in 83,239 housing units; an increase of 36,191 from the year 2014. For the TMP study area, an increase of 20,027 housing units is projected for the year 2040. Table 3.3 shows population and housing unit projections for Gallatin County and the TMP study area for the year 2040. Table 3.3: Population and Housing Unit Projections Area 2010 (Census) 2014 (Baseline) 2040 (Projection) Net Change (2014-2040) Gallatin County Population 89,513 99,586 176,191 76,605 Housing Units 42,289 47,048 83,239 36,191 Population per Housing Unit 2.12 TMP Study Area Population 49,814 56,924 100,712 43,788 Housing Units 22,783 26,035 46,062 20,027 Population per Housing Unit 2.19 Outside Study Area Population 39,699 42,662 75,479 32,817 Housing Units 19,506 21,013 37,177 16,164 Population per Housing Unit 2.03 225
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 61 Transportation Master Plan 3.1.2. EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS Employment numbers are used in the travel demand model to help distribute vehicle traffic within the street and road network. Places with high levels of employment will tend to generate high levels of vehicle traffic. The traffic generated is based in part on the employment type: retail, service, or basic. Gallatin County Table 3.4 presents full and part-time employment data for Gallatin County over the 2010 to 2040 period. Future employment projections for Gallatin County to the year 2050 are available from Wood’s and Poole Economics, Inc. The W&P projections show that total nonfarm employ-ment in the county may reach 127,937 by 2040—56,868 more jobs than seen in 2014. This represents a total overall increase of approximately 80 percent in nonfarm employment over the 2014-2040 period and an average increase in employment of just under 2.3 percent per year. The W&P employment projections clearly suggest Gallatin County will continue to see steady and significant job growth in the future. Table 3.4: Employment Projections to 2040 for Gallatin County Employment Projection 2010 2014 2015 2020 2030 2040 Net Change (2014-2040) AAGR (2014-2040) Total Full and Part-time Employment 63,768 72,210 74,182 8,411 105,604 129,184 56,974 2.26% Farm Employment 1,116 1,141 1,148 1,180 1,225 1,247 106 0.34% Nonfarm Employment 62,652 71,069 73,034 82,931 104,379 127,937 56,868 2.29% NOTES: 1. Employment data for 2010 was obtained from US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis – Table CA25 and Table CA25N. 2. Employment data for years 2015 through 2014 were obtained from the Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. dataset for Gallatin County. Montana. Bozeman TMP Study Area The total employment within the TMP study area was extracted from the travel demand model. Similar to the process followed to establish baseline population data, GIS analysis was used to identify the total employment within all census blocks entirely within or crossed by the study area boundary. This analysis of the model established the total employment for the study area to be 38,387 in 2014. This means that almost 63 percent of employment in Gallatin County occurred within the TMP study area. Table 3.5 presents employment projections for the year 2040. Future employment was projected using the AAGR established by W&P data discussed in the previous section (2.29 percent). Applying this growth rate to the 2014 baseline employment numbers from the model resulted in 30,288 new jobs within the TMP study area. Outside of the study area, 17,970 new jobs are projected for the purposes of the model. The percent distribution of retail, service, and basic job classifications was held constant for year 2040 projections. 226
CHAPTER 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 62 Table 3.5: Employment Projections to 2040 for the TMP Study Area Area 2010 2014 (Baseline) 2040 (Projection)* Net Change (2014 - 2040) Gallatin County 48,550 61,163 109,421 48,258 Retail 22,810 33,671 60,238 26,567 Service 12,825 13,645 24,411 10,766 Basic 12,915 13,847 24,772 10,925 TMP Study Area 30,267 38,387 68,675 30,288 Retail 15,004 21,720 38,857 17,137 Service 9,196 10,050 17,979 7,929 Basic 6,067 6,617 11,838 5,221 Outside Study Area 18,283 22,776 40,746 17,970 Retail 7,806 11,951 21,380 9,429 Service 3,629 3,595 6,431 2,836 Basic 6,848 7,230 12,935 5,705 * 2040 projections were based on a 2.29 percent per year AAGR as calculated based on Woods & Poole projections. 3.1.3. ALLOCATION OF FUTURE GROWTH Modeling of future travel patterns out to the year 2040 planning horizon using the travel demand model required identification of future socioeconomic characteristics within each census tract and census block. County population and employment projections were translated into predictions of increases in housing and employment within Gallatin County and the TMP study area. An initial allocation of future housing and employment growth within the study area was made based on a review of existing community planning documents. These planning documents helped identify where residential, commercial and industrial development has occurred in the Bozeman area and provided infor-mation about where future residential and commercial growth is expected in the community. A land use workshop was held with various city and county staff on January 20, 2016 to discuss and reach consensus on the distribution of future housing and employment growth within the study area. This enabled local staff to consider and revise the growth assignments as needed based on their knowledge of recent land use trends, land availability, development limitations, land use regulations, planned public improvements, and known development proposals. As discussed previously, 20,027 new housing units were allocated within the study area. An additional 16,164 units were distributed outside of the study area and within the County. Within the study area, 30,288 new jobs were allocated wih an additional 17,970 new jobs distributed outside of the study area and within the County. 227
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 63 Transportation Master Plan 3.2. PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS An analysis of the projected transportation system was performed to estimate how traffic patterns and characteristics may change from the existing conditions. The inputs for this analysis include the existing conditions and potential growth in housing and jobs out to the year 2040. The travel demand model was used to evaluate the projected 2040 year conditions by applying additional housing and jobs to the existing travel demand model. Census blocks and census tracts were used to distribute the population and employment growth that was projected to occur between 2014 and 2040. In addition, known roadway infrastructure projects expected to be constructed within the next five years were included as part of the projected conditions model. One assumption that was built into the model is that traffic characteristics will remain similar to those that are seen today. Many factors can influence this assumption, such a fuel prices, technological advances, and other unknown circumstances. Another assumption of the model is that the socioeconomic projections will be realized by the year 2040. Ultimately, the projected conditions model was used as a planning tool to help evaluate how traffic patterns might be affected by anticipated future development. 3.2.1. PROJECTED ROADWAY VOLUMES AND CAPACITY Projected traffic volumes were estimated using the travel demand model. A comparison of the existing and projected conditions models was made to determine the percent change in traffic volume. The percent change was then applied to known existing AADT count sites to reflect projected daily traffic volumes. Figure 3.1 presents the projected v/c ratios for the major street network. It must be noted that the values shown in the figure are based on the “existing plus committed” roadway network. In other words, these are the projected volumes and projected v/c ratios if no changes to the transportation system, other than those currently committed to, are implemented. 3.2.2. PROJECTED INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Projections for intersection traffic volumes were made for the 63 intersections analyzed previously. These projections were based on the percent growth rates calculated from the travel demand model between the years 2014 and 2040. The growth rate was determined for each intersection as a whole. Intersections that are scheduled for reconfiguration or reconstruction, as per the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), were changed to reflect the future configuration of the intersection. Note that changes in travel patterns and volumes resulting from new road connections and revised intersection configurations make traffic volume predictions difficult, and in some cases may not represent the ultimate future volumes that may be realized at a given location. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 3.2. 228
CHAPTER 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 64 Figure 3.1: Projected Roadway Volume to Capacity Ratios 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LN0.810.780.720.610.700.850.330.430.750.690.900.900.620.640.310.890.760.950.350.14
0.660 .7 6
0.520.660.560 .36
0.790.710.880.630.780.150.920.410.381.000.700.330.430.600.970.460.230.690.880.32
0 .5 8
0.600.330.750 .2 7 1.000.340.430.500.550.650.440.780.590.410.690 .5 0 0.440.880.380.740.630.660.550.440.540.370.160.870.760.950.490.410.950.600.740.670.431.211.271.091.061.271.101.031.191.041.05
1.001.151.251.071.091.29Projected Volumeto CapacityRatios0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA*The functional classifications shown are containedin the 2007 LRTP and do not reflect the federallyapproved functional classification criteria. Networkrepresents the existing plus committed network.Functional Class*InterstatePrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollectorStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State UniversityVolume to Capacity Ratio < 1.000.65Volume to Capacity Ratio ≥ 1.001.15229
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 65 Transportation Master Plan Figure 3.2: Projected Intersection Level of Service 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LNBBFCCCFCBBFCFCFCDCDDEDDCEEDCCBDCCCFFDFDDFFDDCEFFFFFFFFFFCFCFDFBCFFCCCDBCFEDEFFFFBBFBBABFDCD*BBCBBBFDBBEFDCFFBBDFBECEBABCCCCCBBProjectedLevel of Service0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPASignalized IntersectionsUnsignalized IntersectionsAMPMAM PMLevel of ServiceABCDEF* Data unavailableStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State University230
CHAPTER 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 66 3.2.3. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS With pedestrian and bicycle mode shares higher than most of the other communities in the United States, Bozeman enjoys substantial benefits that are directly attributable to these active modes. This benefits analysis was conducted with a combination of available local data as well as data collected from similar peer communities and national sources of data such as the USDOT TIGER BCA Resource Guide (2014), the National Household Transportation Survey (2009), the National Center for Safe Routes to School Travel Data (2010), the American Community Survey, and the Automobile Association of America. For Bozeman, the peer communities of Crested Butte, CO; Durango, CO; Ashland, OR; Corvallis, OR; Eugene, OR; and Madison, WI were analyzed. Several types of benefits were evaluated including health, environmental, and transportation. The impact analysis uses a standard methodol-ogy for calculating health, environmental, and transportation related benefits. All projections are based on the most recent five-year estimates from the ACS, which are then extrapolated through the use of various multipliers derived from national studies and quantified in terms of monetary value where appropriate. The estimated monetary values are then calibrated to baseline values and compared to bicycle and walk mode commute splits of peer cities. This analysis was bolstered by local enrollment numbers for the Bozeman Unified School District and MSU. These figures were significantly different than was recorded in the American Community Survey. Further, this analysis is likely to under represent the existing levels of walking and bicycling as it is heavily influenced by the National Household Transportation Survey. It is likely that the typical Bozeman resident walks and bicycles more than the average American. A local comprehensive travel survey would provide better Bozeman specific data. Future estimates were derived from an estimate of future mode share in Bozeman based on the peer city analysis. Low, mid, and high mode share growth scenarios were considered for 2040, the planning horizon of this TMP. Bozeman’s projected population at 2040 is included in this analysis. The estimates presented in Table 3.6 are not intended to be mode share targets or policy, but they are useful in quantifying some of the benefit of continuing Bozeman’s upward trajectory of active transportation mode share. Table 3.6: Projected Mode Share Source Existing Projected Low-Growth Projected Mid-Growth Projected High-Growth Bike (%) Walk (%) Bike (%) Walk (%) Bike (%) Walk (%) Bike (%) Walk (%) Est. Commute Mode Share (ACS) 5.8 9.8 6.3 9.8 7.7 10.4 11.4 12.0 Est. Overall Mode Share for all Trip Purposes (ACS + NHTS) 8.2 26.4 8.8 26.4 10.8 28.2 16.1 32.5 231
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 67 Transportation Master Plan Health Benefits Bozeman’s existing levels of walking and bicycling equate to a great deal of physical activity. The Benefit Impact Model quantifies the existing estimated hours of physical activity and projected increases of mode share. Benefits include improved community health and reduced house-hold healthcare spending. The primary inputs into the health components of the Benefit Impact Model were derived from 2009 to 2013 ACS journey to work data, 2009 NHTS, and historic Safe Routes to School data. Existing bicycle and walk commute data were multiplied by national trip purpose ratios to generate mode split data that include all trip purposes. These balanced mode split data were indexed against the mode split data of Bozeman's peer cities and multiplied by various health factors. Table 3.7 tabulates the estimated health benefits. Table 3.7: Health Benefit Estimate Type Existing Low-Growth Mid-Growth High-Growth Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Annual Trips 4,958,000 10,013,000 5,341,000 10,013,000 6,564,000 10,677,000 9,726,000 12,299,000 Annual Miles 11,233,000 7,027,000 11,732,000 7,027,000 13,326,000 7,235,000 17,445,000 7,743,000 Annual Hours of Physical Activity 1,123,000 2,342,000 1,173,000 2,342,000 1,333,000 2,412,000 1,745,000 2,581,000 Rec. Physical Activity Minimum Met 8,638 18,015 9,023 18,015 10,254 18,554 13,423 19,854 Regional Physical Activity Need Met 22.6% 47.2% 23.6% 47.2% 26.8% 48.6% 35.1% 52.0% Healthcare Cost Savings $291,000 $401,000 $313,000 $401,000 $385,000 $428,000 $571,000 $493,000 Environmental Benefits The existing levels of walking and bicycling provide environmental benefits to the community by not being emissions generating trips. Building off of the health benefits analysis and the mode share growth scenarios, the implications for hydrocarbon, particulate matter, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide can be estimated. This analysis uses national methodologies to determine trip replacement. Every walking or bicycling trip is not equal to a vehicle trip. Based on a review of air emissions studies, each pound of emissions was assigned an equivalent dollar amount based on how much it would cost to clean up the pollutant or the cost equivalent of how much damage the pollutant causes to the environment. Other potential ecological services associated with the bicycle projects such as water regulation, carbon seques-tration, carbon storage, and waste treatment exist but the quantifiable value of these services are negligible on the overall impact. Table 3.8 presents the estimated environmental benefits of active transportation modes. 232
CHAPTER 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 68 Table 3.8: Environmental Benefit Estimates Type Existing Low-Growth Mid-Growth High-Growth Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk CO2 Emissions Reduced (lbs) 5,960,000 5,960,000 6,420,000 5,960,000 7,891,000 6,355,000 11,691,000 7,320,000 Other Vehicle Emissions Reduced (lbs) 136,000 102,000 146,000 102,000 180,000 109,000 266,000 125,000 Total Vehicle Emissions Cost Reduced $140,000 $105,000 $151,000 $105,000 $185,000 $112,000 $275,000 $129,000 Transportation Benefits The most readily identifiable benefits of active transportation exist in its ability to increase transportation options and access to activity centers for Bozeman residents and visitors. While money rarely changes hands, real savings can be estimated from the reduced costs associated with congestion, vehicle crashes, road maintenance, and household vehicle operations. Using the same annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) re-duction estimates highlighted in the health and environmental components, transportation-related costs savings were calculated. By multi-plying the amount of VMT reduced by established multipliers for traffic congestion, vehicle collisions, road maintenance, and vehicle operating costs, monetary values were assigned to the transportation-related benefits. This analysis is the most conceptual of the three and actual savings may not result in the estimates given in Table 3.9. Table 3.9: Transportation Benefit Estimates Type Existing Low-Growth Mid-Growth High-Growth Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Annual VMT Reduced 4,185,000 3,141,000 4,508,000 3,141,000 5,541,000 3,349,000 8,211,000 3,857,000 Reduced Traffic Congestion Costs $293,000 $220,000 $316,000 $220,000 $388,000 $234,000 $575,000 $270,000 Reduced Vehicle Crash Cost $2,093,000 $1,570,000 $2,254,000 $1,570,000 $2,771,000 $1,674,000 $4,105,000 $1,929,000 Reduced Road Maintenance Costs $628,000 $471,000 $676,000 $471,000 $831,000 $502,000 $1,232,000 $579,000 Household Vehicle Operation Cost Savings $2,386,000 $1,790,000 $2,570,000 $1,790,000 $3,159,000 $1,909,000 $4,680,000 $2,199,000 Total Benefits Further improving the walking and bicycling system in Bozeman will result in more trips being taken via these modes. Increases in mode share can yield significant annual benefits to Bozeman and its residents. As summarized in Table 3.10, the City currently experiences approximately $10-million in annual benefits from active modes of transportation and could experience a further $500,000 to $6.6 million in additional benefits depending on population growth and varying levels of future mode share increases. 233
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 69 Transportation Master Plan Table 3.10: Total Benefit Estimates Type Existing Low-Growth Mid-Growth High-Growth Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Bike Walk Health Benefits $291,000 $401,000 $313,000 $401,000 $385,000 $428,000 $571,000 $493,000 Environmental Benefits $140,000 $105,000 $151,000 $105,000 $185,000 $112,000 $275,000 $129,000 Transportation Benefits $5,400,000 $4,051,000 $5,816,000 $4,051,000 $7,149,000 $4,319,000 $10,592,000 $4,977,000 Total Benefits $10,388,000 $10,837,000 $12,578,000 $17,037,000 Total Additional Benefits -- $499,000 $2,190,000 $6,649,000 Vehicle Trip Reduction The monetary benefits provided in Table 3.10 combine multiple sources of small amounts of savings. Using the methodology to estimate reductions in vehicle miles traveled, estimates for the overall benefits to the future capacity of Bozeman’s streets can also be estimated. For this analysis, Streamline transit ridership data was included and annual growth projections were given for 2%, 3.5% and 5% to represent the low, mid and high growth scenarios. Transit’s vehicle trip replacement was also accounted for as only a portion of transit trips may be a direct replacement of a vehicle trip. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the potential ‘load’ that active modes of transportation could carry on Bozeman’s network. Assuming active modes increase, streets in Bozeman would be carrying more people with fewer vehicles. Such a scenario could negate or substantially delay the need for expensive intersection and roadway capacity projects. Table 3.11: Potential Vehicle Trip Reduction from Increased Active Transportation Mode Share in 2040 Active Transportation Growth Scenario Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduced Total Annual Trips Reduced (estimated) Daily Trips Reduced Low Growth 8,740,000 2,914,000 8,000 Mid Growth 10,483,000 3,395,000 10,000 High Growth 14,361,000 4,787,000 14,000 Based on the data in Table 3.11, it can be estimated that under the high growth scenario, active modes could be carrying 14,000 trips per day in Bozeman. This value is an average and would be higher during the summer months and lower during the winter months. This benefit would be distributed over the network. Improving active transportation mode share and overall mobility can be accomplished by completing gaps in the network, improving intersections and overcoming some of the barriers which seem to be suppressing mode share in certain areas of Bozeman such as Valley West. 234
CHAPTER 3: Growth, Travel Forecasts, and Needs Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 70 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 235
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 71 Transportation Master Plan Chapter 4 Improving the System Recommended improvements were developed through a combination of public process, project solicitation from partnering agencies, travel demand modeling, traffic engineering analysis, and policy choices to support TMP goals and objectives. In most cases, the recommended projects are either needed to meet the anticipated traffic demands for the year 2040 or to bring sub-standard roadways up to current stand-ards based on the functional classification of the roadway. There are two categories of street improvement projects; major street network (MSN) and transportation system management (TSM) projects. These two categories are consistent with past long range transportation plan-ning efforts completed in the greater Bozeman community. 4.1. RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS MSN projects are typically large road reconstruction projects that take time to develop, are costly, and are needed to meet existing or future capacity demands. The 2007 update of the Transportation Plan included 46 recommended MSN projects. Of these projects, 12 were com-pleted, 12 are partially completed, and 22 have not been completed. Of the either partially completed or not completed projects from the previous plan, 25 projects have been included in this TMP as recommended projects. Recommended MSN projects are shown in Figure 4.1 at the end of this section. Committed MSN projects, currently in process for FY 2018 thru FY 20228, are shown in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1. 4.1.1. COMMITTED MSN IMPROVEMENTS Committed projects in the MSN category are only listed if the project will affect capacity and/or delay characteristics of a roadway facility and/or intersection. This distinction is necessary since some committed improvement projects, likely to occur within the next five years, are not listed here as they will not have an effect on capacity and/or delay characteristics (an example might be a street overlay). Committed improvements listed are only considered if they are likely to be constructed within a five-year timeframe (i.e. fiscal year 2018 through fiscal year 2022), and a funding source has been identified and is assigned to the specific project. Committed MSN projects are shown in Table 4.1. 236
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 72 Table 4.1: Committed MSN Improvements (FY 2018 to FY 2022) TMP ID Title Description Cost YOE Project ID Source CMSN-1 Griffin Dr (N. 7th Ave to Rouse Ave) This project consists of reconstructing Griffin Drive, from the intersection of North 7th Avenue to Rouse Avenue, to a three-lane urban minor arterial standard. This includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter throughout, boulevard, and sidewalks. Turn-bays and flushed or raised medians should be incorporated at major intersections as applicable. $5,000,000FY19 SIF113 City CMSN-2 Cottonwood Rd (Babcock St to Durston Rd) This project consists of widening Cottonwood Road, from West Babcock Street to Durston Road, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard. This includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter throughout, boulevard, sidewalk on the west side and a shared use path on the east side and a raised median. Cottonwood Road serves as an important element in Bozeman's west side street system and serves as a primary north-south corridor on the west side of the city. $2,555,883 FY18 SIF036 City CMSN-3 Oak St (New Holland Dr to Ferguson Ave) This project is the completion of the street segment of Oak Street, from New Holland Drive to Ferguson Avenue, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard. This includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter throughout, shared use paths on both sides and a raised median. Currently, the south half of the street is missing, creating a bottleneck in the street network. $2,000,000FY18 SIF046 City CMSN-4 Oak St (Ferguson Ave to Ryunson Way) This project is the completion of the street segment of Oak Street, from Ferguson Avenue to Ryunson Way, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard. This includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter throughout, boulevard, sidewalks and a raised median. $100,000 FY19 SIF135 City CMSN-5 Durston Rd (Ferguson Rd to Fowler Ave) Complete Durston Road, from Fowler Avenue to Ferguson Road, to a three-lane urban minor arterial standard including sidewalks, parking, medians, boulevards and bike lanes. $1,514,842FY19 SIF062 City CMSN-6 Ferguson Ave (Baxter Ln to Oak St) Complete Ferguson Avenue, from Baxter Lane to Oak Street, to a two-lane urban collector standard with bike lanes, curb and gutter, boulevards, parking and a sidewalk on the west side and shared use path on the east side. $1,000,000 FY18 SIF080 City CMSN-7 S. 11th Ave (Kagy Blvd to Graf St Extension) Complete South 11th Avenue, from Kagy Boulevard to Graf Street, to a two-lane urban collector standard including shared use paths on both sides, curb and gutter and bike lanes. $1,600,000FY18 SIF102 City CMSN-8 Story Mill Rd (Griffin Dr to Bridger Canyon Rd) Reconstruct Story Mill Road, between Griffin Drive and Bridger Canyon Road, to a two-lane urban collector standard. This would include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, and sidewalks. Also, north of Griffin Drive install shared use path on the west side as part of a continuous trail connection from south Bozeman to the M trailhead (Story Hill Rail Trail). $500,000 FY21 SIF117 City CMSN-9 W. Babcock St (S. 11th Ave to S. 19th Ave) Upgrade West Babcock Street, between South 11th Avenue and South 19th Avenue, to a three-lane urban collector standard. This would include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter, boulevards, parking, and sidewalks, with a flush or raised center lane or median. $1,500,000FY22 SIF118 City CMSN-10 Oak St (Rouse Ave thru Cannery District) Improve Oak Street from Rouse Avenue thru the Cannery District to include curb, gutter, sidewalks, and a turning lane to provide left-turn movement access to the two drive accesses from Oak Street into the Cannery District. $266,000 FY19 SIF109 City CMSN-11 Rouse Ave (E Main St to Oak St) Complete the reconstruction of Rouse Avenue, between East Main Street and Oak Street, to a three-lane urban principal arterial standard with bike lanes and sidewalks. $9,185,756FY18 UPN4805 MDT 237
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 73 Transportation Master Plan 4.1.2. RECOMMENDED MSN IMPROVEMENTS A number of MSN projects have been identified and are described in this section and shown on Figure 4.1. Table 4.2 contains a summary of the recommended MSN projects that are not identified for funding in the next five years as per the City’s 5-Year CIP. The project numbering scheme does not represent or imply priority with respect to individual projects. System deficiencies and needs are often not fundable in the foreseeable future. However, funding opportunities often arise during the course of time, often from unexpected sources. To be prepared to take advantage of such opportunities, the following list of projects is provided, with no identified funding source or schedule for construc-tion/implementation. It is likely that some of them will become funded at some point during the twenty-four year planning horizon even though no current source is known. As part of the TMP planning effort, conceptual corridor striping plans were developed for every collector, minor arterial and principal arterial roadway on the City’s Major Street Network. Representative typical sections were chosen from the 2007 Long Range Transportation Plan under the broad assumption that most of the Major Street Network would become an urban roadway, with urban characteristics such as curb and gutter, bicycle lanes and sidewalks, at some time in the future. Appendix K shows the conceptual corridor striping plans developed for this purpose. It is acknowledged that there will need to be flexibility when developing this network, especially as it pertains to individual intersections. Intersections will need to be sized according to traffic demand at the time of individual project development. For planning level cost estimates, representative “costs per mile” were developed using recent roadway cost estimates from the Oak Street Improvements project and the Cottonwood/Durston Road Improvements project. Furthermore, for some projects the city of Bozeman’s most current Street Impact Fee (SIF) Fund CIP (FY 18-22) and Arterial and Collector District CIP (FY 18-22) was utilized. Planning level cost estimates include construction, design, construction administration, utilities and contingencies. The basis of planning cost estimates for the MSN pro-jects, absent other defined sources, are as follows: $2.2M per mile (2-lane urban) $3.0M per mile (3-lane urban) $5.0M per mile (4/5-lane urban) $1.5M per mile (2-lane rural) $1.9M per mile (3-lane rural) $250 per sq ft (bridge construction) 238
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 74 Table 4.2: Recommended MSN Improvements TMP ID Title Description Cost MSN-1 Kagy Blvd (Willson Ave to Highland Blvd) Reconstruct Kagy Boulevard, from the intersection of Willson Avenue to Highland Boulevard, to a four-lane urban principal arterial standard. (SIF 129) $6,000,000 MSN-2 Oak Street (N. 7th Avenue to west edge of Cannery District) Reconstruct Oak Street, from the intersection of North 7th Avenue to the west edge of the Cannery District, to a three-lane urban principal arterial standard. $1,950,000 MSN-3 N. 11th Avenue (Durston Road to Oak Street) Construct North 11th Avenue, from the intersection with Durston Road to the intersection with Oak Street, to a two-lane urban collector standard. $1,120,000 MSN-4 N. 15th Avenue (Patrick Street to Baxter Lane) Construct North 15th Avenue, from the intersection with Patrick Street to the intersection with Baxter Lane, to a three-lane urban collector standard. $705,000 MSN-5 N. 19th Avenue (Interstate 90 to Springhill Road) Reconstruct North 19th Avenue, from Interstate 90 to the intersection with Springhill Road, to a 5-lane urban principal arterial standard. This project includes widening the I-90 overpass on North 19th Avenue. $2,500,000 (road only) $4,700,000 (includes bridge widening) MSN-6 Springhill Road (Frontage Road to Sypes Canyon Road) Reconstruct Springhill Road, from the intersection with the Frontage Road to the intersection with Sypes Canyon Road, to a three-lane rural minor arterial roadway. $2,850,000 MSN-7 N. 27th Avenue (Baxter Lane to Valley Center Road) Construct North 27th Avenue, from the intersection with Baxter Lane to the intersection with Valley Center Road, to a three-lane urban collector standard. $4,200,000 MSN-8 Kagy Blvd (Willson Ave to S. 19th Ave) Reconstruct Kagy Boulevard, from the intersection of South 19th Avenue to Willson Avenue, to a four-lane urban principal arterial standard. (SIF 009) $8,000,000 MSN-9 Oak Street (N. 27th Avenue to N. 19th Avenue) Reconstruct Oak Street, from North 27th Avenue to North 19th Avenue, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard. $2,100,000 MSN-10 Cattail Street (Davis Lane to Harper Puckett Road) Construct Cattail Street, from the intersection with Davis Lane west of its current termini point, to a three-lane urban collector roadway. The portion of Cattail Street between Davis Lane and Ferguson Avenue has been constructed but not to a full build-out configuration. $3,000,000 MSN-11 Davis Lane (Baxter Lane to Valley Center Road) Reconstruct Davis Lane, from the intersection with Baxter Lane to the intersection with Valley Center Road, to a five-lane urban minor arterial standard. $8,500,000 MSN-12 Cottonwood Road (Oak Street to Cattail Street) Construct Cottonwood Road, from Oak Street to Cattail Street, to a five lane urban principal arterial standard. $5,000,000 MSN-13 Fowler Avenue Connection (Huffine Lane to Oak Street) Reconstruct Fowler Avenue, from the intersection with Huffine Lane to the intersection with Oak Street, to a five-lane urban minor arterial standard. (SIF 114) $7,500,000 MSN-14 Durston Road (Gooch Hill Road to Westgate Avenue) Reconstruct Durston Road, from Gooch Hill Road to Westgate Avenue, to a three-lane urban minor arterial standard. $900,000 MSN-15 Cottonwood Road (Durston Road to Oak Street) Construct Cottonwood Road, from Durston Road to Oak Street, to a five lane urban principal arterial standard. (SIF 105) $2,500,000 MSN-16 Stucky Road (S. 19th Avenue to Gooch Hill Road) Reconstruct Stucky Road, from the intersection with South 19th Avenue west to the intersection with Gooch Hill Road, to a three-lane urban collector roadway. $9,000,000 239
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 75 Transportation Master Plan TMP ID Title Description Cost MSN-17 College Street (S. 11th Avenue to S. 19th Avenue) Reconstruct College Street, from the intersection of South 11th Avenue to South 19th Avenue, to a three-lane urban minor arterial standard. The roundabout at College Street and South 11th Avenue should remain. (SIF 115) $1,100,000 MSN-18 Oak Street (Cottonwood Road to Flanders Mill) Reconstruct Oak Street, from Cottonwood Road to Flanders Mill, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard. (SIF 134) $1,550,000 MSN-19 W. College Street (S. 8th Avenue to S. 11th Avenue) Reconstruct College Street, from the intersection of South 8th Avenue to South 11th Avenue, to a two-lane urban minor arterial standard. The roundabout at College Street and South 11th Avenue should remain. $440,000 MSN-20 Mendenhall Street and Babcock Street (Streetscape Improvements) Complete streetscape improvements along Mendenhall Street and Babcock Street to include curb bulb-outs, landscaping and crossing enhancements. $2,100,000 MSN-21 S. 3rd Avenue (Graf Street to Kagy Boulevard) Reconstruct South 3rd Avenue, from the intersection with Graf Street to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard, to a three-lane urban collector roadway. $2,100,000 MSN-22 Highland Boulevard (Main Street to Kagy Boulevard) Reconstruct Highland Boulevard, from the intersection with Main Street to the intersection with Knolls Drive, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard; and from the intersection with Knolls Drive south to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard, to a three-lane urban principal arterial standard. (SIF 111) $10,000,000 MSN-23 Bozeman Trail Road / Haggerty Lane (Main Street to Kagy Boulevard) Reconstruct Bozeman Trail Road, from the intersection with Kagy Boulevard north to the intersection with Haggerty Lane, to a three-lane urban minor arterial roadway. $5,550,000 MSN-24 Kagy Boulevard (Highland Boulevard to Bozeman Trail Road) Reconstruct Kagy Boulevard, from the intersection with Highland Boulevard to the intersection with Bozeman Trail Road, to a three-lane urban principal arterial standard. $5,000,000 MSN-25 Kagy Boulevard / Bozeman Trail Road (Bozeman Trail Road to Interstate 90) Reconstruct Kagy Boulevard, from the intersection with Bozeman Trail Road east to Interstate 90, to a two-lane rural principal arterial standard. $4,350,000 MSN-26 Cottonwood Road (Loyal Drive to Graf Street) Reconstruct Cottonwood Road, from the intersection of Loyal Drive to Graf Street, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard. $5,500,000 MSN-27 Graf Street Extension (Ritter Drive to S. 19th Avenue) Complete Graf Street, from Ritter Drive to South 19th Avenue, to a two-lane urban collector standard. $1,035,000 MSN-28 Gooch Hill Road (Huffine Lane to Durston Road) Reconstruct Gooch Hill Road, from Huffine Lane to Durston Road, to a five lane urban minor arterial standard. $5,000,000 MSN-29 Valley Center Road (Valley Center Spur Road to N. 27th Avenue) Reconstruct Valley Center Road, from the intersection with Valley Center Spur Road (at underpass) to the intersection with North 27th Avenue, to a three-lane urban principal arterial standard. $3,510,000 MSN-30 Church Street (Main Street to Kagy Boulevard) Reconstruct Church Street, from the intersection with Main Street south to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard, to a two-lane urban collector standard. $3,520,000 MSN-31 "L" Street / Story Mill Road (Tamarack Street to Griffin Drive) Reconstruct "L" Street and Story Mill Road, from the intersection with Tamarack Street to Griffin Drive, to a two-lane urban collector standard. $2,140,000 MSN-32 Interstate 90 Corridor Planning Study Complete a “pre-NEPA/MEPA Corridor Planning Study” for Interstate 90, between the West Belgrade Interchange and the Bear Canyon Exit, to assess issues, constraints and opportunities regarding operations and access between Belgrade and east of Bozeman before entering the canyon. $250,000 MSN-33 Harper Puckett Road (Gooch Hill Road to E. Valley Center Road) Reconstruct Harper Puckett Road, from Gooch Hill Road to East Valley Center Road, to a five lane urban minor arterial standard. $2,500,000 240
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 76 TMP ID Title Description Cost MSN-34 Cattail Street (N. 19th Avenue to N. 27th Avenue) Construct Cattail Street, from the intersection with North 19th Avenue west to North 27th Avenue, to a three-lane urban collector roadway. $960,000 MSN-35 Story Mill Road North / McIlhattan Road (Bridger Canyon Drive to Landfill) Reconstruct Story Mill Road north to McIlhattan Road, and McIlhattan Road northwest to the Landfill, to a two-lane urban collector road standard. $3,080,000 MSN-36 Manley Road (Griffin Drive to Gallatin Park Drive North) Reconstruct Manley Road, from Griffin Drive to Gallatin Park Drive North, to an urban collector road standard. $1,950,000 MSN-37 W. Lincoln Street (N. 19th Avenue to S. 11th Avenue) Reconstruct West Lincoln Street, from South 11th Avenue to South 19th Avenue, to a three-lane urban collector roadway. $1,500,000 MSN-38 Oak Street (Flanders Mill to Ryunson Way) Reconstruct Oak Street, from Flanders Mill to Ryunson Way, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard. (SIF 057) $1,500,000 MSN-39 Baxter Ln (Ferguson Ave to Harper Puckett Rd) Complete Baxter Lane, from Ferguson Avenue to Cottonwood Road, to a three-lane urban minor arterial standard. $1,500,000 MSN-40 Baxter Lane (N. 19th Avenue to Davis Lane) Complete Baxter Lane, from North 19th Avenue to Davis Lane, to a three-lane urban minor arterial standard. $1,500,000 MSN-41 Baxter Ln (N. 7th Avenue to N. 19th Avenue) Complete Baxter Lane, from North 7th Avenue to North 19th Avenue, to a three-lane urban collector standard. $1,500,000 MSN-42 Catamount Street (N. 27th Avenue to Valley Center Road) Complete Catamount Street, from North 27th Avenue to Valley Center Road, to a two-lane urban minor arterial standard. $600,000 MSN-43 Oak Street (N. 15th Avenue to N. 19th Avenue) Complete Oak Street, from 15th Avenue to 19th Avenue, to a five-lane urban principal arterial standard. $765,000 MSN-44 N. 27th Ave (Oak St to Tschache Ln) Complete North 27th Avenue, from Oak Street to Tschache Lane, to a five-lane urban collector standard including medians for utility poles. $350,000 MSN-45 N. 11th Avenue (Oak Street to Baxter Lane) Reconstruct North 11th Avenue, from the intersection with Oak Street to the intersection with Baxter Lane, to a two-lane urban collector standard. $750,000 MSN-46 S. 19th Avenue (Kagy Boulevard to Goldenstein Lane) Reconstruct South 19th Avenue, from the intersection with Kagy Boulevard south to the intersection with Goldenstein Lane, to a five-lane principal arterial standard. $9,000,000 MSN-47 Durston Road (Cottonwood Road to Ferguson Avenue) Reconstruct Durston Road, from the intersection with Cottonwood Road to the intersection with Ferguson Avenue, to a three-lane urban minor arterial standard. $2,500,000 4.1.3. FUTURE ROAD CONNECTIONS Establishing a plan for a community’s future street layout is essential to coordinate land development and community planning. The future connections shown are conceptual in nature and may vary based on factors such as topography, wetlands, land ownership, and other unfore-seen factors. The purpose is to illustrate the anticipated network at full build-out. It is likely that many of the corridors shown will not be developed for many decades to come. On the other hand, if development occurs in a particular area, the recommended road network estab-lishes an efficient and logical future road system. Table 4.3 contains the list of future road connections to complete the network over the foreseeable planning horizon. Figure 4.1 shows the future road connections as dashed lines. 241
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 77 Transportation Master Plan Table 4.3: Future Road Connections Road Segment Begin End Length (ft) Estimated Cost Principal Arterials Kagy Boulevard Cottonwood Road South 19th Avenue 9,370 $8,870,000 Oak Street Twin Lakes Avenue Laurel Parkway 1,930 $1,830,000 Oak Street West Termini Study Area Boundary 4,000 $3,790,000 Harper Puckett Road Cattail Street Valley Center Road 7,910 $7,490,000 Johnson Road Fowler Avenue Private Approach 4,030 $1,680,000 Minor Arterials Fowler Avenue Garfield Street Stucky Road 4,000 $3,790,000 Goldenstein Lane Cottonwood Road South 19th Avenue 10,625 $4,430,000 Gooch Hill Road Durston Road Harper Puckett Road 13,330 $12,620,000 Catamount Street Davis Lane Love Lane 15,900 $9,030,000 Goldenstein Lane Sourdough Road Tayebeshockup Road 13,180 $5,490,000 Baxter Lane Cottonwood Road Study Area Boundary 8,010 $4,550,000 Durston Road Gooch Hill Road Study Area Boundary 2,640 $1,500,000 Collectors Ferguson Avenue Huffine Lane Johnson Road 21,200 $12,050,000 Blackwood Road Fowler Avenue South 31st Avenue 1,345 $560,000 Blackwood Road South 3rd Avenue Parkway Avenue 5,830 $2,430,000 South 27th Avenue Garfield Street Stucky Road 3,975 $2,260,000 South 27th Avenue Stucky Road Graf Street 2,675 $1,520,000 South 27th Avenue Blackwood Road Patterson Road 5,340 $2,230,000 Garfield Street Fowler Avenue Ferguson Avenue 2,815 $1,600,000 Ferguson Avenue Cattail Street Valley Center Road 7,650 $4,350,000 South 11th Avenue Alder Creek Goldenstein Lane 4,020 $2,280,000 Johnson Road South 19th Avenue Sourdough Road 10,440 $4,350,000 Sir Arthur Drive Subdivision Access Johnson Road 2,670 $1,110,000 N/S Connector Goldenstein Lane Nash Road 10,630 $4,430,000 Goldenstein Lane Tayebeshockup Road Study Area Boundary 13,190 $5,500,000 Fort Ellis Road Termini Goldenstein Lane 2,700 $1,130,000 Cattail Street Cottonwood Road Study Area Boundary 7,980 $4,530,000 Laurel Parkway Valley Center Road Oak Street 13,265 $7,540,000 Babcock Street Water Lily Study Area Boundary 6,430 $2,680,000 Laurel Parkway Durston Road Huffine Lane 5,325 $3,030,000 242
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 78 Figure 4.1: MSN Facility Recommendations 9090191848586411345205345235191191HIGHLAND BLVDS 3RD AVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTERLNBABCOCK STE VALLEY CENTER RDPEACH STMENDENHALL STS CHURCH AVE
S 19TH AVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEGALLATINRDHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEJACKRABBIT LNMAIN STDURSTON RDCOTTONWOOD RDDAVIS LNBABCOCK STBAXTER LNOAK STGARFIELD STPATTERSON RDFOWLER LNGOOCH HILL RDBLACKWOOD RDSOURDOUGH RDGOLDENSTEIN LNS 3RD AVESTUCKY RDFERGUSON AVEFOWLER AVE27TH STBEAR CANYON RD
LOVE LNHARPER PUCKETT RDGRAF STNASH RDBOZEMAN TRAIL TAYABESHOCKUP RDFRONTAGE RDFORT ELLIS RDGRAF ST
CATMOUNT STNELSON RDMCILHATTAN RDMANLEY RDSTORY MILL RD19140434050912331737C-09362102C-010710282429262031203506133022112325163203C-02C-06C-0439C-0327C-074015C-050841C-114442430146C-08C-1045471838MSN FacilityRecommendations012½MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPAFacility RecommendationsBozeman City LimitsStudy AreaMontana State UniversityFuture ConnectionCommitted ProjectRecommended MSN243
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 79 Transportation Master Plan 4.2. RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS Transportation System Management (TSM) projects are “tune-up” type improvements with a reasonable chance of being implemented within a two- to ten-year timeframe. Problem areas which can usually be addressed in the short range are as follows: intersection capacity problems (both signalized and unsignalized), pavement condition problems (i.e. overlays, chip seals, etc.), crash problems (i.e. sight distance improve-ments, better signing and/or pavement markings), and roadway/lane width and capacity concerns. The 2007 update of the Transportation Plan included 43 recommended TSM projects. Of these projects, 20 were completed, 2 are partially completed, and 21 have not been com-pleted. Of the either partially completed or not completed projects from the previous plan, 15 projects have been included in this update of the plan as recommended projects. Recommended TSM projects are shown in Figure 4.2 at the end of this section. Committed TSM projects currently in process for FY 2018 thru FY 20228 are shown in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.2. 4.2.1. COMMITTED TSM IMPROVEMENTS As described for the MSN projects, committed projects are typically only listed if the project will affect capacity and/or delay characteristics of a roadway facility and/or intersection. This distinction is necessary since some committed improvement projects, likely to occur within the next five years, are not necessarily listed since they will not affect capacity. Committed TSM projects are shown in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Committed TSM Improvements (FY 2018 to FY 2022) TMP ID Title Description Cost YOE Project ID Source CTSM-1 Manley Rd and Griffin Dr Improvements to the intersection to include installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. $2,000,000FY19 SIF110 City CTSM-2 Ferguson Ave and Durston Rd Control of the intersection of Ferguson Avenue & Durston Road. Includes the installation of a traffic signal or roundabout. Future development and the resulting increased traffic indicate that intersection improvements will be needed. $2,256,220 FY18 SIF039 City CTSM-3 Oak St and Davis Lane Installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Oak Street & Davis Lane. Peak hour level of service for northbound traffic is degrading due to lack of north-south connectivity in the network. Geometric deficiencies will be addressed. $1,761,508FY18 SIF074 City CTSM-4 Oak St and Ferguson Ave Includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. $1,345,331 FY18 SIF061 City CTSM-5 S. 3rd Ave and Graf St Control of the intersection of South 3rd Avenue & Graf Street. Includes the installation of a traffic signal or roundabout. Future development and the resulting increased traffic indicate that intersection improvements will be needed. $1,000,000FY19 SIF108 City CTSM-6 Cottonwood Rd and Babcock St Installation of a traffic signal when warrants are met. $1,435,336 FY18 SIF104 City CTSM-7 N. 19th Ave Interchange Signal on I-90 eastbound (EB) off-ramp. $1,494,900FY19 UPN8999 MDT CTSM-8 SF 129 - Slope Flattening Belgrade Slope flattening from reference post (RP) 22.5-24.3 on Primary 205 (Frontage Road). $3,716,816 FY18 UPN8031 MDT 244
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 80 TMP ID Title Description Cost YOE Project ID Source CTSM-9 Bozeman Signal Safety Upgrade signals in 4 systems (Main Street, West Main Street, Bozeman Radio System, & isolated intersections) and signals along Huffine Lane, and Jackrabbit Lane (Baxter Lane & Durston Road) - flashing yellow arrows. Adding a protective left turn phase signal at signal of Ferguson Avenue and Huffine Lane. $1,635,776FY17 UPN8642 MDT CTSM-10 Cottonwood Rd & Stucky Rd Roundabout installation at the intersection of Cottonwood Road and Stucky Road. $3,158,260 FY18 UPN8190 MDT CTSM-11 Highland Blvd and Main St Improve intersection control at Highland Boulevard and Main Street by adding additional phases and improving geometry to increase capacity for deficient movements. $150,000FY18 SIF112 City CTSM-12 Baxter Lane and Davis Street Improve intersection to include signalization and geometric improvements. $2,500,000 FY20 SIF121 City CTSM-13 Babcock St and Ferguson Ave Improve intersection to include geometric improvements with installation of a traffic signal. $800,000FY18 SIF122 City CTSM-14 Kagy Blvd (S. 19th Ave to Willson Ave) – Interim Improvements Improve Kagy Boulevard from approximately 500 feet west of South 11th Avenue to approximately 500 feet east of South 7th Avenue to a full three-lane cross section with TWLTL. $500,000 FY18 SIF130 City 4.2.2. RECOMMENDED TSM IMPROVEMENTS A number of TSM projects have been identified and are described in this section and shown on Figure 4.2. Table 4.5 contains a summary of the recommended TSM projects that are not identified in the City’s 5-Year CIP. The project numbering scheme does not represent or imply priority with respect to individual projects. System deficiencies and needs are often not fundable in the foreseeable future. However, funding opportunities often arise during the course of time, often from unexpected sources. To be prepared to take advantage of such opportunities, the following list of projects is provided, with no identified funding source or schedule for construction/implementation. It is likely that some will become funded at some point over the planning horizon. Planning level cost estimates were developed based on recent roadway cost estimates. For some projects, the city of Bozeman’s most current Street Impact Fee Fund CIP (FY 18-22) and Arterial and Collector District CIP (FY 18-22) was utilized. Planning level cost estimates include construction, design, construction administration, utilities and contingencies. The basis of planning cost estimates for the TSM projects, absent other defined sources, are as follows: $2.35M (traffic signal – large) $1.15M (traffic signal – small to medium) $750K (traffic signal – modifications to existing) $2.85M (roundabout – large) $2.00M (roundabout – small) Many of the TSM recommendations identified in this section call for the separation of turning movements at intersections by installing left-turn, thru- or right-turn lanes (bays). There are some instances where a recommendation may suggest a “combination thru- / right- turn lane”. These recommendations may be for projects that are already in design which have approved corridor concept plans (Oak Street, Baxter Lane, 245
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 81 Transportation Master Plan Cottonwood Road), or are in constrained locations where the lane can’t be separated at the intersection. Separating the thru movement and the right-turn movement by a designated right-turn lane is generally more desirable, especially for bicyclists. Many of the TSM projects include recommendations for traffic signals or roundabouts. Both types of intersection control treatments have different initial set-up and long-term maintenance costs. The costs for building a roundabout and a traffic signal are quite different. Generally, initial capital costs are less for a traffic signal compared to a roundabout. Part of the reason is that a roundabout may need more property within the actual intersection. In the long-term, however, roundabouts eliminate hardware, maintenance and electrical costs associated with traffic signals, which can cost between $5,000 and $10,000 per year. Roundabouts are also favorable during power outages. Unlike traditional signalized intersections, which must be treated as a four-way stop or require police to direct traffic, roundabouts continue to work like normal. Table 4.5: Recommended TSM Improvements TMP ID Title Description Cost TSM-1 Durston Road and Laurel Parkway Geometric improvements to the intersection with traffic signalization control. The intersection should include dedicated left-turn bays and shared through/right turn lanes for all four legs of the intersection. Signal warrants would need to be met prior to installation of a traffic signal. On-street bicycle lanes will be marked on all four legs of the intersection. $1,150,000 TSM-2 N. 27th Avenue and Oak Street Geometric improvements to the intersection with includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. (SIF 058) $650,000 TSM-3 Baxter Lane and Cottonwood Road Geometric improvements to the intersection with includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. (SIF 086) $2,500,000 TSM-4 Oak Street and Cottonwood Road Geometric improvements to the intersection with includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. (SIF 098) $2,750,000 TSM-5 Durston Road and Flanders Mill Road Geometric improvements to the intersection with installation of a single-lane roundabout. Mark on-street bicycle lanes on all legs of the intersection. School zone context should be considered. $2,000,000 TSM-6 Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road Geometric improvements to the intersection with includes installation of a traffic signal, roundabout or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. (SIF 116) $1,000,000 TSM-7 Fowler Avenue and Babcock Street Geometric improvements to the intersection with installation of a traffic signal when warrants are met. Trail crossing amenities should be provided. (SIF 063) $2,000,000 TSM-8 Construction of ADA Compliant Roadway Crossing Improvements Construct ADA compliant pedestrian roadway crossing improvements at three locations: (1) Fowler Avenue and Babcock Street, (2) Oak Street and Hunters Way, and (3) Durston Road Trail Crossing between Hunters Way and North 27th Avenue. ADA crossing improvements may include widened sidewalks, curb ramps, refuge islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacons and crosswalk markings. $167,000 TSM-9 Fowler Avenue and Durston Road Geometric improvements to construct a four legged intersection with traffic signal control. Signal warrants would need to be met prior to installation of a traffic signal. (SIF 073) $2,000,000 TSM-10 Davis Lane and Cattail Street Geometric improvements to the intersection with a single-lane roundabout or traffic signal when warrants are met. $2,000,000 TSM-11 Davis Lane and Catamount Street Geometric improvements to the intersection with a single-lane roundabout or traffic signal when warrants are met. $2,000,000 246
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 82 TMP ID Title Description Cost TSM-12 Durston Road and N. 27th Avenue Geometric improvements to include left-turn lanes as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. A traffic signal, roundabout, or other traffic control device should be added to this intersection when warrants are met. $1,150,000 TSM-13 N. 27th Avenue and Tschache Lane Geometric improvements to the intersection with traffic signalization when warrants are met. Due to the varying existing and future cross sections on each of the roadways, a traffic signal will likely be the better choice for intersection control compared to a roundabout. $2,000,000 TSM-14 Davis Lane and Valley Center Road Geometric improvements with traffic signalization when warrants are met. Potential lane configuration include northbound left and right-turn bays, a westbound left-turn bay, and an eastbound right-turn lane. $2,000,000 TSM-15 N. 27th Avenue and Valley Center Road Geometric improvements with traffic signalization at the intersection when warrants are met. Potential lane configuration modifications include the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane. $2,000,000 TSM-16 Oak Street and N. 19th Avenue Modify the intersection of Oak Street and North 19th Avenue to add additional lanes on the west approach of Oak Street, coupled with traffic signal modification. $530,000 TSM-17 Oak Street and N. 11th Avenue Geometric improvements to the intersection of Oak Street and North 11th Avenue with traffic signal installation when signal warrants are met. $1,150,000 TSM-18 N. 7th Avenue and Griffin Drive Modify the intersection of North 7th Avenue and Griffin Drive to add additional designated turning lanes on all approaches, and to provide revised traffic signalization. $2,350,000 TSM-19 Oak Street and N. 7th Avenue Modify the intersection of Oak Street and North 7th Avenue to add additional lanes on the east approach of Oak Street, along with traffic signal modification. $750,000 TSM-20 N. 7th Avenue and Mendenhall Street Revise the northeast quadrant at the intersection of North 7th Avenue and Mendenhall Street to provide a short right-turn bay for westbound to northbound turning vehicles. $120,000 TSM-21 Babcock Street and Willson Avenue Update the traffic signal hardware at the intersection of Babcock Street and Willson Avenue, and relocate the poles out of the sidewalks/pedestrian ramps. Make geometric improvements to the intersection corners to provide better crosswalk alignment. $750,000 TSM-22 Main Street and Haggerty Lane Modify the intersection of Main Street and Haggerty Lane to include a designated northbound right turn lane, a northbound left turn lane, and an eastbound right turn lane. Install traffic signalization control when warrants are met. $1,150,000 TSM-23 Highland Boulevard and Ellis Street Geometric improvements to include the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. $2,000,000 TSM-24 Highland Boulevard and Kagy Boulevard Geometric improvements to include the installation of a traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control device when warrants are met. $2,850,000 TSM-25 Kagy Boulevard and S. Church Avenue / Sourdough Road Includes three options to improve safety and reduce delay at the intersection of Kagy Boulevard and South Church Avenue / Sourdough Road: Option 1: Installation of a roundabout or traffic signal when warrants are met. This option would be a major project due to chasing the grades both east and west of the intersection on Kagy Boulevard, and would require a fair amount of road work on Kagy Boulevard. Option 2: Narrowing (i.e. necking) down Kagy Boulevard just east and west of the intersection for about 200 feet to reduce the distance that vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists must cross. Option 3: Restrict turning movements at the intersection such that the north-south movements could only make right-in and right-out turns. This would be accomplished by placing a raised median on Kagy Boulevard in an east – west direction to effectively block off left-turns and through movements from the north and south legs of the approach. $2,850,000 (Option 1) $280,000 (Option 2) $100,000 (Option 3) 247
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 83 Transportation Master Plan TMP ID Title Description Cost TSM-26 Huffine Lane and Ferguson Avenue Continue to evaluate eastbound and westbound left-turn phasing on Huffine Lane (designated left-turn phases were not recommended nor warranted during MDT’s most recent signal upgrade project on Huffine Lane). $150,000 TSM-27 Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue Continue to evaluate eastbound and westbound left-turn phasing on Huffine Lane (designated left-turn phases were not recommended nor warranted during MDT’s most recent signal upgrade project on Huffine Lane). $150,000 TSM-28 Flanders Mill Road and Oak Street Install traffic diverter or other form of traffic calming to limit cut through traffic near the intersection of Oak Street. $30,000 TSM-29 Oak Street and Stoneridge Drive Make Stoneridge Drive approaches on both sides of Oak Street three-quarter movement approaches such that “left-out” turning movements are prohibited. $70,000 TSM-30 Durston Road and N. 19th Avenue Geometric improvements to revise the east leg by providing a longer westbound right-turn bay, which will improve storage and operations for this heavy movement onto North 19th Avenue. $750,000 TSM-31 Durston Road and N. 15th Avenue Consider a single-lane roundabout to better meter traffic flows. All four legs of the intersection receive approximately equal traffic, and its proximity to the schools warrants long term improvements to the intersection. $2,000,000 TSM-32 Beall Street and N. 15th Avenue Geometric improvements to include traffic signalization or single-lane roundabout installation when warrants are met (i.e. for traffic signalization). $1,150,000 (Traffic Signal) $2,000,000 (Roundabout) TSM-33 Willson Avenue and Peach Street Geometric improvements to include installation of a traffic signal (when warrants are met) or single-lane roundabout. $1,150,000 (Traffic Signal) $2,000,000 (Roundabout) TSM-34 Willson Avenue and Grant Street The intersection of Willson Avenue and Grant Street could use a higher level of traffic control in the form of a single-lane roundabout. This traffic control would allow for left-turn movements off of both legs of Grant Street, but not at the expense of impeding traffic flow adversely on Willson Avenue. Some parking would likely be lost at each quadrant of the intersection. Additional study will be needed. $2,000,000 (Roundabout) TSM-35 Main Street and Cypress Street Revise Cypress Street legs to "right-in, right-out" approaches to alleviate cut-thru traffic though the neighborhood. In addition, remove the existing pedestrian crossing across Main Street as it has no control and is on the hill into downtown where traffic is decelerating from 40 mph. The new signal at Broadway offers nearby controlled crossing. $70,000 TSM-36 Durston Road (West of Laurel Parkway) Revise and straighten the segment of Durston Road just west of Westgate Avenue to remove the two back-to-back horizontal curves. $200,000 TSM-37 Grant Street and S. 11th Avenue Geometric improvements to include a single-lane urban compact roundabout to better meter traffic flow, calm traffic, and improve pedestrian and bicycle access. $2,000,000 (Roundabout) TSM-38 Grant Street and S. 7th Avenue Geometric improvements to include a single-lane roundabout to better meter traffic flow, calm traffic, and improve pedestrian and bicycle access. A single-lane roundabout in this location may also serve as a “gateway” treatment on the eastern side of MSU’s core campus. $2,000,000 (Roundabout) TSM-39 Lincoln Street and S. 11th Avenue Geometric improvements to include a single-lane roundabout to better meter traffic flow, calm traffic, and improve pedestrian and bicycle access. $2,000,000 (Roundabout) 248
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 84 Figure 4.2: TSM Facility Recommendations 9090191848586411345205345235191191HIGHLAND BLVDS 3RD AVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTERLNBABCOCK STE VALLEY CENTER RDPEACH STMENDENHALL STS CHURCH AVE
S 19TH AVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEGALLATINRDHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEJACKRABBIT LNMAIN STDURSTON RDCOTTONWOOD RDDAVIS LNBABCOCK STBAXTER LNOAK STGARFIELD STPATTERSON RDFOWLER LNGOOCH HILL RDBLACKWOOD RDSOURDOUGH RDGOLDENSTEIN LNS 3RD AVESTUCKY RDFERGUSON AVEFOWLER AVE27TH STBEAR CANYON RD
LOVE LNHARPER PUCKETT RDGRAF STNASH RDBOZEMAN TRAIL TAYABESHOCKUP RDFRONTAGE RDFORT ELLIS RDGRAF ST
CATMOUNT STNELSON RDMCILHATTAN RDMANLEY RDSTORY MILL RDC-06C-07C-10C-0202C-04043635343332313029282625242322212019C-01181715141110080807050137383927161312C-12C-030908C-08C-14C-1106C-1303C-05TSM FacilityRecommendations012½MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPAFacility RecommendationsBozeman City LimitsStudy AreaMontana State UniversityFuture ConnectionRecommended TSMCommitted ProjectC-09: Bozeman Signal SafetyUpgrade signals at multiple locationswith flashing yellow arrows.249
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 85 Transportation Master Plan 4.3. PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS This section outlines potential active transportation facilities relative to sidewalks, street crossings, and natural surface trails. The recommen-dations are intended to encourage active living by residents and visitors and accommodate a variety of ability levels with particular emphasis on making the pedestrian network more comfortable and accessible to a wider range of the population. As Bozeman’s growth rate is currently very high, projects are organized into a number of different implementation mechanisms. 4.3.1. OVERVIEW Bozeman is a walking city. Residents and visitors frequently make use of the City’s sidewalks and trails for all types of transportation and recreational trips. The existing conditions and needs analysis identified a number of pedestrian issues including: Neighborhoods lacking sidewalks completely Incomplete subdivision sidewalks due to piecemeal development Arterial and collector streets lacking sidewalks Old infrastructure Crossings Each of these issues is addressed in this section through a variety of infrastructure and programmatic improvements. Figure 4.3 displays the recommended sidewalks, intersection improvements, and trails which will benefit pedestrian activity. All improvements will improve the City’s accessibility to pedestrians of all ages and abilities through accessible design. The city of Bozeman should consider adopting the draft Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and continue to retrofit its network for improved accessibility for all users. 4.3.2. SPECIFIC PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS Bozeman’s sidewalk gaps constitute some of the greatest challenges to pedestrian connectivity. Some sidewalk gaps can be expected to be closed though already committed or planned roadway projects. Facilities like Oak Street, Durston Road, Babcock Street, Cottonwood Road and Rouse Avenue will all see significant improvements to sidewalk connectivity and accommodation through planned MSN roadway projects. This plan also identifies key sidewalk gaps that do not have an overall road project as a source of implementation. These recommendations include some local streets where connectivity needs are the greatest. Incomplete subdivision sidewalks were also identified as a major barrier to pedestrian connectivity. As of 2016, subdivision sidewalks on non-publically fronted property are developed with individual lot development. With the growth Bozeman has been experiencing an up to date inventory of sidewalks is nearly impossible as concrete is being poured daily across the City. The current policy of the City requiring the 250
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 86 developer to return and complete unfinished sidewalks after three years has proved problematic during the economic downturn of 2009-2012. Tracking and enforcing this policy has been difficult due to lack of data and staff time. Recommended Policy Change This plan recommends that the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) be amended to require sidewalk construction as a basic component of subdivisions and should be installed with the streets and utilities before individual lots are developed. Builders can temporarily bury the sidewalks so that they are not damaged by heavy equipment during the building process. While this change would potentially increase lot prices, the cost of the sidewalk would not be a component of the lot development, so the end cost to the homeowner would be similar. 4.3.3. CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS This plan includes recommendations for a variety of intersection and mid-block pedestrian crossing improvements, as shown in Table 4.6 and Figure 4.3. Generally, improvements are focused around establishing a safe pedestrian crossing where existing use and/or desire is high. Recommended crossing improvements vary; however, generally include the following typologies: Pedestrian Refuge Pedestrian refuges provide protected space placed in the center of the street to facilitate bicycle and pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian refuges are the most valuable at uncontrolled crossing locations where the refuge breaks up the crossing into smaller directional crossings, often placing the pedestrian in a less complex situation. No more than two lanes in any direction should be crossed at a time when a pedestrian refuge is utilized without signalization. Existing pedestrian refuge on Highland Boulevard 251
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 87 Transportation Master Plan Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) RRFBs use an irregular flash pattern similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles and can be installed on either two-lane or multi-lane roadways. RRFBs are used to reinforce a driver’s legal obligation to yield where pedestrians and/or bicyclists have the right-of-way crossing a road. RRFBs drastically improve motor vehicle yielding compliance over no beacon and even considerably more over steady flashing yellow ball beacons. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon A hybrid beacon, also known as a High-intensity Activated Cross-walk (HAWK), consists of a signal-head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street, and pedestrian signal heads for the minor street or trail crossing. There are no signal indications for motor vehicles on the minor street approaches. Hybrid beacons are used to improve non-motorized crossings of major streets in locations where side-street volumes do not support installation of a conventional traffic signal. Hybrid beacons can operate in areas of heavy traffic and multiple travel lanes where a RRFB would be less effective. RRFBs in front of Whittier School on Peach StreetPedestrian Hybrid Beacon in Billings, MT 252
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 88 Table 4.6: Recommended Spot Improvements Project ID Project Type Location Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) SPOT-1 Grade Separation W. Kagy Blvd and S. 7th Ave As part of the West Kagy Boulevard improvements, a pedestrian tunnel will be constructed linking the main MSU Campus to WTI, the Museum of the Rockies and the neighborhoods to the south. Part of road project Part of road project SPOT-2 Grade Separation W. Garfield St and S. 19th Ave (south of intersection) Over or underpass for future central bicycle and pedestrian route as proposed in the MSU Long Range Campus Development Plan (LRCDP)9. $1,200,000 $3,500,000 SPOT-3 Install full signal W. Lincoln St and S. 19th Ave Recommend installing a full signal to protect pedestrian and bike crossings on West Lincoln Street. This could allow the current right turn out restrictions to remain and signal would activate for left turns and pedestrian signal calls. This pedestrian crossing has exhibited crash trends in the past. $40,000 $60,000 SPOT-4 Intersection Improvements W. Lincoln St and S. 11th Ave Short Term: As EB and NB approaches have combination outer lanes, the stop bar should be set back to provide 6 feet of bicycle forward stop bar. The SB approach does not need improvement. Long Term: Convert to roundabout similar to South 11th Avenue and College Street. $3,000 $5,000 SPOT-5 Intersection Improvements W. Grant St and S. 11th Ave Short Term: All approaches have combination outer lanes, the stop bar should be set back to provide 6 feet of bicycle forward stop bar. Long Term: Convert to roundabout similar to South 11th Avenue and College Street. $3,000 $5,000 SPOT-6 Intersection Improvements W. Kagy Blvd and S. 11th Ave Short Term: Prior to Kagy Boulevard reconstruction, install bicycle boxes in north and south directions with a “right turn on red” prohibition on South 11th Avenue. This will help queue and move large numbers of bicyclists travelling between campus, the Stadium View Apartments, and trails to the south. Long Term: Improvements associated with Kagy Boulevard project. Recommend roundabout with grade separation across Kagy Boulevard. If signal is to remain, include leading pedestrian interval, and bike lane to path transitions. $15,000 Part of road project SPOT-7 Grade Separation W. Kagy Blvd (MSU Stadium) As part of the W Kagy Boulevard improvements, a pedestrian tunnel will be constructed linking the main MSU Campus to the Stadium. Part of road project Part of road project SPOT-8 Grade Separation W. Kagy Blvd and S. Willson Ave Short Term: Prior to reconstruction of Kagy Boulevard, provide bike box on the Willson Avenue approach in front of the through/right lane. Provide new ramp for Gallagator Trail users to access the bike box and provide paved path from end of Gallagator Trail. Provide sharrows in the right turn only lane of the South 3rd Avenue approach. Formalize short sections of bike lane next to north and south “free right” porkchop islands. Long Term: As part of the Kagy Boulevard improvements, a pedestrian tunnel will be constructed providing beneficial pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the Kagy Boulevard/ Willson Avenue / South 3rd Avenue intersection, as well as serving the existing and future Gallagator Trail. The crossing should serve the intersection and the trail alignment, and should be approximately 75 feet back from the existing pedestrian crossing. $35,000 Part of road project SPOT-9 RRFB W. College St and S. 13th Ave School crossing for students living in family housing to go to Irving School. $12,000 $16,000 253
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 89 Transportation Master Plan Project ID Project Type Location Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) SPOT-10 RRFB W. College St and S. 15th Ave Provide crosswalk and RRFB based crossing for trail/sidewalk connection. $12,000 $16,000 SPOT-11 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon W. Lamme St and N. 7th Ave Lamme Street is an existing high bicycle and pedestrian use street. This crossing point at North 7th Avenue is currently difficult and limits the east-west potential of the route. With the 4-lane cross section with no median, a rapid flashing beacon would not be visible enough with the two approach lanes in each direction. A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon is recommended with a bulb-out on the NE and SW corners for bicyclists to enter and use the pedestrian signal. $50,000 $75,000 SPOT-12 Beacon Improvement W. Oak St and Hunters Way Two options; Option 1: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon to serve shared use path crossings. Option 2: RRFB with median extension to create refuge area and allow for two beacons facing each direction. $20,000 $70,000 SPOT-13 RRFB Durston Rd and Hunters Way (east of intersection) Add median refuge and install RRFB. This will be more direct than diverting to Hunters Way where there is significantly more traffic. The mid-block location will also simplify crossings as there will be no turning conflicts or turn lanes to interact with. $22,000 $26,000 SPOT-14 RRFB W. Babcock St and Hunters Way Two location options for RRFB. Option 1: Hunters Way has more traffic. No refuge can be provided due to narrow cross-section and the need to accommodate eastbound lefts. Option 2: The crossing could also be moved 120 feet to the west and improved with a median refuge to isolate trail crossings from the intersection. $22,000 $26,000 SPOT-15 Crosswalk W. Babcock St and Hanley Ave With warning signage. $3,000 $5,000 SPOT-16 Curb Extensions W. Lincoln St and S. Willson Ave Install curb extensions at Gallagator Trail crossing. This crossing will become more heavily used when Kagy Boulevard project is complete. RRFB could be a value added option, however yielding compliance on Willson Avenue is usually good. $10,000 $15,000 SPOT-17 Intersection Improvement Bridger Dr and Story Mill Rd Improve bicycle and pedestrian crossing opportunity here. Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive will ultimately become 3-lanes which will make this crossing more difficult. Suggest signal, roundabout or a pedestrian hybrid beacon. $45,000 $90,000 SPOT-18 Realign Path Crossing Huffine Lane and Harmon Stream Blvd Re-route path crossing from current location to a location approximately 20 feet south. Utilize median for single lane crossing at a time. Vehicles can then interact with pathway users in a different decision process than merging into/out of traffic. $18,000 $25,000 SPOT-19 RRFB W. Kagy Blvd and S. Tracy Ave Install RRFB to aid bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Kagy Boulevard at this point. $15,000 $18,000 SPOT-20 RRFB Carol Place and E. Kagy Blvd Install RRFB at this location to aid bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Kagy Boulevard. Add bicycle specific buttons on Carol Place and Fairway Drive. $15,000 $18,000 SPOT-21 RR Grade Crossing Improvement N. Wallace Ave and Railroad Extend sidewalks and widen paved surface to at least 34 feet over railroad tracks, with shared use path on the north side of the street. $7,000 $10,000 254
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 90 Project ID Project Type Location Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) SPOT-22 Intersection Improvements S. 23rd Ave and W. Main St Add a bike box on Babcock Street in the EB direction in front of the combination lane. This will help bicyclists position to use South 23rd Avenue to reach College Street. Perform traffic study on WB approach on South 23rd Avenue to verify right turn queuing requirements. If possible, significantly shorten right turn lane and add through bike lane to connect with Babcock Street. Add lead pedestrian interval when actuated. $10,000 $15,000 SPOT-23 RRFB E. Baxter Ln and Buckrake Ave Install RRFB to assist shared use pathway users. $12,000 $16,000 SPOT-24 RRFB E. Baxter Ln and Flanders Mill Rd Install RRFB to assist shared use pathway users. $12,000 $16,000 SPOT-25 RRFB Cascade St and N. Ferguson Ave New crosswalk and RRFB with bicycle push buttons in addition to pedestrian features. $17,000 $25,000 SPOT-26 Intersection Improvements W. Main St and S. 8th Ave Provide leading pedestrian interval to get pedestrians in crosswalks before vehicles are given green lights. Add shared lane markings in left and right turn lanes in the northbound direction. Add a gore separator between left and right only lanes. Main Street does not currently have receiving bicycle lanes, so bikes should be in the travel lane or use crosswalk. $1,500 $5,000 SPOT-27 Intersection Improvement S. 8th Ave and W. College St South 8th Avenue approaches at College Street are confusing for bikes and drivers. Two options; Option 1: Create right turn lane that is shared with the bike lane (this will potentially reduce pedestrian safety). Option 2: Mark bike lanes up to intersection and gore out the parking area. $1,500 $4,000 SPOT-28 Trail Crossing Breeze Ln and Buckrake Ave Install curb cuts/warning signage. $8,000 $10,000 SPOT-29 RRFB N. 25th Ave and Durston Rd Add RRFB to existing crossing. $5,000 $7,000 SPOT-30 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon W. Main St and S. 3rd Ave Pedestrian activated 3-lens beacon. Only activates when pedestrian calls it. Could be coordinated with existing signal progression along Main Street. $50,000 $75,000 SPOT-31 Ped crossing improvement Ellis St and Highland Blvd Important to hospital staff, residents, and all season trail users including skiers. Could be grade separated or a roundabout. $150,000 $250,000 SPOT-32 Trail Underpass Trail and Curtis St Need improved pedestrian crossing in conjunction with new development at Curtis Street or in association with trails. Crossing should be underpass, which should be somewhat straight forward with existing grading on west side. On east side the city of Bozeman owns the land and significant excavation may be needed. $80,000 $150,000 SPOT-33 Trail Underpass Trail west of Kagy Blvd and Painted Hills Rd Replace at-grade crossing with underpass where grading is favorable. $60,000 $100,000 SPOT-34 Trail Underpass Kagy Blvd and Painted Hills Trail Replace at-grade crossing with underpass where grading is favorable. $60,000 $100,000 SPOT-35 RRFB Westridge Dr and S. 3rd Ave Add pedestrian crossing and RRFB. $12,000 $16,000 SPOT-36 RRFB W. Arnold St and S. 3rd Ave Upgrade crossing to include RRFB. $5,000 $7,000 SPOT-37 RRFB W. Oak St and Trail Design with widening of Oak Street. Should have a RRFB and median. $20,000 $30,000 SPOT-38 Bike/Ped Overpass I-90 Visionary project, but would provide more direct access for Valley West residents to Bridger Drive trails. $2,500,000 $4,000,000 255
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 91 Transportation Master Plan Project ID Project Type Location Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) SPOT-39 Grade separated crossing Huffine Ln and Fowler Ave Could be over or underpass connecting Fowler Avenue trails and MSU to Huffine Lane Trail. Engineering study needed. $200,000 $400,000 SPOT-40 Signal or grade separation W. Stevens St and N. 19th Ave Conceptual project depends on ability to create east-west bicycle boulevard. $60,000 $250,000 SPOT-41 Remove crosswalk E. Main St and Cypress St Existing pedestrian crossing has no control and is on the hill into downtown where traffic is decelerating from 40 mph. New signal at Broadway offers nearby controlled crossing. Warrants would not likely support a signalized crossing at this location. $1,500 $2,500 4.3.4. GENERAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS This section provides general recommendations for pedestrian oriented improvements that can be implemented throughout Bozeman as projects are implemented. These recommendations represent national best practices and may be applied as opportunities are provided. Leading Pedestrian Intervals A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) is a phase setting for signalized intersections with pedestrian signals. It involves pedestrians being given a walk signal to cross the intersection several seconds in advance of parallel vehicle traffic. This allows pedestrians to begin crossing with a physical head start, which can greatly increase the visibility of pedestrians and reinforce that turning motor vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The LPI may be an actuated setting where the lead interval is only introduced when a push-button is activated. Having several seconds dedicated to a LPI may mean that there is a corresponding reduction in time in a traffic signal cycle available for motor vehicle travel. Since the pedestrian lead interval is relatively short (generally 3 – 5 seconds) the impacts are usually minimal. Crosswalk Placement and Corner Radii Children are less mentally and physically developed than adults, and often have limited peripheral vision and less ability to judge speed and distance, locate sounds and comprehend street signs. They lack familiarity with traffic, and may act impulsively or unpredictably. Older adults often exhibit degrading sensory or physical capabilities. This can lead to loss of vision and hearing, the ability to react quickly, and the strength to walk otherwise normal distances between places. Similar to designing walking facilities for users with disabilities, similar consideration should be given to young and elderly users. Larger corner radii accommodates heavy vehicles turning while keeping them inside their designated lane. This practice often results in wide sweeping corners that allow smaller vehicles to turn at higher speeds. Additionally crosswalks are typically longer resulting in longer crossing distances, increased pedestrian clearance times and greater exposure to moving vehicles. Several strategies can be employed to mitigate this issue. 256
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 92 Reduce Corner Radii Design engineers should consider the effec-tive turning radius of vehicles to provide for turning while reducing the physical radius of the corner. For example, the presence of a parking lane and/or bike lane allow for a tight corner radius while still providing a larger effective radius for turning vehicles. Locate Crossings at Narrowest Point If the corner radius can’t be narrowed sig-nificantly, placing the crosswalks with direc-tional pedestrian ramps at the curve tangent minimizes crossing distance and exposure while affording vehicles greater visibility of pedestrians while turning due to the angle of the vehicle when it encounters the crosswalk while turning. Provide Curb Extensions Curb extensions (also known as bulb-outs) utilize the parking setbacks (if a parking lane is present) to make pedestrians more visible when crossing streets and to shorten crossing distance. Bozeman has a number of successful curb extensions and this treat-ment should be considered as a key com-ponent to any future project. Where R1 is the actual corner radius and R2 is the effective corner radius. Curb extensions are also possible in otherwise unused intersection space. 257
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 93 Transportation Master Plan Downtown Pedestrian Recommendations Downtown Bozeman is a key activity center for residents and visitors. Significant public comment was received during this planning process about perceived pedestrian safety issues. Mendenhall and Babcock Streets currently do not have traffic control with the exception of Willson Avenue. As a result this busy area has marked crosswalks that rely on motorist yielding. Parked vehicles often make pedestrian visibility difficult and the two travel lanes create a ‘double threat’ where a yielding vehicle could block the view of a vehicle in the adjacent lane of the pedestrian in the crosswalk. Curb extensions should be a component of any new property development project where the street is being changed or reconstructed. The City should continue to work with the Downtown Bozeman Partnership to identify key intersections with the poorest pedestrian visibility. South Bozeman Avenue and East Babcock Street is a priority intersection. Sidewalk Program Sidewalk replacement and expansion is an issue that is important in every Montana city. Currently the city of Bozeman notifies property owners of issues and requires that they repair or replace deficient sidewalk within 30 days. Equitably balancing property owner responsibility with the overall public benefit of sidewalks in a way that can accelerate sidewalk maintenance and expansion should be a primary goal of a community’s sidewalk program. It is recommended that Bozeman pursue a comprehensive sidewalk program through one of the following: 50/50 cost sharing sidewalk replacement program where sidewalk construction costs are divided evenly between the City and the property owner. The source of funding can vary; typically, the City can fund it as a defined item in the annual budget. Kalispell and Superior, MT have implemented similar programs. Implement a "Health Plan" style sidewalk replacement policy in which the financing model is based on the concept used in the health insurance industry. This policy allows property owners to pay in a fair amount regardless of property size or frontage length. In Missoula, the owner is given an 'up front benefit' by the City of $1,000, then the owner pays a "deductible" amount up to $7,000 of construction costs. The city of Missoula pays constructions costs above the deductible amount up to $15,000 per property. Missoula allocates between $600,000 and $800,000 in funding from a Road District that was created to help pay for construction and mainte-nance of City roadways. The program focuses on high-priority areas in the sidewalk master plan and has been well-received. In addition to this program, the City has continued to require piecemeal sidewalk development when new or accessory dwelling units are built. The city of Bozeman could consider low, or no cost, loans for the purposes of sidewalk reconstruction or expansion. The city of Helena offers a no-interest loan to be repaid over a period of 10 years. Other cities have used increased property assessments to repay the cost of construction. The City’s current ADA ramp upgrade program is a good example of proactive incremental progress and could be a key component of an overall sidewalk program. 258
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 94 Figure 4.3: Pedestrian Facility Recommendations 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LN51012346789111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940410½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA, ALTAStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State UniversityPedestrian FacilityRecommendationsFacility RecommendationsSpot ImprovementSidewalk ImprovementNatural Surface259
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 95 Transportation Master Plan 4.4. BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS Some non-motorized improvements will be completed as part of committed or future MSN or TSM projects. Others will be completed as a component of future site development for residential or commercial purposes. A subset of bikeway projects will need dedicated funding to be realized. Where applicable, recommended bikeways are incorporated into the MSN and TSM project descriptions described earlier, with more detail provided in Appendix H. The majority of the recommendations for distinct bikeway projects (which will not be implemented as part of a MSN, TSM or development project) provide more detailed guidance including roadway cross-sections and various options where multiple roadway configurations may exist. For example streets with excess road space could be configured in a number of ways including a wide bike lane, a buffered bike lane or even a separated bike lane. Some recommendations, however, are more conceptual and additional coordination and study will be needed for implementation. All recommendations are subject to change and refinement as site conditions and development patterns change and as other adjacent or intersecting projects are implemented. Some projects may require feasibility studies to verify routing or applicability. Figure 4.4 summarizes the existing study area mileage and the proposed additional mileage if all recommended projects are completed. Figure 4.4: Mileage of Existing and Proposed Active Transportation Facilities within the Study Area 33.21823.025.673.524102126020406080100120140160Bike Lanes Bike Routes Shared Use Paths Unpaved TrailsMilesExistingProposed260
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 96 4.4.1. OVERVIEW Bozeman’s bicycle transportation mode share is nearly 10 times the national average. This figure is averaged throughout the year and peak bicycle use in the spring, summer and early fall is higher still. Bicycle commuting is, however, not evenly distributed throughout the City, despite distances being comparable in the south, north and west quadrants. The on and off-street recommendations outlined in this Plan are intended to, over time, create a balanced bicycle transportation network for all ages and abilities that includes convenient and comfortable routes connecting residents to destinations. The recommended Bozeman bikeway network includes: Bicycle boulevards (and other streets with shared lane markings) Bike lanes Buffered bike lanes Separated (also known as protected) bike lanes Shared use path projects (and connections to natural surface trails) Spot improvements including crossings (signalization, markings, ramps, etc.) Figure 4.5 depicts the recommended bicycle network improvements. Types of projects shown on the figure include stand-alone bicycle improvement projects, bicycle projects that are components of the previously defined MSN or TSM projects, shared use path segments depicted in the PROST Plan10, and other unique bicycle improvement projects from the City’s CIP and/or other committed project lists. Those stand-alone bicycle improvement projects which are intended to be implemented as a distinct active transportation focused project are summarized in Table 4.7. 261
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 97 Transportation Master Plan Table 4.7: Recommended Bicycle Improvement Projects Project ID Street Begin End Length (ft) Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) Bike Lane BL-1 W. Grant St S. 11th Ave S. 6th Ave 1,707 Add bike lane signs and stencils every 200 feet, or after ped crossings and at far side of intersections. When road is resurfaced, add buffer to bike lane with the following cross-section. 5' bike lane, 2' buffer (double white line), 10' travel lane. Alternatively, bike lane could be 6' and vehicle lanes 11. $3,000 $5,000 BL-2 W. Grant St S. 6th Ave S. Willson Ave 1,669 Extend existing bike lanes from MSU campus to South Willson Avenue. Currently there is parking on the north side, however parking is prohibited on the south. Road is approximately 35 feet wide. Option 1: Parking remains on north side where the cross section should be made the same as Peach Street, with a combined bike/parking lane of 12 feet, and a 5' bike lane on the south side. Option 2: Prohibit parking on both sides. All homes have side street frontages and/or alley parking opportunities. Use 35 feet to provide buffered bike lanes on both sides. 6.5 ' bike lanes and 11' travel lanes. $6,000 $8,000 BL-3 W. Garfield St S. 19th Ave S. 12th Ave 2,137 MSU Campus project. New signal in 2015 at South 19th Ave makes this even more important as a bike route into campus. Road is 34-35 feet wide. Short Term: Option 1: Preserve parking on one side of the street and configure street as an advisory bike lane. Advisory bike lanes have dashed bike lane lines which can be encroachable by vehicles if needed for passing. The cross section would include an 8' parking lane, 5-6' bike lanes and 18' foot driving area. Option 2: Utilize shared lane markings every 150 feet and at far sides of minor intersections and keep both parking lanes, however this is less desirable and provides less continuity. Option 3: Remove parking on both sides and provide full bike lanes on both sides. 11 foot travel lanes and 6.5 foot bike lanes. Long Term: Road is reconstructed to include bike lanes by design. $4,000 $4,000 BL-4 S. 11th Ave W. College St W. Cleveland Ave 540 MSU Campus Project. For the section of bike lane between the roundabout and the southern parking access just south of Harrison Street, South 11th Avenue is approximately 45 feet wide. The bike lanes could be significantly wider here and be buffered to provide a more comfortable entrance to the MSU Campus. 7 foot bike lanes with 3 foot striped buffers should be added with 12.5 foot travel lanes in each direction. $1,000 $2,000 BL-5 S. 11th Ave W. Cleveland Ave W. Grant St 1,469 MSU Campus Project. Add bike lane signs and stencils every 200 feet, or after ped crossings and at far side of intersections. Add 6 inch lane stripe. $3,000 $3,000 BL-6 W. Grant Street S. 12th Ave S. 11th Ave 297 MSU Campus Project. This short section of Grant has no bike lanes. Bike lanes can be added with lane striping, stenciling and signage. $1,000 $1,000 262
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 98 Project ID Street Begin End Length (ft) Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) BL-7 W. Lincoln St S. 19th Ave S. 11th Ave 2,722 MSU Campus Project. Between South 19th Avenue and South 11th Avenue. The eastern section of West Lincoln Street has curb and gutter and is approximately 37 feet wide. There is a short-term parking lane on south side of road by businesses. Each of these businesses have off-street parking, some of which is underused in large lots with little parking delineation. Short Term: Option 1: Restrict parking and provide 6.5 foot bike lanes and 12 foot travel lanes. Alternate design to improve bicycling further would be a 5 foot bike lane, 3 foot buffer and 10.5 foot travel lanes. If parking cannot be removed it should be reduced to 7 feet in width, with 5 foot bike lanes and 10 foot travel lanes. It is generally undesirable to have on-street parking on collector roadways. The western segment is currently more primitive. Option 2: Re-stripe roadway to include 5' minimum bike lanes, this may result in 10 to 11 foot travel lanes depending on location. The current shoulder is 4 feet or narrower. Mid-Term: reconstruct with curb, gutter and sidewalk to accommodate 6 foot minimum bike lanes, 7' preferred. $5,000 $7,000 BL-8 W. Garfield St S. 12th Ave S. 11th Ave 572 MSU Campus Project. Long Term: If West Garfield Street is ever extended to South 11th Avenue, bike lanes should be incorporated into the design. N/A N/A BL-9 W. College St S. 11th Ave S. 8th Ave 899 The section of West College Street between South 11th Avenue and South 8th Avenue is generally regarded as a poor facility and experience by all road users. The corridor could benefit from some short term improvements, however a full reconstruction is desired due to poor sidewalks, driveway ramps and pavement quality. Short Term: Eliminate parking on the north side of the street. This side hosts the bulk of the driveways and due to sight distance restrictions does not host a large number of parking spaces. It is estimated that 8 parking spaces currently exist on the north side, several of which would probably not meet current standards for setbacks from side streets. With removal of parking 40 feet exists. Recommend an 8 foot parking lane on the south side, with a 6 foot bike lane next to it. The north side should have a 5 foot bike lane and the travel lanes will be 10.5 feet wide. Long Term: Full road reconstruction which would hopefully expand the roadway slightly to the south to achieve wider lanes, better detached sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, crosswalks, landscaping and driveways. $3,000 $5,000 BL-10 W. College St S. 19th Ave S.11th Ave 2,009 This is the last part of College Street west of South 11th Avenue that will not have been reconstructed. The roadway has no curb and gutter and has sub-standard shoulders. There is approximately 32 feet of asphalt. Short Term: The shoulders should be restriped as designated 5' bike lanes with 11 foot travel lanes. Remove parking on the south side of the street on the approach to the roundabout. This parking is not permitted by MSU and currently is highly desired as there is no fee restriction causing many vehicles to drive by to look for free spaces. Approximately 12 spaces exist on the south side of College Street. Long Term: buffered bike lanes should be incorporated into the roadway design if possible when and if the street is ever reconstructed. Parking should be prohibited except for in front of the residences on the north side of the street between South 13th Avenue and South 12th Avenue. $4,000 $6,000 263
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 99 Transportation Master Plan Project ID Street Begin End Length (ft) Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) BL-11 W. Garfield St Fowler Ave S. 19th Ave 5,116 On this roadway, a “bike lane only” currently is designated on the north side of the street. This is due to the road being constructed by the development to the north, with the future expectation that any development on the south side by MSU would provide curb/gutter sidewalk and additional width. There is currently space to stripe the bike lane in both directions while still allowing for future improvements which may still be many years away. Short Term: There is 40 feet of pavement which should in the center section (no turn lanes) be 5 foot bike lanes with 3 foot buffers and 11 foot travel lanes. Where turn lanes exist, use 10 foot lanes to maintain a 5 foot bike lane on both sides of the street. Long Term: Build to standards set forth in the Bozeman TMP. $13,000 $20,000 BL-12 E. Tamarack St N. 7th Ave N. Rouse Ave 3,720 Street is currently 36 feet wide with parking prohibited on the north. The street is narrow, however Peach Street has the same width and was successfully retrofitted with bike lanes. $7,000 $8,000 BL-13 E. College St S. 8th Ave S. Black Ave 3,161 Street is too narrow for conventional bike lanes. Project involves creating an “advisory bike lane” by removing the roadway centerline and striping 5 foot dashed bike lanes. The center line would be removed leaving an approximate 18 foot center two-way driving lane. Vehicles may encroach into an empty bike lane if needed. Passenger vehicles should be able to pass each other without encroaching into the advisory lane. $16,000 $19,000 BL-14 W. Griffin Dr I-90 Frontage Rd N. Rouse Ave 3,899 Approximate 5 foot shoulders currently exist. Short Term: This project involves marking and signing a bike lane along Griffin Drive in the short term. Long Term: if the street is improved, bike lanes should be improved and included in the design. $10,000 N/A BL-15 N. 7th Ave W. Oak St E. Beall St 3,984 Convert parking lanes to buffered bike lanes. Parking is underutilized. Coordination may be necessary near Oak Street and the hotel/Santa Fe Reds area. $7,000 $11,000 BL-16 N. 7th Ave Red Wing Dr W. Oak St 4,193 I-90 overpass was designed for bike lanes, but never had them marked or signed. This project completes the bike lanes, adds dotted lane line extensions across the I-90 ramps, and signs/marks bike lane on North 7th Avenue north of the interchange. $7,000 $8,000 BL-17 N. 19th Ave E. Valley Center Rd Durston Rd 9,584 8 foot minimum shoulders already exist. This project involves adding bicycle lane stencils and signage. Future additions include adding through bike lanes where right only lanes exist at intersections. This project is similar to other MDT highways of similar land use in Missoula and Kalispell. $17,000 $17,000 BL-18 W. Babcock St W. Main St S. 19th Ave 827 Would require parking removal. Parking is not necessary on this street due to large off-street lots for existing and future businesses. This project should be implemented along with any future rebuild of West Babcock Street from South 19th Avenue to South 11th Avenue. $2,000 $3,000 BL-19 Graf St S. 27th Ave S. 19th Ave 2,567 Current road section has intermittent parking lanes and turn lanes causing the bike lane to deflect multiple times. There is no reason for on-street parking along Graf Street. Restripe bike lane to have buffers where no turn lane exists. This will enhance comfort and simplify the street. $3,000 $7,000 264
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 100 Project ID Street Begin End Length (ft) Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) BL-20 S. 11th Ave W. Main Street W. College St 2,931 South 11th Avenue is proportioned as a local street, however it is classified as a minor arterial. This is a popular biking and walking route to reach MSU and it carries considerable traffic volumes. South 11th Avenue is approximately 34 feet in width. This project prohibits parking along South 11th Avenue and establishes bike lanes 6 foot minimum. If 10 foot travel lanes are acceptable 5 foot bike lanes with 2 foot buffers are possible. This project will improve sight lines for pedestrians and reduce crashes, including collisions with parked vehicles. This project can be striped and signed at any time, or it can be done in conjunction with pavement preservation. $5,000 $8,000 BL-21 E. Babcock St S. Grand Ave S. Wallace Ave 2,964 Short term: provide shared lane markings in both travel lanes. Mid-term: remove northern parking lane and provide a separated two-way bike lane (cycle track) on the north side of the street. This side generally has less existing parking and better aligns with best practice. This route will be the primary bicycle east-west connector through downtown. Maintain two lanes of one-way travel. $53,000 $282,000 Bicycle Boulevard BB-1 Grand Ave W. Tamarack St S. 3rd Ave 10,331 Pavement quality poor from College Street to Babcock Street. Has bike route signs, needs shared lane markings, improved wayfinding and intersection modifications (see spot improvements). $34,000 N/A BB-2 Black Ave W. Tamarack St Private St 12,624 Creates a longer north south route using the Gallagator Trail and Sourdough Trail. Currently has shared lane markings and some signage. $42,000 N/A BB-3 Lamme St N. 11th Ave N. Broadway Ave 7,331 Already has shared lane markings and bike route signs. Needs some intersection treatments (see spot improvements) and improved wayfinding. $25,000 N/A BB-4 S. 15th Ave Durston Rd Goldstein Ln 18,654 Connection would provide critical north-south route west of 11th Avenue. Future improvements would need to allow bike/ped access from Babcock Street to Main Street. On south side, will connect to trails that have neighborhood connections. Will need coordination with Kagy Boulevard project design. $62,000 N/A BB-5 Koch St S. 23rd Ave S. Church Ave 10,092 Sharrows and bike route signs are present. The signal at South 19th Avenue makes this an important connection for bicyclists and pedestrians. Volumes have been recorded higher than desired just east of South 19th Avenue at 3,700 vehicles per day. $34,000 N/A BB-6 Annie St Stoneridge Dr 18,535 Still has some gaps, however as streets continue to develop, this route will be an important east-west corridor in Valley West. Volumes should be monitored. Some signage may exist, requires improved signage, wayfinding, shared lane markings and minor intersection treatments. $61,000 N/A BB-7 Beal St N. 25th Ave N. 11th Ave 5,048 Interrupted at Bozeman High School, however extents the Lamme Street Bicycle Boulevard. The signal at North 19th Avenue is the key element. Requires shared lane markings, and wayfinding signage. Work with High School to formalize a signed route through campus. Many residents currently use this route now. $17,000 N/A 265
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 101 Transportation Master Plan Project ID Street Begin End Length (ft) Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) BB-8 N. 25th Ave W. Oak St W. Babcock St 5,410 Connects Babcock Street to Oak Street; also links Emily Dickinson School and takes advantage of improved crossing at Durston Road. Will require shared lane markings and wayfinding signage. $18,000 N/A BB-9 Cascade / Mendenhall Cottonwood Rd N. 25th Ave 9,405 This could be one of the most important east-west routes as it ultimately feeds into downtown and avoids the busiest of North 19th Avenue for a crossing. At Valley Drive, there is a Gallatin County inholding, which has two existing street rights of way that do not currently connect (Bitterroot Way and Mendenhall St). If streets are not likely to extend, short shared use paths could make the connection through the street easements. $31,000 N/A BB-10 Yellowstone Ave W. Oak St Valley Commons Dr 7,733 North / south on-street bikeway to complement trail access. $26,000 N/A BB-11 Broadway / Peach / Tamarack N. Rouse Ave E. Main St 5,123 Provides alternative north-south travel to Wallace, which has more vehicle traffic. Also lines up with new signal at Broadway and Main, including a future shared-use path connector to the Gallagator Trail. This will be the primary route for users to connect from the Story Mill Spur to the Gallagator Trail. $17,000 N/A BB-12 Garfield St S. 6th Ave S. Black Ave 2,507 Connects MSU Centennial Mall and Garfield Street route to the west with the Gallagator Trail. Requires signing and striping only. $9,000 N/A BB-13 N. 20th Ave N. 22nd Ave W. Main St 3,520 Provides alternative route to North 19th Avenue through constrained corridor. Shared use path along West Main Street needed to connect to West Babcock Street. $12,000 N/A BB-14 Juniper St / Stevens St / Windsor St Annie St W. Tamarack St 5,764 Conceptual bicycle boulevard corridor that could be a very important east/west connector. Would require the opportunity to connect Juniper Street with Stevens Street which is unlikely in the short term. Also would require development of vacant land west of North 7th Avenue and a crossing improvement or grade separated crossing of North 19th Avenue. $19,000 N/A Shared Roadway SR-1 S. 12th Ave W. Garfield St W. Grant St 974 Short term: Add shared lane markings and bicycle route signage. Mid-term: Street is constructed as a plaza shared street or if reconstructed to a street standard, provide full buffered bike lane. $1,000 $4,000 SR-2 W. Harrison St S. 11th Ave S. 8th Ave 1,006 The presence of angled parking, residence halls, and this street being a gap between bike lanes on South 11th Avenue and South 8th Avenue indicates a need to install shared lane markings. Recommend every 100 feet due to the intensity of use. $1,000 $4,000 SR-3 W. Babcock St S. 11th Ave S. Grand Ave 2,982 Requires sharrows to provide eastbound bicycle treatment to match Mendenhall Street. $3,000 $10,000 SR-4 S. 8th Ave W. Harrison St W. Cleveland Ave 348 Median was constructed too narrow to allow for full bike lanes. Shared lane markings should be Installed to provide route continuity. $1,000 $2,000 266
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 102 Project ID Street Begin End Length (ft) Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) Shared Use Path SP-1 S. 7th Ave W. Kagy Blvd Westridge Cut Through 1,634 MSU Campus Project. This section of South 7th Avenue is a key linkage for neighborhoods to the south utilizing the Gallagator Trail to access campus. Currently there is no sidewalk or bicycle facilities. A 10' shared use path on the east side of South 7th Avenue would align with the trail connection. The RRFB or underpass at Kagy Boulevard may influence the location of the path to the east. $148,000 $156,000 SP-2 Campus Shared Use Path S. 7th Ave W. Kagy Ave 1,355 MSU Campus Project. Would provide a shortcut to people accessing campus from Kagy Boulevard. $109,000 $129,000 SP-3 S. 7th Ave W. Grant St W. Kagy Ave 1,697 MSU Campus Project. 14' wide shared use pathway with grade separated crossing at Kagy Boulevard. Connect to Gallagator Trail south of Museum of Rockies. The east side currently has fewer driveway openings and vehicular conflicts and should continue to be so even after the addition of the parking garage. Shared use paths are desirable on both sides of the street. $153,000 $162,000 SP-4 Gallagator Extension W. Kagy Blvd Gallagator Trail 1,437 This is a crucial missing link for the Bozeman trail system, creating a sizeable gap in the Gallagator Trail. The former rail bed is on Museum of the Rockies property. Efforts by the city and other groups have been unsuccessful due to concerns with the living history display. This can be effectively mitigated though design. This particular segment may not have a significant role in campus transportation, however its importance is still significant. This is estimated to be a longer term project coordinated with redevelopment of the Museum. $115,000 $137,000 SP-5 Campus Shared Use Path W. College St S. 12th Ave 1,631 MSU Campus Project. As proposed in the Long Range Campus Development Plan (LRCDP) $131,000 $155,000 SP-6 S. 19th Ave Region 3 HQ’s W Kagy Blvd 1,844 Reconstruct existing sidewalk to shared use path width to extend existing shared use path. $166,000 $176,000 SP-7 Lincoln St S. 19th Ave S. 11th Ave 2,649 MSU Campus Project. 12-14' Shared Use Pathway to connect South 19th Ave and also the F-lot where some vehicle commuters in this remote lot would benefit from a better route to campus. $239,000 $252,000 SP-8 S. 11th Ave W. Grant St W. Kagy Blvd 1,704 MSU Campus Project. Widen sidewalk to 10'-12' shared use path standard. Provide bike lane transitions at Lincoln Street and Kagy Boulevard. $154,000 $162,000 SP-9 S. 8th Ave W. Harrison St W. Cleveland St 336 Widen sidewalk on west side to shared use path standard, or construct new pathway parallel to it in conjunction with new building development. Provide bike lane transitions at West Harrison Street. $31,000 $32,000 267
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 103 Transportation Master Plan Project ID Street Begin End Length (ft) Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) SP-10 Westside Greenway Trout Meadows Rd Huffine Ln 19,487 This project would improve existing segments of trail, re-routes and new segments to create a continuous 10-foot minimum paved north-south shared use path. This path would be plowed in the winter and make bicycle use for transportation more feasible for a larger number of Valley West residents. The route depicted is conceptual where no existing path is present. $1,559,000 $1,852,000 SP-11 Gallagator Trail S Church Ave Goldenstein Ln 16,026 This project seeks to pave the unpaved portions of the Gallagator Trail. Advantages would include winter maintenance and a more reliable experience year-round. $1,283,000 $1,523,000 SP-12 Story Mill Spur Bridge Dr “L” St 5,292 This project would pave the Story Mill Spur, develop the trail over the existing rail bed, abandoned bridges, etc. Maintain unpaved trail for runners or others that prefer soft surface. This shared use path will connect with the M-Trail and the Oak Street shared use path. $424,000 $636,000 SP-13 Oak St Extension N. Rouse Ave “L” St 1,270 Utilizing City right-of-way, connect the Oak Street and Story Mill Spur shared use paths. $127,000 $188,000 SP-14 Oak St Extension N. 12th Ave N. 7th Ave 2,392 Connects existing sections of shared use path and replaces some existing sidewalk. $216,000 $228,000 SP-15 N. 11th Ave N. 11th Ave W. Oak St 1,025 As called for in the PROST Plan. Parts of alignment have been implemented. $82,000 $123,000 SP-16 Tschache Ln Davis Ln N. 27th Ave 2,721 Improve east-west connection and legibility. Ideally a wide shared use path would be continued to the west linking other north-south facilities. $245,000 $259,000 SP-17 Story Hill Rail Trail Story Mill Spur N. Broadway Ave 8,990 Project would involve property acquisition and the restoration of several significant bridge structures, but would create a continuous trail connection from south Bozeman to the M trailhead with no on-street segments. $830,000 $875,000 SP-18 Huffine Ln Willow Peak Dr Cottonwood Rd 7,863 Provide shared use path to Four Corners (mileage is to study area boundary only). $630,000 $944,000 SP-19 Springhill Rd Sypes Canyon Rd I-90 Frontage Rd 7,884 Path linking Frontage Road with Sypes Canyon Road. Could also connect to conceptual path to Story Mill/Bridger Drive. $631,000 $947,000 SP-20 Fowler Ave W. Babcock St Bozeman Ponds Park 809 Extend through the Bozeman Ponds Park to Babcock Street. $65,000 $98,000 SP-21 Kimberwicke St Harper Puckett Rd Gallatin Green Blvd 3,197 As recommended in PROST Plan. $256,000 $384,000 SP-22 Springhill to Story Mill Rd Springhill Rd Story Mill Rd 19,420 Conceptual project improves existing natural surface trails, utilizes PROST Plan recommendations and new proposed trail to create continuous route from Springhill Road to Story Mill Road. Alignment has high transportation and recreation potential. $1,554,000 $2,331,000 SP-23 Gallagator Extension Cambridge Dr Goldenstein Ln 3,925 Extend Gallagator Trail to the south. $314,000 $471,000 268
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 104 Project ID Street Begin End Length (ft) Comments Cost (Low) Cost (High) SP-24 Huffine Ln Rowland Rd Advance Dr 6,626 Provide shared use path to Four Corners. $531,000 $796,000 SP-25 Abandoned RR alignment Front St L St 2,646 As proposed in PROST Plan, likely only if railroad area redevelops and there is no freight service. $212,000 $318,000 SP-26 S. 19th Ave W. Kagy Blvd Nash Rd 19,898 As recommended in the Bozeman Area Alternative Transportation Study and PROST Plan. Full extents go to Hyalite Canyon Road. $1,592,000 $2,388,000 SP-27 Valley Center Rd (west) Catamount St Catron St 494 Completes connection between exiting Valley Center Road paths and North 19th Avenue. $40,000 $60,000 SP-28 Valley Center Rd (east) Catron St N. 19th Ave 428 Completes connection between exiting Valley Center Road paths and North 19th Avenue. $35,000 $52,000 SP-29 Valley Center Rd (west) Catron St N. 19th Ave 290 Completes connection between exiting Valley Center Road paths and North 19th Avenue. $24,000 $35,000 SP-30 S. 3rd Ave Goldstein Ln Nash Rd 10,566 Could extend Gallagator Trail to Nash Road, this was also proposed in the Bozeman Area Alternative Transportation Study. $846,000 $1,268,000 SP-31 W. Main St W. Babcock St N. 20th Ave 617 12-foot wide sidewalk to facilitate connections between bikeways that provide alternatives to Main Street and North 19th Avenue. $68,000 $68,000 SP-32 Sidewalk S. 23rd Ave W. Babcock St 249 12-foot wide sidewalk to facilitate connections between bikeways that provide alternatives to West Main St and North 19th Avenue. $28,000 $28,000 SP-33 Gallagator Connector Gallagator Linear Trail Golf Way 1,452 Formalizes a commuter route that is maintainable in the winter months. $117,000 $175,000 SP-34 Frontage Road I-90 WB on- & off-ramp Study Area Boundary; ~2,750 ft west of Coulee Dr 26,400 Shared use path contained in the PROST Plan; has robust public support. Locate to the north of existing Frontage Road and east of North 7th Avenue. Only includes portion of path between Bozeman (I-90) and TMP study area boundary (~5 miles in length). Approximately 4 miles remaining from TMP study area boundary to downtown Belgrade. $2,508,000 $2,904,000 SP-35 Lincoln St S. Willson Ave S. 7th Ave 1,930 Trail would use utility easement to connect Gallagator Trail to MSU. May require redevelopment of MSU property just east of South 7th Avenue. $155,000 $184,000 SP-36 N. 5th Ave W. Oak St W. Tamarack St 1,692 To be developed within the North 5th Avenue right-of-way. $136,000 $161,000 SP-37 N. 8th Ave Just south of W. Birch St W. Durston St 1,968 To be added into the North 8th Avenue right-of-way. $158,000 $187,000 SP-38 W. Aspen St N. 8th Ave N. 7th Ave 372 To be added within the Aspen St right-of-way. $30,000 $45,000 269
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 105 Transportation Master Plan 4.4.2. DOWNTOWN BOZEMAN BICYCLE RECOMMENDATIONS Downtown Bozeman is a challenging environment for the provision of dedicated bikeways. Main, Mendenhall, Babcock, Olive and Lamme Streets all act as the primary east-west corridors. While Lamme Street lends itself to a bicycle boulevard, Olive Street exhibits higher speed and volume. Mendenhall and Babcock are both one-way streets with minimal additional space for bike lanes other than absolute minimum parking lanes, travel lanes and bike lanes (this configuration was voted down by BABAB when Mendenhall Street was reconstructed in 2014). Main Street is incompatible with bike lanes in its current four-lane configuration. Additionally, even if Main Street were converted to a three-lane configuration, bike lanes would likely be feasible only in the door zone of short term vehicle parking. The cumulative effect of these facts results in the conclusion that providing dedicated space for bicycle travel in Downtown Bozeman is extremely difficult without creating addi-tional space through parking removal. This plan does propose a two-way separated bikeway on the north side of Babcock Street from Grand Avenue to Wallace Avenue. For this stretch of Babcock Street, parking is currently restricted for a portion of the frontage due to sight re-strictions with driveways and cross-streets. Parking removal would be a requirement for implementation of this project and this would require political support or timing with another source of new parking such as a second parking garage on the south side of Downtown. An increased bicycle parking supply is recommended for Downtown. Both through the provision of at least two additional seasonal on-street parking corrals and for an increase in the number of racks placed in the furnishing zones of the Downtown Streets. Partnerships with existing and new businesses should be sought to locate additional parking in alleys or on private property for employee parking to preserve street parking for patrons. One car parking space can park the equivalent of 14 bicycles if configured properly. 4.4.3. ENHANCED BICYCLE WAYFINDING SYSTEM GVLT has implemented a trail wayfinding system that includes over 600 signs. In 2005, the city of Bozeman installed on-street bicycle route signs that featured limited wayfinding elements such as ‘Trails’, ‘Downtown’, or ‘MSU’ as destinations. With the recommended bicycle boule-vard system it is recommended that a comprehensive bicycle wayfinding system be created to upgrade and replace the existing bicycle route sign system. New signs should feature three destinations per sign, distance information and travel time. Signs could complement the existing ‘City of Bozeman Bike Route’ signs or be of a new enhanced design. Destinations should be identified, categorized and programmed onto a system of signs throughout the on-street network of bikeways. 4.4.4. SHARED USE PATH MAINTENANCE The vast majority of Bozeman’s paved shared use paths have never been structurally maintained since construction. Maintenance activities can generally be categorized into one of two types; ‘routine maintenance’ which is done annually or more frequently, and ‘major’ or ‘capital maintenance’ which involves more intensive activity at a less than annual frequency. A robust routine maintenance program may include sweeping, trash removal, mowing, tree trimming, weed abatement, snow removal, restroom maintenance, and sign replacement. However, it 270
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 106 should be noted that each segment of shared use path in Bozeman will have different needs and levels of expenditure due to its setting and amenities. It is estimated that for routine maintenance approximately $1,000 to $1,500 should be budgeted annually per mile of trail. Generally the City and GVLT have kept up adequate routine maintenance. Bozeman Parks and Recreation is now conducting snow removal on all of the City’s paved shared use paths. Capital Maintenance Major or capital maintenance activities typically involve more intensive maintenance repairs such as pavement seal coating, pavement over-lays, pavement reconstruction or other structural rehabilitations. Any paved trail surface will deteriorate over time with asphalt surfaces drop-ping in quality rapidly after 10 years. Preservation efforts such as seal coating extend the life of asphalt efficiently and at a lower cost than waiting for the surface to fail requiring expensive reconstruction. Maintenance activities vary considerably around the country and different approaches and pavement preservation intervals could be considered. Financial planning for trail maintenance can be challenging to budget for. Typically trails require greater capital maintenance activities with age and ultimately require full reconstruction at some point. Some jurisdictions focus on eventual reconstruction and treat this as a mainte-nance item to be budgeted for, whereas some treat this as a separate capital project to be considered in the future. Recent Jackson Hole Community Pathway maintenance costs have contracted seal coating of the pathways at approximately $9,000 per mile which averages (on a 5-year seal coat cycle) approximately $1,800 per year, per mile of path annually. This experience provides a valuable benchmark for Bozeman and if a similar program were to be budgeted the City would need to perform approximately $30,000 in shared use path surfacing annually, increasing over time as the system mileage increases. Shared Use Path Surfacing Due to the expensive burden of ongoing capital maintenance to asphalt paths, it is recommended that wherever possible Bozeman adopt a concrete surface standard for future shared use paths. Concrete does not require seal coats, or resurfacing of any kind and lasts considera-bly longer resulting in a lower life-cycle cost for the City. A new City standard detail should be created that incorporates expansion joints every 100 feet, with saw-cut intermediate joints every 10 feet for path smoothness and snow removal. 271
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 107 Transportation Master Plan Figure 4.5: Bicycle Facility Recommendations 909019186411345205345235191S19THAVEHIGHLAND BLVDS3RDAVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDN 11TH AVEDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTER LNBABCOCKSTEVALLEYCENTERRDPEACH STMENDENHALL STSCHURCHAVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRMAIN STBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEDURSTON RDS3RDAVEGRAF ST
S 27TH AVEFOWLER LNSOURDOUGH RDTAYABESHOCKUP RDFORT ELLIS RDHAGGERTY LNS 7TH AVES 6TH AVEOAK STN 15TH AVEGOOCH HILL RDFERGUSON AVEDAVIS LNN 27TH AVES 23RD AVEL STMC ILH AT TA N R DSTORY MILL RDMANLEY RDHIDDEN VALLEY RDHARPER PUCKETT RDLOVE LNBABCOCK STTAMARACK STCATAMOUNT STCATTAIL STGARFIELD STLINCOLN STGRANT STCLEVELAND STSTUCKY RDGRAF STBLACKWOOD RDGOLDENSTEIN LN0½11½¼MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA, ALTAStudy AreaBozeman City LimitsMontana State UniversityBicycle FacilityRecommendationsFacility RecommendationsBicycle BoulevardBike LaneShared RoadwayShared Use Path272
CHAPTER 4: Improving the System Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 108 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 273
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 109 Transportation Master Plan Chapter 5 Policy and Planning Framework This portion of the TMP addresses several topics that link the transportation system to broader quality of life considerations within the com-munity. Federal regulations for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) require long range transportation plans "include both long-range and short-range program strategies/actions that lead to the development of an integrated intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods." While this is obviously a key consideration for the Bozeman TMP (i.e. non-MPO), it must be recognized that the design, modal mix, and location of transportation infrastructure and facilities can directly affect urban form, functions, and community character. Current directions in transportation planning place importance on developing transportation systems that help reduce unnecessary travel delays and manage travel demands in ways that create balanced multimodal networks that offer multiple transportation choices. Transporta-tion systems also need to provide facilities and services to help achieve reliable and timely access to jobs, community services, affordable housing, and schools while helping create safe streets and improving economic competitiveness, and enhancing unique community charac-teristics. Topics addressed on the following pages include: the triple bottom line (TBL) framework, transportation demand management, active trans-portation programs, level of service, MPO planning requirements, and livability. These topics are all key components to the development of a TMP that helps support and enhance the overall quality of life in the Bozeman area. 274
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 110 5.1. TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE INFLUENCE Throughout the TMP process, it became clear that Bozeman citizens desire to live in a sustain-able community and expect planning activities to promote a sustainability philosophy each and every day. Numerous Bozeman planning documents express the community’s resolve to act sustainably. This philosophy could be captured in the following phrase: to systemically, crea-tively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which its citi-zens depend. Many communities express their desire for sustainability through a concept known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). The TBL approach means that an entity is committed to incorporate sustain-able development principles into its decisions and actions. There are numerous examples na-tionwide of TBL assessment methods for internal or external City projects. The impacts of a transportation project can be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively against three “im-pact factors” to judge how the City is progressing in meeting sustainability goals. Projects, programs and targets developed as part of this TMP were done so with sensitivity to the social, economic and environmental well-being of the community. A description of the three primary impact factors that comprise the TBL framework are shown below. 5.1.1. ECONOMIC HEALTH The premise of Economic Health is that Bozeman supports creation of a healthy local economy with new jobs, businesses, and economic opportunities. Goals for Economic Health focus on development of a diverse economy, enhanced sustain-able practices for existing businesses, green and clean technology jobs, and creation or retention of family waged jobs. Projects, programs and targets developed as part of this TMP were done so with sensitivity to the social, economic and environmental well-being of the community. 275
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 111 Transportation Master Plan 5.1.2. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH The premise of Environmental Health is that Bozeman promotes healthy, resilient ecosystems, clean air, water, and land. Goals include decreased pollution and waste, lowering carbon emissions that contribute to climate change, lowering fossil fuel use, and decreasing or eliminating toxic product use. Environmental Health advocates preventing pollution, reducing use, promoting reuse, and recycling natural resources. 5.1.3. SOCIAL EQUITY The premise of Social Equity is that Bozeman places priority upon protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the full range of universal human rights, including those pertaining to civil, political, social, economic, and cultural concerns. Goals include providing adequate access to employment, food, housing, clothing, recreational opportunities, a safe and healthy envi-ronment and social services. Goals also include eliminating systemic barriers to equitable treatment and inclusion, and accommodating the differences among people. Social equity emphasizes justice, impartiality, and equal opportunity for all. 5.2. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TDM measures came into being during the 1970s and 1980s in response to a desire to save energy, improve air quality, and reduce peak-period congestion. TDM strategies focused on identifying alternates to single occupant vehicle use during commuting hours. Therefore, such things as carpooling, vanpooling, transit use, walking and bicycling for work purposes are most often associated with TDM. Due to the expe-riences with these traditional TDM measures over the past few decades, it became clear that the whole TDM concept needed to be changed. Recent TDM measures include flextime, a compressed workweek and telecommuting. In addition to addressing commute trip issues, manag-ing demand on the transportation system includes addressing traffic congestion associated with special events, such as MSU football games, concerts, the Downtown Christmas Stroll, and other large cultural or sporting events held within the community. A definition of TDM follows: TDM programs are designed to maximize the people-moving capability of the transportation system by increasing the number of persons in a vehicle, or by influencing the time of, or need to, travel. (FHWA, 1994) Since 1994, TDM has been expanded to also include route choice. A parallel arterial with excess capacity near a congested arterial can be used to manage the transportation system to decrease congestion for all transportation users. 276
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 112 The city of Bozeman is embarking on a golden opportunity beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 with the commitment for financial participation for a newly created TDM coordinator to be based at WTI. This is the first position of its kind in the Greater Bozeman area, and is being funded equally by the city of Bozeman, Montana State University, and a Federal grant received by WTI. The length of the funded position is three-years through FY 2019. 5.2.1. ROLE OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TDM strategies are an important part of the Bozeman TMP due to their inherent ability to provide the following benefits to the commuting public: Better transportation accessibility Better transportation predictability More, and timelier, information A range of commute choices Enhanced transportation system performance TDM measures can also be applied to non-commuter traffic and are especially easy to adapt to tourism, special events, emergencies and construction. The benefits to these traffic users are similar to those for commuters 5.2.2. TDM STRATEGIES TDM strategies, which are or have been used by other communities in the United States, are discussed in this section. By capitalizing on the use of these options, the existing vehicular infrastructure can be made to function at better levels of service for longer periods of time. Ultimately, this will result in lower per year costs for infrastructure replacement and expansion projects, not to mention less disruption to the users of the transportation system. While some of these options may work well in the Bozeman area, some may be inappropriate. Additionally, some of these options are more effective than others. To provide a TDM system that is effective in managing demand, a combination of these methods will be necessary. Flextime When provided by employers, flextime allows workers to adjust their commuting time away from the peak periods. This means that employees are allowed some flexibility in their daily work schedules. For example, rather than all employees working 8:00 to 4:30, some might work 7:30 to 4:00, and others 9:00 to 5:30. This provides the workers with a less stressful commute, allows flexibility for family activities and lowers the number of vehicles using the transportation system during peak times. This in turn can translate into reduced traffic congestion, support for 277
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 113 Transportation Master Plan ridesharing and public transit use, and benefits to employees. Flextime allows commuters to match their work schedules with transit and rideshare schedules, which can significantly increase the feasibility of using these modes. Costs for implementing this type of TDM strategy can include increased administrative and management responsibilities for the employer, and more difficulty in evaluating an employee’s productivity. Alternate Work Schedule This strategy involves using alternate work hours for all employees. It would entail having the beginning of the normal workday start at a time other than 8:00 a.m. For example, starting the workday at 7:30 a.m. would allow all employees to reach the work site in advance of the peak commute time. Additionally, since they will be leaving work at 4:30 p.m., they will be home before the peak commute time, and have more time in the evening to participate in family or community activities. This can be a very desirable side benefit for the employees. This has a similar effect on traffic as flextime, but does not give individual employees as much control over their schedules. Compressed Work Week A compressed work week is different from offering “flextime” or the “alternate work schedule” in that the work week is actually reduced from the standard “five-days-a-week” work schedule. An example would be employers giving their workers the opportunity to work four ten-hour days a week. A compressed work week reduces commute travel (although this reduction may be modest if employees take additional car trips during non-work days or move farther from worksites). Costs for implementing this type of TDM strategy may be a reduction in productivity (employees become less productive at the end of a long day), a reduction in total hours worked, and it may be perceived as wasteful by the public (for example, if staffing at public agencies is low on Fridays). Telecommuting Telecommuting in the work place offers a good chance to reduce the dependence to travel to work via car or bus. This is especially true in technical positions and some fields in the medical industry (such as medical transcription). Additionally, opportunities for distance learning, shopping via computers, basic health care services and recreation also exist and can serve to reduce vehicular travel on the transportation system. Telecommuting is usually implemented in response to an employee request, more so than instigated by the employer. Since tele-commuting reduces commute trips, it can significantly reduce congestion and parking costs. It is highly valued by many employees and tends to increase their productivity and job satisfaction. Costs associated with this TDM strategy include increased administrative and management responsibilities, and more difficult evaluation of employee productivity. Some employees find telecommuting difficult and isolating. Telecom-muting also may reduce staff coverage and interaction, and make meetings difficult to schedule. Many employers in Bozeman currently allow some form of telecommuting. 278
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 114 Ride Sharing (carpooling) Carpooling is traditionally one of the most widely considered TDM strategies. The idea is to consolidate drivers of single occupancy vehicles into fewer vehicles, with the result being a reduction in congestion. Carpooling is generally limited to those persons whose schedules are rigid and not flexible in nature. Studies have shown that carpooling is most effective for longer trips greater than ten miles in each direction. Aside for the initial administrative cost of set-up and marketing, ridesharing also may encourage urban sprawl by making longer-distance commutes more affordable. Vanpooling Vanpooling is a strategy that encourages employees to utilize a larger vehicle than the traditional standard automobile to arrive at work. Vans typically hold twelve or more persons. Vanpooling generally does not require high levels of subsidy usually associated with a fixed-route or demand-responsive transit service. They can often times be designed to be self-sufficient. The van is typically provided by the employer, or a vanpool brokerage agency, which provides the insurance. Bicycling Bicycling can substitute directly for automobile trips. Communities that improve cycling conditions often experience significant increases in bicycle travel and related reductions in vehicle travel. Providing increased bicycling opportunities can help contribute to quality of life im-provements as well. Incentives to increase bicycle usage as a TDM strategy include: construction improvements to bike paths and bike lanes; correcting specific roadway hazards (potholes, cracks, narrow lanes, etc.); development of a more connected bikeway street network; devel-opment of safety education, law enforcement and encouragement programs; and the solicitation and addressing of bicycling security/safety concerns. Potential costs of this TDM strategy are expenses associated with creating and maintaining the bikeway network, potential liability and accident risks (in some cases), and increased stress to drivers. Walking Walking as a TDM strategy has the ability to substitute directly for automobile trips. A relatively short non-motorized trip often substitutes for a longer car trip. For example, a shopper might choose between walking to a small local store versus driving a longer distance to shop at a supermarket. Incentives to encourage walking in a community can include: making improvements to sidewalks, crosswalks and paths by designing transportation systems that accommodate special needs (including people using wheelchairs, walkers, strollers and hand carts); providing covered walkways, loading and waiting areas; improving pedestrian accessibility by creating location-efficient, clustered, mixed land use patterns; and soliciting and addressing pedestrian security/safety concerns. Costs are similar to that of bicycling and are generally asso-ciated with program expenses and facility improvements. 279
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 115 Transportation Master Plan Park & Ride Lots Park and ride lots are effective for communities with substantial suburb to downtown commute patterns. Park and ride consists of parking facilities at transit stations, bus stops and highway on-ramps, particularly at the urban fringe, to facilitate transit and rideshare use. Parking is generally free or significantly less expensive than in urban centers. Costs are primarily associated with facility construction and operation. Car Sharing Car sharing is a demand reducing technique that allows families within a neighborhood to reduce the number of cars they own and share a vehicle for the limited times when an additional vehicle is absolutely essential. Costs are primarily related to creation, startup and administra-tive costs of a car sharing organization. Traditional Transit Traditional transit service is an effective TDM strategy. Several methods to increase transit usage within the community are to improve overall transit service (including more service, faster service and more comfortable service) and improve rider information and marketing programs. The costs of providing transit depend on many factors, including the type of transit service, traffic conditions and ridership. TDM strategies that encourage increased ridership can be very cost effective. These strategies may include offering bicycle carrying components on the transit vehicle, changing schedules to complement adjacent industries, etc. Express Bus Service Express bus service as a TDM strategy has been used by larger cities in the nation as a means to change driver vehicle characteristics. The use of an express bus service is founded on the idea that service between two points of travel can either be done faster or equal to the private automobile (or a conventional bus service that is not “express”). Installing/Increasing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) The use of ITS methods to alert motorists of disruptions to the transportation system will be well received by the transportation users, and are highly effective tools for managing transportation demands. Installing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes HOV lanes are generally used on very congested highways where intersections and access control is somewhat limited. They also can be utilized on urban arterials. A HOV is typically described as having two or more persons in the vehicle during the time of travel. The benefits of a HOV lane in a congested corridor is that increased travel speeds and reliability for HOV passengers is realized. The costs include project construction, management and enforcement. Some critics also argue that HOV lanes encourage urban sprawl, contribute to poor air quality, and increase crash rates due to conflicts between vehicles in higher-speed HOV lanes and vehicles in lower speed general use lanes. 280
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 116 Ramp Metering Ramp metering has been used by some communities and consists of providing a modified traffic signal at on ramps to interstate highway facilities. Traffic Calming Traffic calming refers to various design features and strategies intended to reduce vehicle traffic speeds and volumes on a particular roadway. Traffic calming projects can range from minor modifications of an individual street to comprehensive redesign of a road network. Traffic calming can be an effective TDM strategy in that its use can alter and/or deter driver characteristics by forcing the driver to either use a different route or to use an alternative type of transportation (such as transit, bicycling, walking, etc.). Costs of this TDM strategy include construction, potential increase in drivers’ effort and frustration, and potential problems for bicyclists and visually impaired pedestrians. Identifying and Using Special Routes and Detours for Emergencies or Special Events This type of TDM strategy includes modifications to driver patterns during special events or emergencies. They can typically be completed with intensive temporary signing or traffic control personnel. A prime example would be modifying travel patterns before, during and after a MSU football game or the Downtown Christmas Stroll. Temporary traffic control via signs and flaggers are implemented to provide a swift and safe exit after applicable events. Linked Trips This strategy entails combining trips into a logical sequence that reduces the total miles driven on the surrounding transportation system. These trips are generated by associated facilities within a mixed-use development or within an area of the community where adjacent land uses are varied and offer services that would limit the need to travel large distances on the transportation system. Higher Parking Costs for Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV) Intuitively, free parking provided by employers is a tremendous incentive for driving alone. If the driver of a SOV is not penalized in some form, there is no perceived reason not to drive to the workplace. One way to counter this reality is to charge a higher price for parking for the SOV user. Preferential Parking for Rideshare/Carpool/Vanpools This concept ties into the discussion above regarding parking of the SOV user. Preferential parking, such as delineating spaces closer to an office for riders sharing their commute or reduced/free parking, can be an effective TDM strategy. 281
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 117 Transportation Master Plan Subsidized Transit by Employers A subsidized transit program, typically offered by employers to their employees, consists of the employer either reimbursing or paying for transit services in full as a benefit to the employee. This usually comes in the form of a monthly or annual transit pass. Studies show that once a pass is received by an employee, the tendency to use the system rises dramatically. Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) Programs for Transit Riders The guaranteeing of a ride home for transit users is a wise choice for all transit systems, since it gives the users a measure of calm knowing that they will be able to get home. A GRH program provides an occasional subsidized ride to commuters who use alternative modes, for example, if a bus rider must return home in an emergency, or a car pooler must stay at work later than expected. This addresses a common objection to the use of alternative modes. GRH programs may use taxies, company vehicles or rental cars. GRH trips may be free or they may require a modest co-payment. Mandatory TDM Measures for Large Employers Some communities encourage large employers (typically with at least 50 to 100 employees) to mandate TDM strategies for their employees. This is a control that can be required by local governments on developers, employers, or building managers. The regulatory agencies often times provide incentives for large employers to make TDM strategies more appealing, such as reduced transit fares, preferred parking, etc. Required Densification / Mixed Use Elements for New Developments Requiring new developments to be dense and contain mixed-use elements will ensure that these developments are urban in character and have some services that can be reached by biking, walking or using other non-automobile methods. This also relates to the concept of “linked” or “shared” trips presented earlier. As new developments are proposed, local and regional planners have the opportunity to dictate responsible and effective land use to encourage “shared” trips and reduce impacts to the surrounding transportation system. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Transit Oriented Development (TOD) refers to residential and commercial areas designed to maximize access by transit and non-motorized transportation, and with other features to encourage transit ridership. A TOD usually consists of a neighborhood with a rail or bus station, surrounded by relatively high-density development, with progressively lower-density spreading outwards. Transit Oriented Development generally requires about seven residential units per acre in residential areas and twenty-five employees per acre in commercial centers to adequately justify transit ridership. Transit ridership is also affected by factors such as employment density and clustering, demographic mix (students, seniors and lower-income people tend to be heavy transit users), transit pricing and rider subsidies, and the quality of transit service. 282
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 118 Alternating Directions of Travel Lanes This method of TDM is similar to that of traffic calming in that it strives to change driver characteristics and possibly enable users of the system to try different modes of travel. It also can serve to relieve a corridor during particularly heavy times of the day. 5.2.3. EFFECTIVENESS OF TDM STRATEGIES Measuring the effectiveness of TDM strategies can be done using several different methods such as cost, usage, or those listed below: Reduced traffic during commute times; Reduced or stable peak hour traffic volumes; Increased commuter traffic at off peak times; Increased use of modes other than single occupant vehicles; Increased use of designated routes during emergencies or special events; Eased use of the transportation system by tourists or others unfamiliar with the system; Reduced travel time during peak hours; and/or Fewer crashes during peak hours. In order to provide a TDM system that will address the needs of the Bozeman area, the elements of the system must be acceptable to the general population. If elements are proposed which are not acceptable, the TDM system goals will not be reached. 5.2.4. TDM CONCLUSIONS Many TDM options are available for use in the Bozeman area. Existing infrastructure is in place to use alternative modes of transportation including transit, walking and bicycling. Some areas will need further expansion as the community grows. There are several major employers in the Bozeman area including government, Bozeman Deaconess, Montana State University, Oracle, and the Bozeman School District who could be approached to implement work week adjustments such as flex time, alternate work hours, and/or compressed work weeks. Desig-nating some prime parking spots for carpooling could increase use among employees and provide positive recognition for those who carpool. Developing strategies to manage the demand on the system generated by specific repeatable events such as MSU football games, concerts, or the Christmas Stroll would involve a one-time use of City and/or County staff time. Adjustments to these strategies could be made after seeing how they work. Coordination with the Police Department and/or Sheriff’s Office, or other departments that would help implement these plans, would then be needed on an intermittent basis. Implementing these strategies in the Bozeman area could be done quickly and would be obvious to the traveling public. As such, it would be easy to demonstrate a successful TDM program and build approval for imple-menting additional TDM strategies. 283
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 119 Transportation Master Plan 5.3. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS Active transportation programs are a component of an overall TDM strategy; however, rather than focusing solely on reducing vehicle trips, these programs target a wider variety of topics and subject matter. Active transportation programs are typically focused around the ‘Six E’s’, which include: Encouragement Education Enforcement Evaluation Equity Engineering (infrastructure covered in Chapter 4) Bozeman has a supportive network of community groups and non-profits that have implemented many active transportation programs meant to educate and encourage residents to walk and bicycle for transportation and recreation. Table 2.5 in Chapter 2 summarizes the existing programs that are currently supported by a variety of groups and the City of Bozeman. While the number and scope of these programs is impressive, there remain a number of other potential active transportation programs that could be implemented that would provide additional benefit. Table 5.1 provides a variety of potential programs that have been effective in similar communities nationwide. This table is intended to provide ideas from which to advance programs rather than be a definitive list of recommendations. Most implemented programs may involve partnerships with the City of Bozeman; however, will likely be organized by local non-profits or advocacy groups. Table 5.1: Potential Future Non-motorized Program Ideas Program Name Program Description Program Example Encouragement: Encouragement programs seek to create a supportive environment and culture around walking and biking. Media Campaign Positive images and messages of people walking and/or biking are displayed on a variety of media outlets including billboards, banners, buses, posters, or sidewalk stencils. The goal of a media campaign can be to create a supportive culture by showing people of different ages and backgrounds walking and biking or to encourage people to try walking and biking by showing the benefits. Bike PGH (Pittsburgh, PA): http://bikepgh.org/care/ Kidical Mass Fun, short group bike ride for all ages of kids and their parents. Rides often has a theme (e.g. Halloween ride, light right) and connects to parks. Kidical Mass (Eugene, OR): http://www.kidicalmass.org/ Ames Kidical Mass (Ames, IA): https://www.facebook.com/ameskidicalmass/ 284
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 120 Program Name Program Description Program Example Bike Friendly Businesses Businesses are recognized for their efforts to make their business more welcoming to bicycling employees and customers. Becoming a Bicycle Friendly Business (The League of American Bicyclists:) http://bikeleague.org/business Bike Valet Volunteers park bikes at events to make bicycling there more convenient. Event attendees pay for valet services raising money for the organization volunteering at the valet station. Bike SLO County Bike Valet (San Luis Obispo County, CA): https://bikeslocounty.org/programs/valet/ Go by Bike - Bike Valet (Portland, OR): http://www.gobybikepdx.com/ Bike Buddy Program Less-experienced bicyclists are paired with a trained mentor to help them plan routes, answer questions about gear, and practice riding. The partners may bike to work or school together to help the less-experienced bicyclist feel more confident about biking there. Bike Buddy (University of Washington): https://www.washington.edu/facilities/transportation/bikebuddy Chicago Bike Buddies (Chicago, IL): http://chicagobikebuddies.com/ SmartTrips Program A target area or group such as neighborhood residents, employees, students, or new residents receive transportation information customized to their interests to help them try walking, biking, riding transit, and sharing rides. In further support of helping participants change their transportation habits, the program hosts fun events and sends communications with encouraging messages. Green Trips (Chattanooga, TN): http://www.greentripscha.org/about/what-is-green-trips/ SmartTrips (Eugene, OR): https://www.eugene-or.gov/656/SmartTrips-Eugene Education: Education programs help participants develop the skills and knowledge to be safe and confident while walking and biking. Active Transportation Safety Campaign Active Transportation Safety Campaigns educate drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists on the rules of the road; encourage road users to respect one another; or target a specific behavior like looking for pedestrians while driving. Audiences can be reached through messaging and graphics on a variety of media outlets including public safety announcements, billboards, banners, buses, and posters. Lights, helmets, and bumper stickers giveaways can reinforce the campaign message. Heads Up Pedestrian Safety Campaign, City of Eureka, CA: http://www.krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/eureka-news/humboldt/new-campaign-heads-up-promotes-pedestrian-safety_20160513185612626/11247238 Bike Brightly, Bicycle Coalition of Maine: http://www.bikemaine.org/bike-brightly Family Bicycling Program Families learn about biking with little ones including what to ride, how to transport children, what to bring, and important safety skills to know. Youth and Family Classes (San Francisco, CA): http://www.sfbike.org/our-work/youth-family/ Diversion Program First-time offenders of bicycle and/or pedestrian violations take a class instead of paying a fine. The class can cover topics such as local and state laws. Huntington Beach Ticket Diversion Program (Huntington Beach, CA): http://gohumansocal.org/Documents/Tools/CaseStudy_HuntingtonBeach.pdf Tucson City Court and Pima County (Tucson, AZ): http://www.ezazbikeped.com/ Videos Videos show how to ride on and near new facilities. Videos can play at locations like Courthouses, Driver’s License Stations, and schools. How to Ride: Drive Your Bicycle (Safe Streets Save Lives): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EezZDtGV5Fo "Walk This Way": Pedestrian Safety for Young Children (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t2oX6zQEyU 285
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 121 Transportation Master Plan Program Name Program Description Program Example Adult Learn-to-Ride Program Adults learn how to bike and practice skills at an off-street location and then graduate to practicing on the street as a group. Certified League of American Bicyclists could teach this class. Learn to Ride (Washington Area Bicyclist Association): http://www.waba.org/adult-education/ Enforcement: Enforcement programs support safe behaviors for drivers and people walking and biking. Bicycle and Pedestrian Stings Police departments organize stings for cars that do not yield the right of way to a pedestrian or attempts an unsafe passing of a bicyclist. Media should be notified of the sting for additional coverage. Instead of tickets, officers can provide drivers with information. City of Chicago: http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/provdrs/ped/svcs/crosswalk_enforcementinitiatives.html Police Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Course Police receive education around bike and pedestrian laws, safety, crash investigation, and other topics. Watch For Me - NC Tactical Training Workshop Enforcement for Pedestrian Safety (NC): http://www.webike.org/tag/law-enforcement-training Evaluation: Evaluation efforts monitor programs to measure investments and document lessons learned. Student Hand Raising Tally School students raise their hands in response to questions about whether they biked or walked to school and document responses. Student Hand Tallies (Spare the Air Youth): http://www.sparetheairyouth.org/student-hand-tallies Improved Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program Bicyclists and pedestrians are counted with all traffic data collection. Traffic signal equipment can be utilized counting. Trail counters can be funded and installed at key locations such as along the Gallagator trail. Trail Counter Program (New River Valley Regional Commission, VA): http://www.nrvrc.org/trailcounterprogram/# Equity: Equity programs seek to educate and encourage all social and economic groups, in addition to using active transportation as a ladder of opportunity. Bike Program for Women Women-focused clinics cover the basics of bike maintenance, riding safety, shopping by bike, and commute tips. Women Bike (Street Trust, Portland, OR): https://www.thestreettrust.org/get-involved/women-bike/ Education programs as part of Bike Kitchen Activities The Bozeman Bike Kitchen already fulfills an equity niche and programs run out of the bike kitchen aimed at education and encouragement may target different demographics than similar programs done by other organizations. Other Tactical Urbanism/Demonstration Project Low-cost, temporary changes are made to a street to allow people to try walking or biking on a new facility. An example could include the proposed cycle track along Babcock Street in Downtown Bozeman. The Tactical Urbanists Guide: http://tacticalurbanismguide.com/ Formation of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Form a TAC for the various non-profits and organizations planning biking and walking activities in Bozeman to coordinate and combine efforts. A calendar of all bicycle and pedestrian events could be offered on the City's website. 286
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 122 5.4. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS STANDARDS Traffic performance measure policies are used to assist in determining when a given facility or intersection needs to be upgraded or improved due to new development. The city of Bozeman’s current development standards are defined in the Bozeman Code of Ordinance11 and provide requirements for intersection performance based on LOS. The current standards were evaluated to determine if changes are necessary to better mitigate impacts from development. A review of traffic operations and development standards for other peer communities was con-ducted. While no single reviewed standard may be directly applicable to Bozeman, the review does provide some ideas for modifications to Bozeman’s existing development standards. Appendix J contains the Traffic Operations and Best Practices Technical Memorandum. The existing standards for the Bozeman require developers to submit traffic impact studies documenting existing and projected traffic con-ditions adjacent to the development. This approach relies on intersection LOS to measure the impact of developments and often results in a narrowly focused view of the transportation system. Impacts from development are felt throughout the community, not just at adjacent intersections. The current standards are often unattainable due to funding or other constraints, and in some cases, may be undesirable. Standards based on intersection LOS are a microscopic approach to evaluating traffic operations. Intersection LOS defines intersection per-formance in terms of vehicle delay and does not factor in alternative travel modes nor does it take into consideration the health of the overall transportation system. Intersection LOS is often based on a single hour, or peak hours, for which the system is most congested. A more macroscopic approach to improving the transportation system, not just reducing peak hour delay at single intersections, should be taken. Investment in other parts of the transportation network may be more appropriate than trying to fix intersections near new development. Some areas of town require more infrastructure investment than others. For example, a residential development on the outskirts of town where current infrastructure is lacking would be more costly to the community than the same size and type of development in an area where infrastructure is already built to current standards. Older areas of town are already built up and have constraints which limit the ability to add vehicle capacity. These areas are likely at their ultimate capacity. Undeveloped areas, however, require higher investment costs to provide new infrastructure. Other approaches to improving travel conditions, such as providing for active transportation modes and TDM strategies, should be encouraged to help reduce impacts, delay, and improve safety for all users. Instead of requiring developers to conduct traffic impact studies, it may be desirable, and simpler, to evaluate impacts based on the type, location and size of the development. Ultimately, the goal is to develop the transportation network to the standards contained in the Bozeman TMP. For those roadways already built to recommended standards, no further infrastructure investment is needed; focus can instead be put on improving accommodations for active travel modes and implementing TDM strategies. For other areas, significant costs are likely needed to improve infrastructure to meet current standards. Standards focusing on the specifics of the development, not just on a set threshold for adjacent intersection, would allow for a holistic approach to improving the transportation system. 287
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 123 Transportation Master Plan 5.5. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANNING REQUIREMENTS An MPO is a federally mandated and federally funded transportation policy-making organization in the United States that is made up of representatives from local government and governmental transportation authorities. MPOs were introduced by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, which required the formation of an MPO for any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000. Federal funding for transpor-tation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures of governmental funds for transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (“3‑C”) planning process. Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes are governed by federal law (23 U.S.C. §§ 134–135). Transparency through public access to participation in the planning process and electronic publication of plans is required by federal law. It is highly likely that if the current criteria for MPOs remain, the Greater Bozeman area will surpass the 50,000 population threshold within the urban area during the 2020 census. The federal government mandates MPOs to ensure that federal transportation funds are spent in a manner that has a basis in metropolitan region-wide plans developed through intergovernmental collaboration, rational analysis, and consensus-based decision making. Accordingly, MPOs are essential to ensure that: Scarce federal and other transportation funding resources are allocated appropriately; Planning reflects the region’s shared vision for its future; A comprehensive examination of the region’s future and investment alternatives has occurred; and Facilitation of governments, interested parties, and residents occur in a collaborative manner in the planning process. 5.5.1. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Typically, an MPO governance structure includes a variety of committees as well as a professional staff. The “transportation policy coordinating committee” is the top-level decision-making body for the planning organization. In most MPOs, the TPCC comprises: Elected or appointed officials from local governmental jurisdictions such as municipalities or counties; Representatives of different transportation modes, such as public transit, freight, bicycle/pedestrian; State agency officials such as, state Department of Transportation, environmental agency, etc.; and Non-voting members such as FHWA, FTA, FAA, FRA, staff advisers from state DOTs, Chambers of Commerce, etc. A TPCC member typically is an elected or appointed official of one of the MPO’s constituent local jurisdictions. The TPCC member thus has legal authority to speak and act on behalf of that jurisdiction in the MPO setting. Federal law, however, does not require members of an MPO TPCC to be representatives of the metropolitan areas' populations. The TPCC’s responsibilities include debating and making decisions on key 288
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 124 MPO actions and issues, including adoption of the metropolitan long-range transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, annual planning work programs, budgets, and other policy documents. The TPCC also may play an active role in key decision points or milestones associated with MPO plans and studies, as well as conducting public hearings and meetings. An appointed transportation technical advisory committee (TTAC) develops the recommendations for consideration by the TPCC and establishes a ranked proposal for work plans. The TTAC acts as an advisory body to the TPCC for transportation issues that primarily are technical in nature. The TTAC interacts with the MPO’s professional staff on technical matters related to planning, analysis tasks, and projects. Through this work, the TTAC develops recom-mendations on projects and programs for TPCC consideration. The TTAC typically comprises staff-level officials of local, state, and federal agencies. In addition, a TTAC may include representatives of interest groups, various transportation modes, and local citizens. Usually MPOs retain a core professional staff in order to ensure the ability to carry out the required metropolitan planning process in an effective and expeditious manner. The size and qualifications of this staff may vary by MPO, since no two metropolitan areas have identical planning needs. Most MPOs, however, require at least some staff dedicated solely to MPO process oversight and management because of the complexity of the process and need to ensure that requirements are properly addressed. 5.5.2. CORE FUNCTIONS There are five core functions of an MPO: 1. Establish a setting. Establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision-making in the metropolitan area. 2. Evaluate alternatives. Evaluate transportation alternatives, scaled to the size and complexity of the region, to the nature of its trans-portation issues, and to the realistically available options. 3. Maintain a Regional Transportation Plan. Develop and update a fiscally constrained long-range transportation plan covering a plan-ning horizon of at least twenty years that fosters mobility and access for people and goods, efficient system performance and preser-vation, and quality of life. 4. Develop a Transportation Improvement Program. Develop a fiscally constrained program based on the long-range transportation plan and designed to serve the metropolitan area’s goals, while using spending, regulating, operating, management, and financial tools. 5. Involve the public. Involve the general public and all the significantly affected sub-groups in the four essential functions listed above. If the metropolitan area is designated as an air quality non-attainment or maintenance area, then the MPO must also protect air quality – i.e. transportation plans, programs, and projects must conform with the air quality plan, known as the “state implementation plan”, for the state within which the metropolitan area lies. 289
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 125 Transportation Master Plan Presently, most MPOs have no authority to raise revenues such as to levy taxes on their own, rather, they are designed to allow local officials to decide collaboratively how to spend available federal and other governmental transportation funds in their urbanized areas. The funding for the operations of an MPO comes from a combination of federal transportation funds and required matching funds from state and local governments. 5.6. LIVABILITY Livability is a national movement with local implications that are supported within the Bozeman area. Providing transportation options to improve access to housing, jobs, businesses, services and social activities are fundamental desires of most transportation system user groups. Active transportation results in a physically fit population, minimizes auto emissions, extends the life of transportation infrastructure, and delays the needs for infrastructure improvements. Fostering livability in transportation projects and programs will result in improved quality of life; will create a more efficient and accessible transportation network; and will serve the mobility needs of communities, families, and businesses. The concept of livability, which has evolved over the years, is often used to describe a range of initiatives aimed at improving community quality of life while supporting broader sustainability goals. Livability en-compasses multi-dimensional issues relative to community design, land use, environmental protection and enhancement, mobility and accessibility, public health, and economic well-being. Incorporating livability into transportation planning, programs, and projects is not a new concept. Communities, developers, advocacy groups, businesses, and neighborhood residents have been working for generations to make places more livable through transportation initiatives, with varying degrees of support from local, regional, State, and Federal agencies. These initiatives have used a range of terms to describe an overlapping set of objectives and strategies-livability, sustainability, community impact assessment, scenario planning, land use and trans-portation, smart growth, walkable communities, new urbanism, healthy neighborhoods, active living, transit-oriented development, complete streets, context-sensitive solutions, and many others. The key concept be-hind livability in transportation: transportation planning is a process that must consider broader community goals. Livability in transportation is about integrating the quality, location, and type of transportation facilities and services available with other more comprehensive community plans and programs to help achieve broader community goals such as access to a variety of jobs, community services, affordable housing, quality schools, and safe streets. This includes: “Livability means being able to take your kids to school, go to work, see a doctor, drop by the grocery or Post Office, go out to dinner and a movie, and play with your kids at the park – all without having to get in your car” – Former U.S. Secretary of Transpor-tation Ray LaHood 290
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 126 Addressing road safety and capacity issues through better planning, design, and construction. Integrating health and community design considerations into the transportation planning process to create more livable places where residents and workers have a full range of transportation choices. Using TDM approaches and system management and operation strategies to maximize the efficiency of transportation investments. Maximizing and expanding new technologies such as ITS, green infrastructure, and quiet pavements. Developing fast, frequent, dependable public transportation to foster economic development and accessibility to a wide range of housing choices. Strategically connecting the modal pieces-bikeways, pedestrian facilities, transit services, and roadways-into a truly intermodal, inter-connected system. Enhancing the natural environment through improved storm water mitigation, enhanced air quality, and decreased greenhouse gases. Livability provides economic benefits to communities, businesses, and consumers. In practice, livable transportation systems accommodate a range of modes (walking, bicycling, transit, and automobiles) by creating mobility choice within more balanced multimodal transportation networks. This in turn helps support more sustainable patterns of development, whether in an urban, suburban, or rural context. Livable transportation systems can provide better access to jobs, community services, affordable housing, and schools, while helping to create safe streets, reduce energy use and emissions, reduce impacts on and enhance the natural and built environment, and support more efficient land use patterns. 5.6.1. LIVABILITY AND THE TMP The TMP reflects the future transportation needs of the Bozeman area and includes recommended actions, programs and projects to improve, enhance and better manage and operate the area’s transportation systems, promote alternative modes, accommodate bicyclists and pedes-trians, consider other non-motorized modes of transportation, and provide freight mobility. In general, recommendations in the TMP adhere to the livability principles established by the US DOT, HUD and EPA which are aimed at improving access to affordable housing, providing more transportation options, and lower transportation costs. By keeping these considerations in mind, transportation improvement programs and projects will not only accommodate existing travel, make the current transportation system more efficient, meet growing travel require-ments and improve mobility, but also be a catalyst for enhancing the overall livability of the Bozeman area. Livability is about linking the quality and location of transportation facilities to broader opportunities such as access to good jobs, affordable housing, quality schools, and safe streets. This includes addressing safety and capacity issues on all roads through better planning and design, making judicious decisions about improvement projects, and expanding the use of new technologies. 291
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 127 Transportation Master Plan The TMP continues local efforts to make the transportation network operate as efficiently and effectively as possible and promote a balanced transportation system with alternatives to the private vehicle. The analyses conducted for the TMP show that some components of the system operate poorly and congestion occurs daily and reaches severe conditions at some locations. However, it is important to preserve and maintain essential infrastructure and services, while making the system operate as efficiently as possible. It is also equally critical to enhance the mobility of people and goods by increasing mode choice, access and convenience, and strategically expanding transportation capacity. Although the highway system dominates movement, non-highway components are equally important and provide alternatives for other system users. 5.6.2. ALIGNMENT OF GOALS WITH FAST ACT AND LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES Although technically not required since Bozeman is not an MPO as per the 2010 Census, it is still desirable to ensure the alignment of local TMP transpor-tation goals with the FAST Act planning factors. Additionally, the Livability Prin-ciples from HUD/EPA/USDOT12, while technically not Federal law, are worthy national transportation process objectives that should be reviewed and con-sidered. Table 5.2 depicts the relationship between the proposed Bozeman TMP goals, the required FAST Act planning factors, and the objectives con-tained in the Livability Principles from HUD/EPA/USDOT. City residents commented throughout the planning process that Bozeman’s transportation system should provide choices, be sustainable, respect the environment and enhance livability. 292
CHAPTER 5: Policy and Planning Framework Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 128 Table 5.2: Alignment of Goals with FAST Act and Livability Principles Bozeman TMP Goals Goal 1: Main-tain the exist-ing transportation system. Goal 2: Improve the efficiency, performance and connectivity of a balanced transportation system. Goal 3: Promote consistency and coordination between land use and transportation planning to manage and de-velop the transportation sys-tem for all modes and users. Goal 4: Pro-vide a safe and secure transportation system. Goal 5: Support economic vitality of the com-munity. Goal 6: Protect and en-hance environmental sustainability, provide opportunities for active lifestyles, and conserve natural and cultural re-sources. Goal 7: Promote a fi-nancially sustainable transportation plan that is actively used to guide the transportation deci-sion-making process. FAST Act Planning Factors 1 Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, es-pecially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency. 2 Increase the safety of the transportation system for motor-ized and non-motorized users. 3 Increase the security of the transportation system for motor-ized and non-motorized users. 4 Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight. 5 Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns. 6 Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transpor-tation system, across and between modes, people and freight. 7 Promote efficient system management and operation. 8 Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. Livability Principles 1 Provide more transportation choices. 2 Promote equitable, affordable housing. 3 Enhance economic competitiveness. 4 Support existing communities. 5 Coordinate policies and leverage investment. 6 Value communities and neighborhoods. 293
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 129 Transportation Master Plan Chapter 6 Implementation and Financial Strategies 6.1. VISIONARY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK The visionary transportation network for Bozeman includes motorized and non-motorized facilities and services. For motorized, the visionary major street network consists of all interstate principal arterial, non-interstate principal arterial, minor arterial, and collector routes. Local streets are not included on the visionary major street network. This network is shown in Figure 6.1. For the visionary non-motorized trans-portation network, facilities include bicycle lane, bicycle boulevards, shared roadways, and shared use paths. This network is shown in Figure 6.2. Establishing a visionary transportation network is essential to ensure coordinated land development and overall community planning is real-ized. It is important that planners, landowners, developers, and City officials know where the future transportation network needs to be located. With an approved visionary major street and active transportation network, everyone will know where future facilities need to be located. This will assist everyone involved in anticipating right-of-way needs, and complimentary land uses. The study area was examined to determine the most appropriate long-term vision for the transportation network. For the motorized network, the principal arterials were set in place generally with two-mile spacing. The minor arterials were then generally inserted on a one-mile spacing to fill in between the principals. Some collector routes were also established. It is assumed that other collector routes would be established when the development patterns in an area are defined. For the non-motorized transportation network, facility attributes were defined on the basis of continuity, connecting destinations, topography, and geometric features of adjacent lands and roadways. All future alignments shown in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2 are conceptual in nature and may vary based on factors such as topography, wetlands, land ownership, and other unforeseen factors. The purpose of these figures is to illustrate the visionary transportation network at full build-out. It is likely that many of the corridors shown will not be developed into roads or paths for many decades to come. On the other hand, if development is proposed in a particular area, the visionary transportation network will ensure that the various facilities will be estab-lished in a fashion that produces an efficient and logical future transportation system. Presenting the visionary transportation network herein is an effort to help plan for the future development of the transportation system in the community. 294
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 130 Figure 6.1: Visionary Major Street Network 9090191848586411345205345235191191HIGHLAND BLVDS 3RD AVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTERLNBABCOCK STE VALLEY CENTER RDPEACH STMENDENHALL STS CHURCH AVE
S 19TH AVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEGALLATINRDHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEJACKRABBIT LNMAIN STDURSTON RDCOTTONWOOD RDDAVIS LNBABCOCK STBAXTER LNOAK STGARFIELD STPATTERSON RDFOWLER LNGOOCH HILL RDBLACKWOOD RDSOURDOUGH RDGOLDENSTEIN LNS 3RD AVESTUCKY RDFERGUSON AVEFOWLER AVE27TH STBEAR CANYON RD
LOVE LNHARPER PUCKETT RDGRAF STNASH RDBOZEMAN TRAIL TAYABESHOCKUP RDFRONTAGE RDFORT ELLIS RDGRAF ST
CATMOUNT STNELSON RDMCILHATTAN RDMANLEY RDSTORY MILL RDVisionary MajorStreet Network012½MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPA*The functional classifications shown are recommendedas part of the Bozeman TMP and do not reflect thefederally approved functional classification criteria.Functional Class*Future CollectorCollectorInterstatePrincipal ArterialFuture Principal ArterialFuture Minor ArterialMinor ArterialBozeman City LimitsStudy AreaMontana State University295
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 131 Transportation Master Plan Figure 6.2: Visionary Active Transportation Network 9090191848586411345205345235191191HIGHLAND BLVDS 3RD AVEWILLSON AVEGRIFFIN DRKAGY BLVDDURSTON RDOAK STCOLLEGE STBOZEMAN TRAIL RDBAXTERLNBABCOCK STE VALLEY CENTER RDPEACH STMENDENHALL STS CHURCH AVE
S 19TH AVESPRINGHILL RDS11THAVECOTTONWOOD RDS8THAVEGALLATINRDHUFFINE LNFRONTAGE RDROUSE AVEBRIDGER DRBRIDGERCANYONRDN 7TH AVEN 19TH AVEJACKRABBIT LNMAIN STDURSTON RDCOTTONWOOD RDDAVIS LNBABCOCK STBAXTER LNOAK STGARFIELD STPATTERSON RDFOWLER LNGOOCH HILL RDBLACKWOOD RDSOURDOUGH RDGOLDENSTEIN LNS 3RD AVESTUCKY RDFERGUSON AVEFOWLER AVE27TH STBEAR CANYON RD
LOVE LNHARPER PUCKETT RDGRAF STNASH RDBOZEMAN TRAIL TAYABESHOCKUP RDFRONTAGE RDFORT ELLIS RDGRAF ST
CATMOUNT STNELSON RDMCILHATTAN RDMANLEY RDSTORY MILL RDVisionary ActiveTransportationNetwork012½MilesBOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Map LegendRailroadSource: City of Bozeman, MDT, RPABozeman City LimitsStudy AreaMontana State UniversityBicycle BoulevardBike LaneShared RoadwayShared Use Path296
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 132 6.2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS Simply examining intersection level of service, roadway capacity and automobile travel times as a means of monitoring performance of the transportation system is no longer sufficient. Establishing and monitoring performance standards to measure annual progress in meeting transportation goals and achieving objectives, though technically not required according to the FAST Act, is fundamentally good planning practice. Performance measures must relate to the TMP goals and objectives and use statistical evidence to determine progress toward those goals and objectives. Performance measurements address the public’s demand for increased accountability and inform decision-makers on the effectiveness of the TMP. Goals and objectives were developed as part of the TMP planning process, and presented at multiple public forums. A range of possible performance measures and targets were developed and reviewed via a brainstorming session with the TMPs Technical Working Group in February, 2016. Concern was expressed by the TWG that any performance measure developed must be easily quantified and not unduly excessive to do so. The actual number of performance measures that were identified to carry forward in the TMP were limited due to the concern of staff and funding availability to track the progress. The following section depicts suggested performance measures and targets to consider for tracking over the planning horizon. Some of the suggested performance measures will require the collection of data that has not been collected in the past and will require coordination between multiple jurisdictions. Because performance measures have not previously been collected, the first round of measurements will take jurisdictional coordination to determine and refine the data collection methodology and may need to be used to set benchmarks for future year comparative evaluations. In certain cases, a specific measurement may be used to address more than one goal or objective. 6.2.1. PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS The proposed performance measures are directly related to the TMP goals and objectives. As presented in Chapter 1, the Bozeman TMP goals are generalized statements which broadly relate the physical environment to values and objectives that are specific and measurable statements related to the attainment of goals. During the planning process, numerous potential performance measures were identified and discussed for inclusion in the TMP. The TWG desired simple performance measures that could be easily quantified by staff, and that would make best use of limited City resources. A range of simple performance measures were developed that could be applied to a goal, or in many cases several goals. The goals and proposed performance measures, along with targets to monitor progress, are depicted in Table 6.1. 297
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 133 Transportation Master Plan Table 6.1: Proposed Performance Measures Goal Proposed Performance Measure Targets to Monitor Progress 1. Maintain the Existing Transportation System. Annual pavement condition index (PCI) inventories Number of miles of chip seal or pavement replacement Number of miles bike lanes / multi-use paths swept and plowed Maintain the average PCI in Bozeman at 77. Maintenance expenditures keep pace with system expansion and age. 2. Improve the Efficiency, Performance, and Connectivity of a Balanced Transportation System. Number of miles of bike lanes added per year Number of miles of shared-use paths added per year Number of miles of bike boulevards added per year Annual transit ridership Percent of city within 1/8 mile of bus stop or bike lane Percent mode share shifts as presented through annual ACS updates 75% of city within 1/8 mile of transit stop or bike lane. All street projects meet complete streets policy. 3. Promote Consistency and Coordination between Land Use and Transportation Planning to Manage and Develop the Transportation System for all Modes and Users. Number of miles of bike lanes added per year Number of miles of shared-use paths added per year Number of miles of bike boulevards added per year Annual transit ridership Percent of city within 1/8 mile of bus stop or bike lane Percent mode share shifts as presented through annual ACS updates Transportation projects conform to TMP and land use standards. Maximum road sized capped at 5 lanes. All street projects meet complete streets policy. Bike lanes/routes/multi-use paths with all arterials and collectors. 4. Provide a Safe and Secure Transportation System. Response time Number of crashes involving inattentive / distracted driving Number of fatalities and incapacitating injuries involving inattentive / distracted driving Number of citations issued by law enforcement for inattentive / distracted driving Number of unbelted persons involved in crashes Number of unbelted fatal and incapacitating injuries Number of citations issued by law enforcement for non-use of seat belts Annual number of bicyclists and pedestrians involved in crashes Annual number of bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities Annual number of bicyclist and pedestrian injuries Less than 90% crash rate of peer communities. Emergency services response time less than 6 minutes, 90% of time. 5. Support Economic Vitality of the Community. Number of miles of bike lanes added per year Number of miles of shared-use paths added per year Number of miles of bike boulevards added per year Annual transit ridership Percent of city within 1/8 mile of bus stop or bike lane Percent mode share shifts as presented through annual ACS updates All street projects meet complete streets policy. 298
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 134 Goal Proposed Performance Measure Targets to Monitor Progress 6. Protect and Enhance Environmental Sustainability, Provide Opportunities for Active Lifestyles, and Conserve Natural and Cultural Resources. Number of miles of bike lanes added per year Number of miles of shared-use paths added per year Number of miles of bike boulevards added per year Annual transit ridership Percent of city within 1/8 mile of bus stop or bike lane Percent mode share shifts as presented through annual ACS updates Increase commute mode share (ACS) from 5.8% to 11.4% (bicycles) and from 9.8% to 12.0% (pedestrians) by 2040. Increase overall mode share (ACS + NHTS) from 8.2% to 16.1% (bicycles) and from 26.4% to 32.5% (pedestrians) by 2040. 7. Promote a Financially Sustainable Transportation Plan that is Actively Used to Guide the Transportation Decision-making Process. Number of miles of bike lanes added per year Number of miles of shared-use paths added per year Number of miles of bike boulevards added per year Annual transit ridership Percent of city within 1/8 mile of bus stop or bike lane Percent mode share shifts as presented through annual ACS updates Funding increase proportionate to system expansion. All arterials are subject to advance design. 6.3. FUNDING Transportation improvements can be implemented using Federal, State, local and private funding sources. Historically, Federal and State funding programs have been used almost exclusively to construct and upgrade the major roads in the Bozeman area. Considering the current funding limits of these traditional programs, and the extensive list of recommended road projects, more funding will be required from local and private sources if all of the transportation network needs are to be met. This section discusses the financial plan for the TMP, projected out to the year 2040. The financial element of the TMP includes estimates of costs that would be required to implement the TMP as well as estimates of existing and contemplated sources of funds available to pay for these improvements. Due to the current funding limitations of these traditional programs, and the anticipated road development needs of the community, a greater amount of financing will be required from local and private sources if these needs are to be met. Much of the following information concerning the Federal and State funding programs was assembled with the assistance of the Statewide and Urban Planning Section of MDT. The intent was to identify traditional Federal, State and local sources of funds for transportation related projects and programs in the Bozeman area. A narrative description of each potential funding source is provided, including: the source of revenue; required match; purpose for which funds are intended; means by which the funds are distributed; and the agency or jurisdiction responsible for establishing priorities for use of the funds. 299
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 135 Transportation Master Plan 6.3.1. OVERVIEW OF TRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES MDT administers a number of programs that are funded from State and Federal sources. Each year, in accordance with 60-2-127, Montana Code Annotated (MCA), the Montana Transportation Commission allocates a portion of available Federal-aid highway funds for construction purposes and for projects located on the various systems in the state as described throughout this chapter. The following sections discuss Federal and State funding sources developed for the distribution of Federal and State transportation funding. This includes Federal funds the State receives under the FAST Act13. The list also includes local funding sources available through the city and county, as well as private sources. It should be understood that other funding sources are possible, but those listed below reflect the most probable sources at this time. 6.3.2. FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES The following summary of major Federal transportation funding categories received by the State through Titles 23-49 U.S.C., including state developed implementation/sub-programs that may be potential sources for projects. In order to receive project funding under these pro-grams, projects must be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), where relevant. 6.3.2.1. National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) The National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) provides funding for the National Highway System, including the Interstate System and National Highways system roads and bridges. The purpose of the National Highway System (NHS) is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation facilities and other major travel destinations; meet national defense requirement; and serve interstate and interregional travel. The National Highway System includes all Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and strategic highway connectors. Allocations and Matching Requirements: NHPP funds are Federally-apportioned to Montana and allocated to Districts by the Montana Trans-portation Commission. Based on system performance, the funds are allocated to three programs: Interstate Maintenance Interstate Maintenance (IM) funds are Federally-apportioned to Montana and allocated based on system performance by the Montana Trans-portation Commission. The Commission approves and awards projects for improvements on the Interstate Highway System which are let through a competitive bidding process. The Federal share for IM projects is 91.24% and the State is responsible for 8.76%. 300
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 136 National Highway The Federal share for non-Interstate NHS projects is 86.58% and the State is responsible for the remaining 13.42%. The State share is funded through the Highway State Special Revenue Account. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: Activities eligible for the National Highway System funding include construction, reconstruction, re-surfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of segments of the NHS roadway; construction, replacement, rehabilitation, preservation and protec-tion of bridges on the National Highway System; and projects or part of a program supporting national goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, mobility, or freight movements on the National Highway System. Operational improvements as well as highway safety improvements are also eligible. Other miscellaneous activities that may qualify for NHS funding include bikeways and pedestrian walkways, environmental mitigation, restoration and pollution control, infrastructure based intelligent transportation systems, traffic and traveler moni-toring and control, and construction of intra or inter-city bus terminals serving the National Highway System. The Transportation Commission establishes priorities for the use of National Highway Performance Program funds and projects are let through a competitive bidding process. NHPP Bridge Federal and state funds under this program are used to finance bridge inspection, improvement, and replacement projects on Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway System routes. NHPB program funding is established at the discretion of the state. However, Title 23 U.S.C. establishes minimum standards for NHS bridge conditions. If more than 10% of the total deck area of NHS bridges in a state is on structurally deficient bridges for three consecutive years, the state must direct NHPB funds equal to 50% of the state’s FY 2009 Highway Bridge Program to improve bridges each year until the state’s NHS bridge condition meets the minimum standard. 6.3.2.2. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds are Federally-apportioned to Montana and allocated by the Montana Transportation Commission to various programs including the Surface Transportation Program Primary Highways (STPP), Surface Transportation Program Secondary Highways (STPS)* and the Surface Transportation Program Urban Highways (STPU). The Federal share for these projects is 86.58% with the non-Federal share typically funded through Highway State Special Revenue (HSSR). Primary Highway System (STPP) The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects on the state-designated Primary Highway System. The Primary Highway System includes highways that have been functionally classified by MDT as either principal or minor arterials and that have been selected by the Montana Transportation Commission to be placed on the primary highway system [MCA 60-2-125(3)]. 301
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 137 Transportation Master Plan Allocations and Matching Requirements: Primary funds are distributed statewide (MCA 60-3-205) to each of five financial districts. The Com-mission distributes STPP funding based on system performance. Of the total received, 86.58% is Federal and 13.42% is State funds from the Highway State Special Revenue Account. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: STP Primary funds are eligible for a wide range of transportation improvement projects and activities, ranging from roadway reconstruction and rehabilitation, to bridge construction and inspection, to highway and transit safety infrastructure, environmental mitigation, carpooling, and bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities. Secondary Highway System (STPS) The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects on the state-designated Secondary Highway System. The Secondary Highway System includes any highway that is not classified as a local route or rural minor collector and that has been selected by the Montana Transportation Commission to be placed on the Secondary Highway System. Funding is distributed by formula and is utilized to resurface, rehabilitate and reconstruct roadways and bridges on the Secondary System. Allocations and Matching Requirements: Secondary funds are distributed statewide (MCA 60-3-206) to each of five financial districts, based on a formula, which takes into account the land area, population, road mileage and bridge square footage. Federal funds for secondary highways must be matched by non-Federal funds. Of the total received 86.58% is Federal and 13.42 % is non-Federal match. Normally, the match on these funds is from the Highway State Special Revenue Account. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: Eligible activities for the use of Secondary funds fall under three major types of improvements: Re-construction, Rehabilitation, and Pavement Preservation. The Reconstruction and Rehabilitation categories are allocated a minimum of 65% of the program funds with the remaining 35% dedicated to Pavement Preservation. Secondary funds can also be used for any project that is eligible for STP under Title 23, U.S.C. Priorities are identified in consultation with the appropriate local government authorizes and approved by the Montana Transportation Commission. Urban Highway System (STPU) The Federal and state funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects on Montana’s Urban Highway System, as per MCA 60-3-211. STPU allocations are based on a per capita distribution and are recalculated each decade following the census. STPU funds are primarily used for resurfacing, rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing facilities; operational improvements; bicycle facilities; pedestrian walkways and carpool projects. Allocations and Matching Requirements: State law guides the allocation of Urban funds to projects on the Urban Highway System in Montana’s urban areas (population of 5,000 or greater) through a statutory formula based on each area’s population compared to the total population 302
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 138 in all urban areas. Of the total received, 86.58% is Federal and 13.42% is non-Federal match typically provided from the Special State Revenue Account for highway projects. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: Urban funds are used primarily for major street construction, reconstruction, and traffic operation projects on the 430 miles on the State-designated Urban Highway System, but can also be used for any project that is eligible for STP under Title 23 U.S. C. Priorities for the use of Urban funds are established at the local level through local planning processes with final approval by the Transportation Commission. Bridge Program (STP) The Federal and state funds available under this program are used to finance bridge projects for on-system and off-system routes in Montana. Title 23 U.S.C. requires that a minimum amount (equal to 15 percent of Montana’s 2009 Federal Bridge Program apportionment) be set aside for off-system bridge projects. The remainder of the Bridge Program funding is established at the discretion of the state. Bridge Program funds are primarily used for bridge rehabilitation or reconstruction activities on Primary, Secondary, Urban or off-system routes. Projects are identified based on bridge condition and performance metrics. Surface Transportation Program for Other Routes - Off-system (STPX) The Federal and state funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects on state-maintained highways (or in other areas) that are not located on a defined highway system. Urban Pavement Preservation Program (UPP) The Urban Pavement Preservation Program (UPP) is a sub-allocation of the larger Surface Transportation Program that provides funding to urban areas with qualifying Pavement Management Systems (as determined jointly by MDT and FHWA). This sub-allocation is approved annually by the Transportation Commission and provides opportunities for pavement preservation work on urban routes (based on system needs identified by the local Pavement Management Systems). 6.3.2.3. Highway Safety Improvement Program HSIP funds are apportioned to Montana for allocation to safety improvement projects approved by the Commission and are consistent with the strategic highway safety improvement plan. Projects described in the State strategic highway safety plan must correct or improve a hazardous road location or feature, or address a highway safety problem. The Commission approves and awards the projects which are let through a competitive bidding process. Generally, the Federal share for the HSIP projects is 90% with the non-Federal share typically funded through the HSSR account. 303
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 139 Transportation Master Plan 6.3.2.4. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Federal funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects and programs to help improve air quality and meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Montana’s air pollution problems are attributed to carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Allocations and Matching Requirements: CMAQ funds are Federally-apportioned to Montana and allocated to various eligible programs by formula and by the Commission. As a minimum apportionment state a Federally-required distribution of CMAQ funds goes to projects in Missoula since it was Montana’s only designated and classified air quality non-attainment area. The remaining, non-formula funds, referred to as “flexible CMAQ” is primarily directed to areas of the state with emerging air quality issues through various state programs. The Trans-portation Commission approves and awards both formula and non-formula projects on MDT right-of-way. Infrastructure and capital equip-ment projects are let through a competitive bidding process. Of the total funding received, 86.58% is Federal and 13.42% is non-Federal match provided by the state for projects on state highways and local governments for local projects. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: In general, eligible activities include transit improvements, traffic signal synchronization, bicycle pe-destrian projects, intersection improvements, travel demand management strategies, traffic flow improvements, air quality equipment pur-chases, and public fleet conversions to cleaner fuels. At the project level, the use of CMAQ funds is not constrained to a particular system (i.e. Primary, Urban, and NHS). A requirement for the use of these funds is the estimation of the reduction in pollutants resulting from implement-ing the program/project. These estimates are reported yearly to FHWA. CMAQ (formula) Mandatory CMAQ funds that come to Montana based on a Federal formula and are directed to Missoula, Montana’s only classified, moderate CO non-attainment area. Not applicable to Whitefish. Projects are prioritized through the Missoula Metropolitan planning process. Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)–Guaranteed Program (flexible) This is state program funded with flexible CMAQ funds that the Commission allocates annually to Billings and Great Falls to address carbon monoxide issues in these designated, but “not classified”, CO non-attainment areas. The air quality in these cities is roughly equivalent to Missoula, however, since these cities are “not classified” so they do not get direct funding through the Federal formula. Projects are prioritized through the respective Billings and Great Falls Metropolitan planning processes. Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)–Discretionary Program (flexible) The MACI – Discretionary Program provides funding for projects in areas designated non-attainment or recognized as being “high-risk” for becoming non-attainment. Since 1998, MDT has used MACI-Discretionary funds to get ahead of the curve for CO and PM10 problems in non-304
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 140 attainment and high-risk communities across Montana. District Administrators and local governments nominate projects cooperatively. Pro-jects are prioritized and selected based on air quality benefits and other factors. The most beneficial projects to address these pollutants have been sweepers and flushers, intersection improvements and signal synchronization projects. 6.3.2.5. Transportation Alternatives Program The Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) requires MDT to obligate 50% of the funds within the state based on population, using a competitive process, while the other 50% may be obligated in any area of the state. The Federal share for these projects is 86.58, with the non-Federal share funded by the project sponsor through the HSSR. Funds may be obligated for projects submitted by: Local governments Transit agencies Natural resource or public land agencies School district, schools, or local education authority Tribal governments Other local government entities with responsibility for recreational trails for eligible use of these funds. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: Eligible categories include: On-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, including ADA improvements; Historic Preservation and rehabilitation of transportation facilities; Archeological activities relating to impacts for a transportation project; Any environmental mitigation activity, including prevention and abatement to address highway related stormwater runoff and to reduce vehicle/animal collisions including habitat connectivity; Turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas; Conversion/use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for non-motorized users; Inventory, control, and removal of outdoor advertising; Vegetation management in transportation right of way for safety, erosion control, and controlling invasive species; Construction, maintenance, and restoration of trails and development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities; Development and dissemination of publications and operation of trail safety and trail environmental protection programs; Educations funds for publications, monitoring, and patrol programs and for trail-related training; Planning, design, and construction of projects that will substantially improve the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school; and 305
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 141 Transportation Master Plan Non-infrastructure-related activities to encourage walking and bicycling to school, including public awareness campaigns, outreach to press and community leaders, traffic education and enforcement school vicinities, student sessions on bicycle and pedestrian safety, health, and environment, and funding for training. Competitive Process: The State and any Metropolitan Planning Organizations required to obligate Transportation Alternative funds must develop a competitive process to allow eligible applicants an opportunity to submit projects for funding. MDT’s process emphasizes safety, ADA, relationships to State and community planning efforts, existing community facilities, and project readiness. 6.3.2.6. Federal Lands Highway Program (FLAP) The Federal Lands Access Program was created to improve access to Federal lands. Western Federal Lands administers the funds, not MDT. However, MDT is an eligible applicant for the funds. The program is directed towards Public Highways, Roads, Bridges, Trails, and Transit systems that are under State, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, or local government jurisdiction or maintenance and provide access to Federal lands. The Federal lands access program funds improvements to transportation facilities that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are located within Federal lands. The program supplements State and local resources for public roads, transit systems, and other transportation facilities, with an emphasis on high-use recreation sites and economic generators. Program funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation limitation. Funds are allocated among the states using a statutory formula based on road mileage, number of bridges, land area, and visitation. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: The following activities are eligible for consideration on Federal Lands Access Transportation Facilities: Preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, construction and reconstruction Adjacent vehicular parking areas Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or historic sites Provisions for pedestrian and bicycles Environmental mitigation in or adjacent to Federal land to improve public safety and reduce vehicle-wildlife mortality while maintain-ing habitat connectivity Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas, including sanitary and water facilities. Operation and maintenance of transit facilities Proposed projects must be located on a public highway, road, bridge, trail or transit system that is located on, is adjacent to, or provides access to Federal lands for which title or maintenance responsibility is vested in a State, county, town, township, tribal, municipal, or local government. 306
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 142 Allocation and Matching Requirements: Projects are funded in Montana to the ratio of 87.58% federal funds and 13.42% non-federal matching funds. Funding is authorized and allocated for each state under USC, Title 23, Chapter 2, MAP-21, Division A, Title I, Subtitle A, Section 1119 distribution formula. 6.3.2.7. Congressionally Directed Funds Congressionally Directed funds may be received through either highway program authorization or annual appropriations processes. These funds are generally described as “demonstration” or “earmark” funds. Discretionary funds are typically awarded through a Federal application process or Congressional direction. If a local sponsored project receives these types of funds, MDT will administer the funds in accordance with the Montana Transportation Commission Policy #5 – “Policy resolution regarding Congressionally directed funding: including Demonstra-tion Projects, High Priority Projects, and Project Earmarks.” 6.3.3. STATE FUNDING SOURCES 6.3.3.1. State Fuel Tax The State of Montana assesses a tax of $0.2775 per gallon on gasoline and diesel fuel used for transportation purposes (MCA Section 15-70-101). According to State law, each incorporated city and town within the State receives an allocation of the total tax funds ($16,766,000) based upon: 1. the ratio of the population within each city and town to the total population in all cities and towns in the State, and 2. the ratio of the street mileage within each city and town to the total street mileage in all incorporated cities and towns in the State. (The street mileage is exclusive of the Federal-Aid Interstate and Primary Systems.) State law also establishes that each county be allocated a percentage of the total tax funds ($6,306,000) based upon: 1. the ratio of the rural population of each county to the total rural population in the state, excluding the population of all incorporated cities or towns within the county and State; 2. the ratio of the rural road mileage in each county to the total rural road mileage in the State, less the certified mileage of all cities or towns within the county and State; and 3. the ratio of the land area in each county to the total land area of the State. For State Fiscal Year 2017, the city of Bozeman will receive $693,945 (MCA 15-70-101) and Gallatin County will receive $328,092 (MCA 15-70-101 and MCA 7-14-102(2)) in State fuel tax funds. The amount varies annually, but the current level provides a reasonable base for projection throughout the planning period. 307
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 143 Transportation Master Plan All fuel tax funds allocated to the city and county governments must be used for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of rural roads or city streets and alleys. The funds may also be used for the share that the city or county might otherwise expend for proportionate matching of Federal funds allocated for the construction of roads or streets that are part of the primary, secondary or urban system. Priorities for the use of these funds are established by each recipient jurisdiction. 6.3.3.2. State Funds for Transit Subsidies The 46th Montana Legislature amended Section 7-14-102 MCA providing funds to offset up to 50 percent of the expenditures of a municipality or urban transportation district for public transportation. The allocation to operators of transit systems is based on the ratio of its local support for public transportation to the total financial support for all general purpose transportation systems in the State. Local support is defined as: Local Support = Expenditure for public transportation operations Mill value of City or urban transportation district 6.3.3.3. State Special Revenue/State Funded Construction Allocations and Matching Requirements: The State Funded Construction Program, which is funded entirely with state funds from the Highway State Special Revenue Account, provides funding for projects that are not eligible for Federal funds. This program is totally State funded, requiring no match. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: This program funds projects to preserve the condition and extend the service life of highways. Eligibility requirements are that the highways be maintained by the State. MDT staff nominates the projects based on pavement preservation needs. The District’s establish priorities and the Transportation Commission approves the program. 6.3.3.4. TransADE The TransADE grant program offers operating assistance to eligible organizations providing transportation to the elderly and persons with disabilities. Allocations and Matching Requirements: This is a state funding program within Montana statute. State funds pay 54.11 percent of deficit operating costs, 80 percent of administrative costs, and 80 percent of maintenance costs. The remaining 45.89, 20, and 20 percent respectively must come from the local recipient. Applicants are also eligible to use this funding as match for the Federal transit grant programs. Eligibility and Planning Considerations: Eligible recipients of this funding are counties, incorporated cities and towns, transportation districts, or non-profit organizations. Applications are due to the MDT Transit Section by the first working day of March each year. To receive this 308
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 144 funding the applicant is required by state law (MCA 7-14-112) to develop a strong, coordinated system in their community and/or service area. 6.3.3.5. Rail/Loan Funds Administration and Matching Requirements: The Montana Rail Freight Loan Program (MRFL) is a revolving loan fund administered by the Montana Department of Transportation to encourage projects for construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of railroads and related facil-ities in the State and implements MCA 60-11-113 to MCA 60-11-115. Loans are targeted to rehabilitation and improvement of railroads and their attendant facilities, including sidings, yards, buildings, and intermodal facilities. Rehabilitation and improvement assistance projects require a 30 percent loan-to value match. Facility construction assistance projects require a 50 percent match. Eligibility and Planning Consideration: Eligible applicants for loans under the program include railroads, cities, counties, companies, and re-gional rail authorities. Port authorities may also qualify, provided they have been included in the state transportation planning process. Projects must be integrally related to the railroad transportation system in the State and demonstrate that they will preserve and enhance cost-effective rail service to Montana communities and businesses. 6.3.4. LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES Local governments generate revenue through a variety of funding mechanisms. Typically, several local programs related to transportation exist for budgeting purposes and to disperse revenues. These programs are tailored to fulfill specific transportation functions or provide particular services. The following text summarizes programs that are or could be used to finance transportation improvements by the city and county. 6.3.4.1. City of Bozeman Special Revenue Funds These funds are used to budget and distribute revenues that are legally restricted for a specific purpose. Several such funds that benefit the transportation system are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. SID Revolving Fund This fund provides financing to satisfy bond payments for special improvement districts in need of additional funds. The City can establish street SID’s with bond repayment to be made by the adjoining landowners receiving the benefit of the improvement. The City has provided labor and equipment for past projects through the General Fund, with an SID paying for materials. 309
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 145 Transportation Master Plan Gas Tax Apportionment Revenues are generated through State gasoline taxes apportioned from the State of Montana. The City’s FY 2017 state gas tax apportionment will be approximately $693,945. Transfers are made from this fund to the General Fund to reimburse expenditures for construction, recon-struction, repair and maintenance of streets. Street Maintenance Assessment Every parcel within the city limits is assessed for street maintenance, with a square footage cap based on the type of property (residential versus commercial). Revenues generated from the assessment fund maintenance activities on public roadways. Street maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the following: sprinkling; graveling; oiling; chip sealing; seal coating; overlaying; treating; general cleaning; sweeping; flushing; snow and ice removal; and leaf and debris removal. Bozeman Parking Commission Monthly lease rental payments and meter collections fund this program. Revenues are used to fund parking improvements in the downtown area. Street Impact Fees Bozeman collects impact fees that help fund transportation improvements. Review and recommendations for expending impact fee monies comes through the City’s Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC). The actual dollar amount collected varies from year to year based on the economy and development market, but has averaged approximately $2.9 Million over the five-year period from 2012 to 2016. Fiscal Year 2016 collections realized a record for the program at $4.2 Million. For planning purposes, the five-year average of $2.9 Million was carried forward as a reasonable future annual revenue amount for this program. Arterial and Collector District Bozeman created the Arterial and Collector District in 2015 as a mechanism to collect revenue for funding the “local share” in advance of projects of critical importance. The District also provides funding via a Payback District to recover the “local share” once an adjacent project is developed. The first year of assessment was Fiscal Year 2016, and the District was based on a three-year phase-in to an annual total assessment of $2.0 Million by Fiscal Year 2018. After 2018, only modest growth will be expected based on annexation activity. For planning purposes, an amount of $2.2 Million was carried forward as a reasonable future annual revenue amount for this program. 6.3.4.2. Private Funding Sources Private financing of roadway improvements, in the form of right of way donations and cash contributions, has been successful for many years. In recent years, the private sector has recognized that better access and improved facilities can be profitable due to increases in land values 310
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 146 and commercial development possibilities. Several forms of private financing for transportation improvements used in other parts of the United States are described in this section. Cost Sharing The private sector pays some of the operating and capital costs for constructing transportation facilities required by development actions. Transportation Corporations These private entities are non-profit, tax exempt organizations under the control of state or local government. They are created to stimulate private financing of highway improvements. Road Districts These are areas created by a petition of affected landowners, which allow for the issuance of bonds for financing local transportation projects. Private Donations The private donation of money, property, or services to mitigate identified development impacts is the most common type of private trans-portation funding. Private donations are very effective in areas where financial conditions do not permit a local government to implement a transportation improvement itself. Private Ownership This method of financing is an arrangement where a private enterprise constructs and maintains a transportation facility, and the government agrees to pay for public use of the facility. Payment for public use of the facility is often accomplished through leasing agreements (wherein the facility is rented from the owner), or through access fees whereby the owner is paid a specified sum depending upon the level of public use. Privatization Privatization is either the temporary or long term transfer of a public property or publicly owned rights belonging to a transportation agency to a private business. This transfer is made in return for a payment that can be applied toward construction or maintenance of transportation facilities. General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds The sale of general obligation bonds could be used to finance a specific set of major highway improvements. A G.O. bond sale, subject to voter approval, would provide the financing initially required for major improvements to the transportation system. The advantage of this funding method is that when the bond is retired, the obligation of the taxpaying public is also retired. State statutes limiting the level of 311
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 147 Transportation Master Plan bonded indebtedness for cities and counties restrict the use of G.O. bonds. The present property tax situation in Montana, and recent adverse citizen responses to proposed tax increases by local government, would suggest that the public may not be receptive to the use of this funding alternative. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Increment financing has been used in many municipalities to generate revenue for public improvements projects. As improvements are made within the district, and as property values increase, the incremental increases in property tax revenue are earmarked for this fund. The fund is then used for improvements within the district. Expenditures of revenue generated by this method are subject to certain spending restrictions and must be spent within the district. Tax increment districts could be established to accomplish transportation improvements in other areas of the community where property values may be expected to increase. A TIF is currently being utilized in downtown Bozeman. Additional TIF districts could be established in other areas of the city and county to accomplish a variety of transportation-related improvements. Multi-Jurisdictional Service District This funding option was authorized in 1985 by the State Legislature. This procedure requires the establishment of a special district, somewhat like an SID or RSID, which has the flexibility to extend across city and county boundaries. Through this mechanism, an urban transportation district could be established to fund a specific highway improvement that crosses municipal boundaries (e.g., corporate limits, urban limits, or county line). This type of fund is structured similar to an SID with bonds backed by local government issued to cover the cost of a proposed improvement. Revenue to pay for the bonds would be raised through assessments against property owners in the service district. Local Improvement District This funding option is only applicable to counties wishing to establish a local improvement district for road improvements. While similar to an RSID, this funding option has the benefit of allowing counties to initiate a local improvement district through a more streamlined process than that associated with the development of an RSID. 6.3.4.3. Future Potential Funding Sources Local Sales Tax If authorizing legislation were to be approved, local governments would be able to initiate local option taxes as a potential funding source for transportation improvements. One local option tax would be a local sales tax. Wheel Tax If initiated, a tax per wheel on vehicles licensed in counties could generate substantial revenue. The cost to each user of the transportation network would be proportional to the number and type of vehicles owned. 312
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 148 Local Option Motor Fuel Tax A local option fuel tax is another means of raising revenue for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of public streets and roads. This local tax may be imposed by the people of the county or by the adoption of a resolution by the county commissioners and referred to the people. An advantage to a local motor fuel tax, as with a wheel tax, is that it taxes only the users of the transportation system and the tax paid by each individual is directly proportional to their use of the facilities. The revenue from a motor fuel tax must be distributed propor-tionately among the county and its member municipalities based on vehicle registration. Excise Taxes Excise taxes are similar to sales taxes with the exception that items taxed are those considered to be indulgent. The demand for items on which there is an excise tax is generally large, therefore, there is potential to raise a substantial amount of local revenue. Products on which an excise tax could be imposed for additional local revenue include such items as tobacco, alcohol, and various forms of entertainment. A potential problem with excise taxes arises when the tax causes inter-area competition. Value Capture Taxes Value capture taxes are a means of raising revenue following the development of transportation improvements. Whereas development fees are assessed to make necessary transportation improvements, value capture taxes impose a fee to businesses which benefit due to their location along improved, highly traveled routes, which assumes improvements have been made. Value capture taxes may be a means to enter into other forms of funding future improvements. One method to consider would be cash flow management that makes wise use of existing revenue rather than continuing to introduce new sources. 6.3.5. SUMMARY OF CURRENT FINANCIAL STATUS Current financial information was obtained from the MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section to get a picture of the projected revenue available for funding transportation projects in the Bozeman area over the next 20 years. This information is summarized in Table 6.2. A comparison of the estimated costs shown in Chapter 4 for the MSN ($151,125,000) and TSM ($55,287,000) projects, and the potential revenue from sources most likely to be used to fund the various projects shown in Table 6.2, confirms that the TMP is not fiscally constrained and will encounter significant financial shortfalls over the 24-year life of the Plan. The anticipated costs for the various improvements are more than the potential revenue available over the planning horizon. Additionally, some of the potential funding sources listed in Table 6.2 are not entirely available for construction of capital improvements. Several of the funding sources listed also allocate money for routine and/or deferred maintenance activities. 313
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 149 Transportation Master Plan Table 6.2: Projected Funding (Estimated) Funding Source Current Account Balance Current Annual Allocation Estimate (2017) Projected Annual Allocation Estimate (per year) Revenue Projection Estimate (2030) Revenue Projection Estimate (2040) MDT Funding Sources NHPP – NH, IM * $0$250,000 $250,000$3,500,000$6,000,000HSIP Safety * $0 $150,000 $150,000 $2,100,000 $3,600,000STPU – Primary $0$500,000 $500,000$7,000,000$12,000,000STPU – Urban $1,449,771(a)$960,003 $960,000 $13,440,000 $23,040,000STPS – Secondary * $0$0 $0$0$0STP – Bridge * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0RRS – Railroad * $0$0 $0$0$0UPP – Preservation * $0 $100,000 $100,000 $1,400,000 $2,400,000TA $50,000 (b)$50,000 (b)$700,000$1,200,000MACI -State Disc. $300,000 $300,000 $4,200,000 $7,200,000State Fuel Tax (City) $693,945 $700,000$9,800,000$16,800,000State Fuel Tax (County) $328,092 $330,000 $4,620,000 $7,920,000City of Bozeman Funding Sources Bozeman Street Impact Fees $2,900,000 $2,900,000$40,600,000$69,600,000Bozeman Arterial and Collector District $2,080,500 $2,200,000 $30,800,000 $52,800,000Other (Private, Bonds, TIF, CBDG, etc.) Local Transit Mill Levy $250,000 $250,000$3,500,000$6,000,000SID’s / RID’s(c) VARIES VARIES VARIES VARIESNotes: Although FAST Act only provides for Federal funding through Federal FY 2020, 2030 and 2040 projections are based on continuance of current levels of funding unless otherwise noted. It is important to note that the projected funding estimates are based on the best information available at this time and that there is no guarantee that these funding sources will be available beyond FAST Act. Estimated Federal fund allocations do not include amounts of any required local matching funds. Federal revenues, local revenues and local and state matching funds are held constant and do not inflate over time due to uncertainty with federal transportation program reauthorization. Accordingly, future year allocation for year 2030 and 2040 are based on current annual allocations being projected out to the future. Reevaluation of revenue estimation may be necessary as part of a future TMP update. * Estimates from MDT are based on historical obligation figures with input from district. Not all of the future revenue stream may be available for “capital” improvement projects, as historically some maintenance activities have been funded under the program applications. Additionally, funds may already be tagged to specific projects, as is the case with the following: NHPP – NH,IM (North 19th Avenue Interchange Signalization), STPP-Primary (Rouse Avenue Reconstruction) and STPU – Urban (Kagy Boulevard). (a) Current account balance (01/2017) per MDT Statewide and Urban Planning Section. (b) The TA (Transportation Alternatives) funding program does not have a set allocation. For purposes of estimating, an annual allocation of $50,000 was identified, assuming Bozeman would be successful in procuring some of the statewide TA available funding. (c) Local SID/RIDs (Special / Rural Improvement Districts) are primarily available for “local” road projects and not on Major Street Network roadways. 314
CHAPTER 6: Implementation and Financial Strategies Bozeman Transportation Master Plan 150 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 315
February 06, 2017 DRAFT 151 Transportation Master Plan References 1 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update), Robert Peccia and Associates, April 2009, http://gallatincomt.virtualtownhall.net/public_documents/gallatincomt_plandept/Plans&Policies/Transportation.PlanFull.pdf 2 Bozeman Community Plan, City of Bozeman, June 1, 2009, http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/e6/e6a049b8-fad5-4886-b7f5-3ebfbd2f4556.pdf 3 Montana State University Strategic Plan, Montana State University, 2012, http://www.montana.edu/strategicplan/documents/montanastate-strategic-plan.pdf 4 Streamline, http://www.streamlinebus.com/ 5 Understanding Commercial Truck Traffic Through Downtown Bozeman, Western Transportation Institute, June 2015, http://downtownbozeman.org/uploads/Pdfs/WTI_Truck_Traffic_Study-Final_Report_June_2015.pdf 6 Mandeville Industrial Park Railroad Feasibility Study, Prepared for the City of Bozeman by Great West Engineering, March 27, 2007 7 Report 11-19, Low-stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute, May 2012 http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf 8 Capital Improvements Program, Fiscal Years 2018 – 2022, City of Bozeman, http://www.bozeman.net/Business/Budgets-and-Financials 9 Long Range Campus Development Plan, Montana State University, 2009 (http://www.montana.edu/lrcdp/) 10 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) Plan, City of Bozeman, December 17, 2007, http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Park-Rec-Cemetery/Parks/Parks-Recr-Master-Plan 11 Bozeman Code of Ordinances, Chapter 38 – Unified Development Code, Article 24 – Transportation Facilities and Access, Section 38.24.060. – Street Improvement Standards, https://www.municode.com/library/mt/bozeman/codes/code_of_ordinances 12 HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities, Livability Principles, 2009, https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/hud-dot-epa-partnership-sustainable-communities#Principles 13 The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), December 4, 2015, (https://www.transportation.gov/fastact) 316
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 1 Comments on Draft ReportComments Received during Public Comment Period ID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 01 15-Feb-2017 Becky Name Becky Comment Has the TMP team worked with MSU's WTI and the FHWA, especially to integrate guidelines where appropriate from their Dec. 2016 Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks resource? Highly recommended... https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhwahep17024_lg.pdf Email rowensnz@yahoo.com Sent on: 15 February, 2017 NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Bozeman and the TMP has many of the elements in the Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks guide represented. There are a few treatments in the guide that are not represented herein. These include the painted pedestrian lane and advisory shoulders. We have not recommended adding either of these treatments as they don't typically fit within Bozeman’s urban context. The City of Bozeman is free to implement these other treatments as interim measures in certain contexts, however the TMP recommends the recommended permanent installation. 02 19-Feb-2017 Barbara Geller I heard about the TMP meeting next month, so I went to the website and read (or at least skimmed) several of the documents. First: Wow! Talk about a thorough analysis and plan. I’m impressed. Vehicle traffic: 1. I was pleased to see a number of roundabouts proposed, even though you say they are more costly. I also noticed that they are way more popular in the poll than I expected. I much prefer roundabouts to traffic lights both because they save gas and pollution in non-peak times and because they help keep Bozeman feeling like a small town. Plus, traffic lights are just weird in residential areas. Maybe we need to put some effort into figuring out how to make them cheaper. a. My one concern, though, is that roundabouts like the ones at College & 8th and Baxter & Equestrian, which direct bikes up onto the sidewalk, are scary for bikes that are going straight instead of turning right, because, once the bike is up on the sidewalk, drivers don’t expect to see the bike shoot across the next street. I bike in the vehicle lanes on those roundabouts because it’s safer to make the car slow down behind me than to let it broadside me. 2. MSN-6: My bias is to build roads to connect the areas that will have denser development. If you believe in “build it and they will come”, then expanding Springhill Road is tantamount to encouraging land-wasting, well-dependent, septic-dependent ranchettes to proliferate. We should do everything we can to encourage development inside the city limits and on our wastewater treatment system, including not making it easier for people to live outside the city limits. Don’t waste the $2.9M on this project. Or at least move it 24 years out in the queue. Most of my comments have to do with bikes: 1. There is a section of the report that cites advantages and disadvantages of concrete, asphalt and gravel for multi-use trails, mainly in terms of capital cost and maintenance, but I think there are other considerations. If the objective is to increase bike commuting in winter, asphalt seems to melt NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Bikes are permitted to enter the travelled way of the roundabout and proceed as a vehicle. Bike lanes around the perimeter are unsafe and are prohibited through FHWA guidance. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Springhill Road is identified as a potential improvement sometime over the 24-year planning horizon. It is not a priority, nor a project to encourage development of any sort in that area of the community. If and when the roadway begins to deteriorate, reconstruction should be evaluated for wider shoulders and turn bays/lanes at appropriate locations. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Expansion joints can be constructed so that they are saw cut rather than troweled, this results in a smooth surface. 317
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 2 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE faster. Personally, I avoid biking on concrete sidewalks because of the obnoxious, and sometimes dangerous, gaps between concrete slabs. But if the objective is to make these paths multi-use, bear in mind that those of us with aching joints prefer to walk on the softer gravel surface. 2. The research that I’ve seen says that making downtown areas more bike friendly increases retail traffic. Right now, our downtown is not at all bike friendly. I was glad to see the proposal for a bike lane on Babcock and removal of parking to create the bike lane, but the idea of a two-way bike lane on a one-way street and on the left side of the traffic is scary. Maybe I’ll like it better when I see it. But at least you’re trying! (And what happens to bikes when the westbound bike lane ends and they are then facing oncoming traffic?) 3. Mendenhall is scary for both bikes and pedestrians because the parked cars obscure line of sight and because a car in the first lane might stop but not the second lane. I think you’re talking about creating pedestrian bump-outs on Mendenhall, similar to those on New Holland. As a bicyclist, I hate the bump-outs on New Holland because they throw me into the lane of vehicle traffic when the cars are not expecting it. I would suggest you consider center islands (“pedestrian refuges”), similar to the one at Durston and 25th, to protect pedestrians instead, without impeding the flow of bikes in the traffic lanes. 4. And, really, is anyone ever going to have the guts to propose eliminating parking so we can have a bike lane on Mendenhall? Or eliminate a lane of vehicle traffic? 5. I chuckled when I saw the map that delineated what areas only “fearless” riders will go on. You assume that people are afraid of two-lane roads with minimal shoulders, but that’s exactly the kind of route that the BWAGs (Bozeman Women’s Activity Group) rides all summer, with the important caveat that we go mid-day when there is less traffic and seek out less-traveled roads (like South 3rd instead of South 19th). Please don’t fall into the kind of thinking that Rep. Kerry White of Bozeman and Rep. Usher of Billings have fallen into, where they propose banning all bikers (& pedestrians) from two-lane roads. 6. Was there an overriding vision for bike connectivity? I didn’t see it. 7. BL-1 through BL-21 could be done for a total of $170,000. That’s cheaper that all but 8 of the 14 CTSMs and 39 TSMs. Let’s do them all! Pedestrians: 1. I was glad to see pedestrian refuges proposed for the West Side Trail, east of Hunters Way. Since the opening of Meadowlark Elementary, Durston gets a lot more traffic and it can be hard to cross. A mid-block crossing aligns with the trail and avoids all the turning vehicles. Brilliant. Thanks for all the hard work on this plan. Barbara Geller Concrete may have a slightly higher melt time, but the City of Bozeman has limited funds for surface maintenance and concrete will last multiple times as long as asphalt. As the system grows the City of Bozeman will not easily be able to maintain an asphalt system. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Orienting a two-way bike lane on the left side of a one-way street is becoming common practice. Design consideration does need to be given to transitions and intersections to perform well. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Bump-outs would extend into the parking lane and would not block bicyclists travelling in the travel lane. It is more dangerous for bicyclists to weave in and out of the parking lane than travel straight in full view of motorists. Center islands for one-way streets like Mendenhall are unconventional. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Fearless riders make up between 1-3% of the overall population. They may require education and training to get there, but it has been proven that the vast majority of the population will only use a bicycle if some form of facility exists for them to ride in. It is possible that the BWAGs all fall into this small subset of the overall population. It is not a measure of danger, but of comfort. The concept is part of an analysis process that uses the information to identify improvements. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED This is encompassed in the overall plan vision and goals. There is no separate 'bike' plan as part of the TMP. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 318
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 3 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 3 23-Feb-2017 Cheryl Bartholomew Name Cheryl Bartholomew Comment I am one of many in our community advocating aging in place support systems for Bozeman. Recently we formed a community committee to voice the concerns and needs of the older adult population and plan to apply for AARP Network of Age-Friendly Communities status. AARP, in conjunction with the World Health Organization offers a five year plan to improve, coordinate and implement community support systems by better utilizing resources at a national, state and local level resulting in the creation of a more inclusive city for all ages. Improved public transportation is a key component to this movement. Because age friendly communities favor pocket neighborhoods over suburban sprawl development, local shuttle services are popular alternatives to helping persons with disabilities or those who no longer drive navigate to more than just the doctor's offices, grocery store or mall. Aging Baby Boomers want to remain in their homes for as long as possible. In order to remain socially and/or vocationally active in their communities, they need transportation options that are safe, reliable, affordable and accessible. With improved coordination of housing, transportation and land use policies communities can help ensure that older adults can access necessary services and amenities in their neighborhood/city. Given our climate, it is unacceptable for public transportation to offer inadequate schedules or to expect residents to wait at unsheltered bus stops, exposed to dangerous elements. Para transit services that provide origin to destination trips in specialized vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities is one option. But, the three-quarters mile radius guideline and the requirement that riders have a disability to be eligible to ride this system leaves many frail adults without reliable transportation. Supplemental transportation is another option, offering door to door service for non-driving adults, some of which arrange for a driver to stay with the passenger at the destination, until he is ready to return home. Often this service is offered through coordinated efforts with religious institutions. While we have Human Services Transportation in Bozeman, there is room for improvement. We also need to guarantee that age friendly, affordable housing is available in close proximity to these transportation options/ routes. This is not the same as low income housing. Housing, land-use and transportation need to work together to ensure availability of housing affordable to a variety of incomes in key locations. Older adults need Transit-Oriented Development to be available no more than a quarter mile from transit access. We need to take steps to preserve transit-accessible subsidized housing developments. Finally, we need to ensure that our transportation department is aware of grants and funding offered at a federal level and are applying for available assistance. The Administration for Community Living should be monitored and utilized as a resource for such opportunities. https://acl.gov/About_ACL/FederalInitiatives/Transportation.aspx https://acl.gov/Programs/CIP/OCASD/Transportation/index.aspx http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/Inclusive_Techniques_Michigan.pdf Thank you for the opportunity to present my views and concerns. I look forward to learning about how you plan to address these issues in the short term and long term. Email fitseniors@gmail.com Sent on: 23 February, 2017 NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comments. Housing, land-use and transportation are connected in many ways as you’ve described. Streamline and Bozeman area paratransit providers do their own advanced level of planning for services. Unfortunately, these services are heavily subsidized and it all comes down to having the funds to expand and service the segment of the population you advocate for. Given the limited resources and scope of this planning effort, a community-wide discussion on housing, land use, transportation and other is best left for the pending Community Plan Update We have identified targets and performance measures for making transit a viable component of the community’s transportation system. Additionally, we have identified a robust bicycle and pedestrian network that when fully built out will allow for improved mode choice and provide more robust travel options in the community. 4 27-Feb-2017 Linda DuPriest Howdy Jeff: Nice work on the TMP! I’ve been poring over it these past few weeks, and look forward to the meeting on Thursday. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED The striping plans were drawn under generally broad guidance and don’t get into the details of car lane/bicycle lane widths, crossings etc. This effort was a high-level attempt to define road configurations based on functional 319
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 4 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE Quick question: will it include typical roadway sections? I ask because many of Joe’s bike facility recommendations incorporate a variety of bike lane widths and treatments, yet the striping plans in the Appendix appear to show a one-size-fits-all 5ft bike lanes on those streets. Will the final TMP have bike lanes width recommendations based on traffic volumes, posted speed, roadway classification, etc for new development and roadway projects going forward after the plan is adopted? If you don’t have time to answer this now, could it be addressed at the meeting Thursday? Thanks a lot. I’m contracting with the City of Bozeman (through WTI) these days to help with their bike/ped implementation. Best regards, Linda DuPriest, AICP LDP Strategies 406/589-5779 linda.dupriest@gmail.com 1139 N. Spruce Dr. Bozeman, MT 59715 classification only, assuming everything is urban. Details about bike lane widths would be reviewed with individual projects. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment The striping plans drawn for Appendix K use typical sections from the 2007 LRTP Update. If the City of Bozeman desires we can bring the actual typical sections graphics over from the 2007 LRTP Update and place them in Appendix K. 5 1-Mar-2017 William Locke Name William Locke Comment I have lived on the NW corner of Kagy and Sourdough since 1982 (when Kagy was a dirt road), and commuted to MSU until 2010. Comments: A) When upgrading Kagy (MSN-1), please move the bike path to the north side for two reasons. 1) the bulk of the users live on the north side, and they currently use the narrow sidewalk as a bike path for convenience. 2) The north side is open to winter sun, thus commonly melts out, whereas the south side is shaded by many trees and bushes and remains icy all winter in spots. B) Please consider re-grading the chicane across the spring creek between VVGC and Kagy Corner to eliminate the reverse grading westbound that each winter throws vehicles out of the traffic lane. C) The Kagy/Sourdough intersection is problematic during icing events when E-bound traffic on Kagy attempts the left turn into Sourdough (towards Church). A traffic light will not fix this, but as an expat New Englander I have never seen a rotary on a hillside! This will take some serious thought! Email wwlocke3@gmail.com Sent on: 1 March, 2017 NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Your comment is recorded and has been made available to the City of Bozeman Public Works Department. 6 1-MAR-2017 As I'm sure you’re all aware by now, there is a gap in the shared use bike path along North 19th between Rawhide ridge and Baxter lane. Specifically through an empty lot and behind UPS. Although the Flooring place and the Town Pump have sections of trail. Could we put completing this section of trail into the plan? This may have already been addressed. Thanks for all your hard work! P.S. I've been especially relieved to see how well city roundabouts have worked for auto and pedestrian traffic, though I was initially skeptical. D- CHANGE RECOMMENDED North 19th Avenue in this area is designated for future bike lane development as defined in project BL-17. We will examine whether the sections of shared use path referred to in your comment is already in the works (presumed) or needs to be added to the TMP. 7 1-Mar-2017 William Locke Name William Locke Comment MSN-30: Church Street does NOT extend to Kagy, no matter how logical it may seem. The simplest way to resolve it is to plant a sign at the Church/Sourdough transition as has been done thousands of times in NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED 320
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 5 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE other jurisdictions. Alternatively, make the proposal for a street name change, have the public hearing, and act on the outcome! Email wwlocke3@gmail.com Sent on: 1 March, 2017 Thank you for your comment. Your comment is recorded and has been made available to the City of Bozeman Public Works Department. 8 1-Mar-2017 William Locke Name William Locke Comment CMSN-11: I hope that the long-anticipated reconstruction of North Rouse will remedy the past abuse to Bozeman/Sourdough Creek and will reflect the USACOE designation of the street and neighboring properties as lying within the 50-year floodplain! This is an opportunity to reduce flood risk by acquiring properties before, rather than after, flood damage. Email wwlocke@gmail.com Sent on: 1 March, 2017 NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Your comment is recorded and has been made available to the City of Bozeman Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Transportation. 9 2-Mar-2017 Chris Forrest To Jeff and the rest of the planners: I live south of town near Hyalite Canyon. I hope you will make it a high priority to push S. Fowler through from Rosaurs to Hyalite. Additionally, I hope all of S. Fowler will be paved. Thank you for taking time to read of my suggestion. Respectfully, Chris Forrest, Navy SEAL (406) 451-6062 www.tacticmt.com NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. As part of this TMP we have identified extending Fowler Avenue south to Stucky Road during the planning horizon. We have not shown Fowler being extended south to Hyalite at the present time. This could be revisited in the future if and when development occurs. 10 2-Mar-2017 Jon and Mary Carpenter Jeff, Our family owns the intersection of Story Mill and McIlhattan roads in Bozeman including land outside of the public right of way, adjacent to property owned by the Bridger Golf Course. Story Mill road, north of Bridger Drive was originally a gravel county road and where it crosses Bridger Creek. It was originally designed to be a straight “section boundry “ road going up the hill to the North. Due to the meandering Bridger Creek and because it would have been more expensive to cross the creek several times the road swings inward to the East across our property. Due to significant residential growth in the area the traffic has increased dramatically. Three issues which are likely to become worse are: -traffic crossing the narrow bridge over Bridger Creek to the south about 100 yards from our mailbox. Signs put up last year advise drivers about pedestrians and cyclists but the curve at the bridge minimizes reaction time and creates dangerous conditions for vehicles and people. Note also that the Bozeman Transfer Station is located north of the intersection on Story Mill which adds large trash trucks to the traffic mix. -traffic on Story Mill coming south down the hill having little time to slow down at the intersection NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Your comment is recorded and has been made available to the City of Bozeman Public Works Department. We have identified long-term needs in this area identified as project MSN-35 [Story Mill Road North / McIlhattan Road (Bridger Canyon Drive to Landfill)]. Specific design issues would be identified at that time in terms of roadway alignment, vertical grades, bridge width, and signing and pavement markings. 321
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 6 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE -traffic coming east on McIlhattan not realizing the intersection exists, resulting in dangerous crossing into our and neighbors fences, driveways and mailboxes. This happens several times a year. We would be open to meeting with you to outline property boundaries, accident history, possible trail installations to connect GVLT trails to the area. Unfortunately there doesn’t appear to be an easy solution but these issues will most likely become critical once serious accidents occur. Sincerely, Jon and Mary Carpenter 1380 Story Mill Road Bozeman, MT 59715 Tel: (406) 581-8476 11 02-Mar-2017 Richard and Carol Belgrad We are unable to attend this meeting, but want our voices heard. We in Saddle Ridge Homeowners Association just found out about this hearing by chance yesterday. At first glance, this looks like the road will be going over very uneven terrain, across private property, and not even directly connected to Goldenstein. Where are the easements and the public rights of way? Which developers will this potentially benefit? And why weren't the adjacent homeowners' associations notified? Richard and Carol Belgrad, 9200 Trooper Trail, 59715 NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED We do not have any actual recommendation to design, construct and/or develop a Goldenstein extension to the east. The dashed line representing a possible extension is only indicated so IF AND WHEN a landowner desires to subdivide that there is some high-level knowledge that the City of Bozeman may indeed try to partner for a future road IF annexation into the City of Bozeman is desired. We were asked to try and represent that in the TMP maps, and also conceptually in an appendix. I believe in the appendix we have such a disclaimer to that effect. For reasons you've indicated, it is highly unlikely that anything could ever be developed. There is no project planned; however this possible extension in the future has been represented for several decades in past Bozeman transportation planning efforts. 12 03-Mar-2017 Reno Walsh Hello Jeff, Reports suggest 20 to 40 additional trains will top the 15 trains per day that passed through Bozeman currently. Each train offers Bozeman Noise Pollution, Traffic Issues, Air Pollution and real Safety Concerns. The City of Bozeman needs to install Safe Rail Crossings at the Rouse and L Street Crossings as a part of the overall Rouse Improvement. Safe Rail Crossings save lives. Safe Rail Crossings reduce noise pollution. Federal law requires trains to blow their whistle five times at each intersection that is not a Safe Rail Crossing. This law is overridden by making the crossing safe and thus a “Quiet Zone”. As it is today. If 20 trains pass through Bozeman a day, trains are blowing their whistles 60 times per day. CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. We would advocate to add an additional TSM project for the City of Bozeman to consider in terms of preparing a Rail Crossing Noise Mitigation Study. This Study would be more in depth that what can be accomplished in the TMP. The results of this type of study would identify mitigation needs and costs at the at-grade rail crossings that could result in eliminating train whistle noise within the community. 322
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 7 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE The basics are this; the local road authority (not the RR) must install and pay for a positive separation from the tracks – there can be no way for a driver to drive around the gates. This may be more gates or raised median barrier, etc. Billings, Missoula, Helena and Manhattan, Montana are planning to or have already installed Safe Rail Crossings. Bozeman's third rail intersection is on Griffin. This roadway is managed by MDT. MDT has suggested they have the ability to create an underpass on Griffin when and if funding becomes available. They are supposedly not able to do so on Rouse due to structural concerns. L Street is not their responsibility. Safe Rail Crossings / Quiet Zones in Bismarck are projected to cost about 1.2 million per intersection. In Helena and Missoula I have seen cost estimates closer to 500,000 to 700,000 per intersection. In addition to Safety and Noise Pollution, community members are also concerned about Coal Dust Pollution and the dangers of Crude Oil Tankers passing through our community. These are serious issues that need to be dealt with now. Improving the safety at these intersections will show the community that Bozeman is serious about keeping its community safe by doing what it can now to reduce the chances of a train derailment or accident at one of these intersections. Please call me with any questions or updates: 406-580-5919. Thank you, Reno Walsh 724 N. Bozeman Ave. Bozeman, MT 59715 13 03-Mar-2017 Marie Harland As we plan for arterials with the required number of lanes, in addition it would be useful to consider the impact of snow plow berms in the winter. If the winter traffic pattern is also depicted on schematics, the encroachment on the road due to snow plow berms will be carefully addressed. Marie Harland ( A I am in love with Bozeman) resident NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Your comment is recorded and has been made available to the City of Bozeman Public Works Department. 14 3-Mar-2017 Randall Russo Hi Jeff It was nice meeting you and thank you for the presentation yesterday! This comment is in regards to downtown Main St. I would be interested in seeing Main Street become a 3-lane road with bike lanes and if possible wider sidewalks. The area is setup nicely with great alternate routes on Babcock and Mendenhall for through traffic. I have seen this done in similar towns overseas and it improved downtown business traffic, reduced large trucks and created a more walking friendly shopping experience. Thank you Randall Russo NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED From the perspective of safety, the bike lane that could be created would be in the door zone of high-turnover parking. Adding dedicated bicycle facilities to Main Street is a difficult challenge. 323
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 8 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 15 02-Mar-2017 Cynthia Zullo 3/2/17 Cynthia Zullo 9410 Trooper Trail Bozeman MT 59715 406-581-5510 The proposed Goldenstein extension to Tabeyshokup needs to be removed from the Bozeman Transportation Plan for these reasons: This area of the Gallatin Valley is unsuitable for high-density homes, which is the only reason a road of this type would be considered. The topography and existing homes would be destroyed or the quality of life so diminished that the homes nearby would be unlivable. It is a large elk herd’s winter range. The route itself does not justify its future existence. There are better routes to get people from I-90 to Bozeman, or from 19th to Bear Canyon. What is the point of this road? Economically if you want an East West corridor it would be much better closer to town, using the Bozeman Trail and feeding into Bozeman Trail with small neighborhood roads. The former frontage road off of I-90 at Bear Canyon would make much more sense for an east west corridor. There are many existing roads that this straight unsightly idea is not even acknowledging. It is far better to propose reasonable and well thought out plans than to just plop an idea from an aerial photo onto the future map. Just remove it entirely if it is serving no purpose at this time. With it on the map so haphazardly, those of us whose property it intersects with and some even through our houses, it immediately causes our homes to be unsalable and devalued. Who would by a home with a major road planned through the middle of it, even if it is just preliminary. The gateway to the Mount Ellis Range needs to be preserved as at a minimum an agricultural zone. The Valley needs some relief and respect for the scenic and quiet beauty. The urban development topographically should continue to the West, not the East of Bozeman. The South East and its aesthetics needs to be preserved. This is an unnecessary expense and solution to a problem that does not exist and never will if Bozeman plans well for its future. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED We do not have any actual recommendation to design, construct and/or develop a Goldenstein extension to the east. The dashed line representing a possible extension is only indicated so IF AND WHEN a landowner desires to subdivide that there is some high-level knowledge that the City of Bozeman may indeed try to partner for a future road IF annexation into the City of Bozeman is desired. We were asked to try and represent that in the TMP maps, and also conceptually in an appendix. I believe in the appendix we have such a disclaimer to that effect. For reasons you've indicated, it is highly unlikely that anything could ever be developed. There is no project planned; however this possible extension in the future has been represented for several decades in past Bozeman transportation planning efforts. 16 06-Mar-2017 Josh Gage Hello Jeff Key, I am a Bozeman citizen and would like to submit a comment for consideration in Bozeman's TMP. We have spent the last 7 years living on and now just north of Peach Street. Crossing Peach Street with our family has always been dangerous and people drive very fast. Between 7th street and Rouse there is one crosswalk. The Saturday Farmers' Market brings thousands of people every weekend to the fairgrounds many who walk and cross Peach Street. Children living north of Peach Street much cross to get to Hawthorne Elementary and there CHANGE RECOMMENDED Rouse Avenue is slated for a traffic signal which would be 2 blocks away from Peach. Might prefer Black Ave (one block west of Bozeman Ave) as there is/will be a bike boulevard there. Further investigation will be needed, but a crosswalk near Black Avenue or Bozeman Avenue should be identified and explored further. 324
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 9 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE are no marked cross walks. Bozeman Avenue provides a pedestrian conduit between downtown, linking Main Street to Beall Park north to the fairgrounds. I would like to see a pedestrian crossing at the corner of Peach and Bozeman. Ideally this crossing would include a bump out, flashing strobe and painted crosswalk. Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you about how this comment will be incorporated into the plan. Sincerely, Josh Gage 406.570.1060 (Note: a detailed traffic study would need to be prepared and submitted to MDT) 17 06-Mar-2017 Anne Gage Dear Mr. Key, I am a Bozeman citizen and would like to submit a comment for consideration in Bozeman's TMP. We have spent the last 7 years living on and now just north of Peach Street. Crossing Peach Street with our family has always been dangerous and people drive very fast. Between 7th street and Rouse there is one crosswalk. As our children grow up, we will be crossing Peach Street regularly to walk to Hawthorne Elementary, as do many other parents in this area. It would be wonderful to have a crosswalk that is delineated as a safe place to get children to and from school who have to cross Peach Street. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anne Gage 406.556.7162 CHANGE RECOMMENDED Rouse Avenue is slated for a traffic signal which would be 2 blocks away from Peach. Might prefer Black Ave (one block west of Bozeman Ave) as there is/will be a bike boulevard there. Further investigation will be needed, but a crosswalk near Black Avenue or Bozeman Avenue should be identified and explored further. (Note: a detailed traffic study would need to be prepared and submitted to MDT) 18 08-Mar-2017 Cynthia Zullo Dear Commissioners: Thank you for your service to Bozeman. I am a county resident who is being adversely affected by the proposed Bozeman Transportation Plan. I have included some of my comments here in the attachment. My overall desire is that you remove this proposed or imaginary road so that it does not affect the future sale of my home, or plant a seed of what may happen in the future. It is a random drawing of a future grid system that would offer a poor solution to future unpredictable problems. Developers looking at the BTP might think that this is the plan for Bozeman. This is not an area that needs dense urban development. The topography, the wildlife and the aesthetics of this region offers the city of Bozeman a close and welcome relief from the rapid dense development. Bozeman could plan for some agricultural preservation and a beautiful green view shed and welcoming gateway to the southern mountains instead of leap frog development and more cookie cutter neighborhoods. There is a much better East/West corridor that leaves from the frontage road off of I-90 by Bear Canyon that could be included in your future development. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED We do not have any actual recommendation to design, construct and/or develop a Goldenstein extension to the east. The dashed line representing a possible extension is only indicated so IF AND WHEN a landowner desires to subdivide that there is some high-level knowledge that the City of Bozeman may indeed try to partner for a future road IF annexation into the City of Bozeman is desired. We were asked to try and represent that in the TMP maps, and also conceptually in an appendix. I believe in the appendix we have such a disclaimer to that effect. For reasons you've indicated, it is highly unlikely that anything could ever be developed. There is no project planned; however this possible extension in the future has been represented for several decades in past Bozeman transportation planning efforts. 325
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 10 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE Please remove this proposed Goldenstein Extension, whether it happens in 2040 or not. At the current time, it is suggesting inappropriate and poor development of south Bozeman; let alone, total disregard for the current residents whose homes it bisects, and existing roads that already serve the East/West needs and perhaps future needs. 19 08-Mar-2017 David Fine Jeff – Per our discussion last week, please add a PHB/HAWK pedestrian crossing to the TMP for the corner of N. 7th and Villard. This is the current safe routes to school crossing for Whittier Elementary and it already has flashing amber lights at school crossing times. A PHB would be a good upgrade. The draft transportation plan includes a PHB at N 7th and Lamme. The Midtown Urban Renewal Board would support the inclusion in the TMP of PHBs at both Lamme and Villard on N.7th Ave to facilitate better pedestrian connectivity from east to west. Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions. Kevin Jacobsen at Morrison-Maierle (copied) is currently designing a PHB for N. 7th and Villard for the MURB and would be happy to answer any questions you might have from an engineering perspective. DAVID FINE | Economic Development Specialist City of Bozeman | 121 North Rouse Avenue | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 P: 406.582.2973 | E: dfine@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add this as requested. It is currently being designed and is part if the Midtown Urban Renewal Board’s redevelopment plans for the corridor. (Note: a detailed traffic study would need to be prepared and submitted to MDT. MDT has previously stated that that warrants will need to be met and a traffic study prepared and submitted before a PHB/HAWK could be installed.) 20 09-Mar-2017 Richard E. Headley Dear Commissioners, I would like to take this opportunity to object to the continuation of Goldenstein as depicted on the BTP. I understand that the intent is to show potential improvements to the traffic flow that might happen based on potential future development. The problem is that from what I have gathered, this extension is far down the list of projects that are likely to be started over the next decade or two based on projected needs and budgetary considerations. If this is in fact the case, I don't think it is fair to me as a property owner that the plan show a street extension that is not likely to happen any time soon, if ever. As Cythia Zullo has correctly pointed out, the existence of this proposed extension on the plan will certainly diminish the value of our rural properties and make them difficult to sell at prices more than what we paid. If we don't want a two lane road going down our property lines, we doubt anyone else looking for the solitude of a rural property will either. So please take our requests to have this extension eliminated from the plan seriousl. I personally invite any and all of you to visit our property at any time to see what kind of impact this extension will have on the value and quiet enjoyment of our properties. Sincerely yours, Richard E. Headley 9355 Trooper Trail 406-404-6171 NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED We do not have any actual recommendation to design, construct and/or develop a Goldenstein extension to the east. The dashed line representing a possible extension is only indicated so IF AND WHEN a landowner desires to subdivide that there is some high-level knowledge that the City of Bozeman may indeed try to partner for a future road IF annexation into the City of Bozeman is desired. We were asked to try and represent that in the TMP maps, and also conceptually in an appendix. I believe in the appendix we have such a disclaimer to that effect. For reasons you've indicated, it is highly unlikely that anything could ever be developed. There is no project planned; however this possible extension in the future has been represented for several decades in past Bozeman transportation planning efforts. 326
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 11 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 21 09-Mar-2017 Roger Flair Dear Commissioners, I, like Cindy Zullo, live in the subdivision which would be impacted by the east-west (concept?) road in question. Without doubt, the latter would very adversely affect my neighbors and my property. For the reasons set out in Ms. Zullo's letter (attached), I respectively request that the proposed Bozeman Transportation Plan be revised to exclude this road. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.---Roger Flair (170 Saddle Creek Road, 406-587-3897) NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED We do not have any actual recommendation to design, construct and/or develop a Goldenstein extension to the east. The dashed line representing a possible extension is only indicated so IF AND WHEN a landowner desires to subdivide that there is some high-level knowledge that the City of Bozeman may indeed try to partner for a future road IF annexation into the City of Bozeman is desired. We were asked to try and represent that in the TMP maps, and also conceptually in an appendix. I believe in the appendix we have such a disclaimer to that effect. For reasons you've indicated, it is highly unlikely that anything could ever be developed. There is no project planned; however this possible extension in the future has been represented for several decades in past Bozeman transportation planning efforts. 22 13-Mar-17 Peter Brown After reviewing the draft Bozeman Transportation Master Plan, GVLT wanted to mention a couple of items that might be important to represent in the final version of the map. Gallatin Valley Land Trusts establishes and stewards conservation easements in perpetuity. Perpetual conservation easements protect private property for the purpose of providing scenic open space, agricultural lands and wildlife habitat for the benefit of all the public under the Montana Open Space Act (MCS 76-6-101). The current Bozeman TMP draft map shows West Babcock street extending through two conservation easements that GVTL holds just west of West Babcock. If it is necessary to extend West Babcock to the west at some point in the future, it will be a relatively complex matter to acquire the right-of-way across the two conservation easements, likely through eminent domain, and the cost of actually constructing the road across those properties will have to be borne by a third party, as the conservation easement property owners will not be developing their land. GVLT suggests that you represent the location of these conservation easements on your map and annotate the location to accurately reflect the limitations on development in this location. All conservation easements in Montana are represented on the MT cadastral mapping project with a cross hatched pattern. Additionally you can source a public conservation easement mapping layer from the state of MT Geographic Information Clearinghouse data bundler. Links are provided below for this information. The property owners in this location that currently have conservation easements include the three following families: ALLAN G & CONNIE K LIEN ; AAJKER CREEK PROPERTIES LLC ; DANIEL E & BEVERLY TRIEMSTRA. I attached a map of this area for reference. GVLT has named these easements after the original grantors (Lien CE, Happel CE, and Chisolm Farm CE). MT Cadastral Link: http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/ Conservation Easement Mapping Layer: https://mslservices.mt.gov/Geographic_Information/Data/DataList/datalist_Details.aspx?did={9d69b262-b766-11e2-bc7e-f23c91aec05e} Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, Peter Brown CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. We will modify the maps and text as appropriate to terminate the future extension of West Babcock at the theoretical north-south extension of Westgate Avenue, rather than all the way to Gooch Hill Road as presently depicted. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Your comment is recorded and has been made available to the City of Bozeman Public Works Department. We aren’t able to represent land use designations, including locations of conservation easements, in the TMP and suggest that be developed as part of Bozeman’s pending Community Plan Update. 327
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 12 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 328
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 13 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 23 17-Mar-17 Marilee Brown Name Marilee Brown/ Safer Bozeman Comment I found some missing and incorrect items in the draft plan. I will be emailing them to Jeff Key in a seperate email later today. Email SaferBozeman@gmail.com Sent on: 17 March, 2017 NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 24 17-Mar-17 Marilee Brown Jeff, I would like to complement you and your staff for this mammoth undertaking. You have done a fine job. However, I have found a few items that you may want to take a second look at. On the existing Bike Network map (pg 48) I found a few errors or omissions: 1) Baxter Avenue just west of 19th has no bike lane on both sides. 2) Cattail west of Davis is missing on your maps. You need to add the street and the bike lane on the south side of the street. The north side has no bike lane (waiting for development) and currently people in the neighborhoods to the South West can get to shopping (Target and Costco), but cannot come back. School children traveling from the Cattail subdivision to Chief Joseph Middle School or families traveling to the Regional Park have to ride their bikes on the sidewalk on the wrong side of the road. 3) The shared use path that you have between Vaquero and Gallatin Green (just north of Baxter) may be a private path. 4) The north west corner of Gallatin County Regional Park connects to Ferguson. But the little path traveling from that corner into the condominiums is a private path. Misc.: pg 72. I was told by Craig Woolard that MSN-40 Baxter at Davis is a committed project. pg 81. TSM-10 should immediately include a RFB or Hybrid Beacon (add to pg. 91?) Pg 94. Cattail west of Davis needs to be added. Kimberwicke near Chief Joseph needs to be added. pg 97. table 4.7 is missing a project I.D.’s that you show on pg 107 bicycle facility recommendations. Here are a few of them, but you may want to double check all of them: a) Valley Center Spur underpass b) north/south route from Valley Center north to Gallatin County Regional Park (ending between Gallatin Green and Vaquero Parkway) c) SP-21 Kimberwicke should end at Vaquero not Gallatin Green General Comments: Concrete shared use paths and sidewalks should have a requirement of rebar to prevent cracking and heaving. This is a cheap solution to having to replace sidewalks so often. Many of the newer subdivisions built only 10 years ago are already requiring replacement sidewalks. Please include this both in the shared use path section as well as the sidewalk section. CHANGE RECOMMENDEDATIONS VARY 1. Our map is correct. There is a bike lane on the south side the whole way and one on the north side from 19th west to just past the post office. We are not mapping different sides of the street differently. 2. Cattail west of Davis was constructed during the middle of the planning process. We will not be going back and adjusting existing conditions text and figures. It is shown on the future active visionary network map. School children/families: we will add a RRFB recommendation. 3. GVLT maps it, so does the city. The transportation plan shows private roads; this is not any different. 4. GVLT maps it, so does the city. The transportation plan shows private roads; this is not any different. Pg 72; The intersection project at Baxter/Davis is a committed project. Commenter is confusing a CTSM project with a MSN recommendations. Pg 81; Agreed, we will add a RRFB recommendations a. I’ve added it as SP-39. Will send updated table. b. This project would occur with new development, so it is not in the table. c. This is a partial retrofit of an existing sidewalk. The bit going to Vaquero would go with new development. General; This is likely an inspection and construction issue. Only driveways typically get rebar. 329
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 14 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE Arterial standards for new construction and reconstruction should always include separated bike and pedestrian facilities. A good example of this is Baxter from 19th to Love Lane which where the new YMCA will be located. Temporary signage should be available for detouring incomplete bike or pedestrian facilities. A good example of this is on Baxter between Buckrake and Davis. Warning people ahead of entering a path that dead ends would be advisable to them trying to make a mad dash through unsafe conditions. Pedestrians and cyclists are very unlikely to turn around and try to find a safer route once they have already committed to that route. We have concern about the lack of parking facilities at the Gallatin County Regional Dog Park (north west corner) and the safety concerns with people needing to park in nearby neighborhoods and then crossing Baxter or Ferguson. Pedestrian and Bike facilities need to accommodate such problems. Thank you, Marilee Brown, Director Citizens for a Safer Bozeman and Gallatin County 25 17-Mar-17 Marilee Brown Jeff, Could we also have some improvements at Baxter and 7th? Or at least some signage for taking 11th to Oak from Baxter in order to turn north onto 7th and access the freeway? And we need a stop sign or light at Catron and Max Ave. It is very difficult for pedestrians to cross there. And it is also difficult for vehicles trying to cross Catron on Max. Thank you, Marilee Brown NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. There is nothing that can be done as a short-term stand-alone project at the intersection. Other improvements recommended in the TMP such as a traffic signal at 11th Ave and Oak and a new overpass or underpass across I-90 from Baxter Lane to Griffin Drive will serve to benefit operations in this area. 26 17-Mar-17 Beau Kitahara Name Beau Kitahara Comment While I have visited this region since the 1970's, I relocated to Bozeman 6 years ago from Southern California. A recurring traffic issue I noticed upon moving here is unnecessary delays at signaled intersections when making a left hand turn. Many local residents are apparently unaware that they can move into the intersection beyond the limit line when the traffic signal is green or yellow. Instead, they persist to remain behind the limit line when the signal is green or yellow, whether there is oncoming traffic or not, which creates unnecessary delays and congestion. Many times if there is oncoming traffic, the driver will remain behind the limit line until the signal is red. I became so unnerved by this behavior that I went to the Motor Vehicle Department to study the driver's manual to see if there was a different traffic rule than California and found none. Upon reviewing the TMP, I did not find any comments to address this issue. I believe this should be addressed as a minimal cost measure to help mitigate the growing traffic congestion. The implementation of a public education program can help inform the community to alleviate the problem. Thank you for your time and consideration. Email dakitahara@aol.com Sent on: 17 March, 2017 NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Your comment suggests encouraging drivers to push through the intersections’ left-turn phase on yellow. This is an individual drivers personal tendency and we would neither advocate for or against this driving characteristic. 330
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 15 Comments on Draft Report27 17-Mar-17 WTI Jeff: I hope you had a great weekend. I am attaching our (WTI’s) comments on the TMP, plus an article that was in one of the latest ITE magazines about language. You will see some of our comments are related to how we discuss “improvements,” “efficiency,” etc. Also, Taylor provides some potential examples of cross sections of roadways. We are not sure if we need to be too concerned that there isn’t guidance on cross sections in the TMP. One concern is that people will refer back to the 2007 Plan for guidance. Our hope is that the City look at recent trends, and have consultants/contractors focus on innovative solutions using complete street principles. Anyhow, as you said, you have done a lot in this TMP that you haven’t done in others. Our hope is that is that as Bozeman grows, we address transportation issues in a holistic manner, and simply don’t try to build our way out of the situation (something that has been proven not to work). While we don’t expect that all comments will be incorporated into the final draft, we do hope that the “sprit” of some will be incorporated. We did try to make most comments easy to cut and paste. If you have any questions on the comments, please let us know. Thanks for your time and all of your work on this! David Kack, Director Small Urban, Rural and Tribal Center on Mobility (SURTCOM) Western Transportation Institute Montana State University PO Box 174250 Bozeman, MT 59717 406-994-7526 Office dkack@montana.edu www.surtcom.org Thank you for your comment(s). See the following pages for changes that we will be comfortable making given the limitations on the scope and budget of this planning effort. 331
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 16 Comments on Draft Report NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment The typical sections shown deviate considerably from those urban sections shown in the 2007 LRTP Update. The corridor striping plans drawn for Appendix K use typical sections from the 2007 LRTP Update. If the City of Bozeman desires we can bring the actual typical sections graphics over from the 2007 LRTP Update and place them in Appendix K. 332
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 17 Comments on Draft Report 333
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 18 Comments on Draft Report 334
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 19 Comments on Draft Report 335
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 20 Comments on Draft ReportThank you for a comprehensive and thoughtful approach on Bozeman's latest transportation plan. This plan shows a strong commitment from city leadership that there is significant emphasis on achieving more transportation choices. The Chapter 1 goals and objectives indicate a strong desire for a different approach to transportation that includes all modes and that consultants listened to community input. Chapter 2 shows there has been impressive growth in the bicycle network. It is highly commendable that mileage of all bicycle facility types has doubled since 2007! This is reflected in the bike mode share hitting 6.3% in 2010. Chapter 3 has an outstanding discussion of active transportation and how this will benefit people in our community. We are impressed with the confidence the city and consultants have in Bozeman as a bicycle friendly community, which are reflected in the mode split projections. This reflects Bozeman’s commitment to bike and pedestrian facilities in all its major roadway projects. Chapter 4 does an excellent job of providing detailed bicycle and pedestrian recommendations and best practices designs based on roadway conditions, safety issues, and connectivity needs. It has a thorough discussion of current bicycle conditions and programs. Chapter 5 captures community sentiment well, which is reflected in the first sentence that “it is clear that Bozeman citizens desire to live in a sustainable community and expect planning activities to promote a sustainability philosophy each and every day.” This chapter has a robust section on TDM and active transportation programs. It has an important discussion about how the traditional LOS approach for motor vehicles is a microscopic approach and we need to broaden our thinking. The proposed performance measures and targets in Chapter 6 proposed are a great start to ensure a continued focus on multi-modal transportation. It demonstrates that the consultants and city listened to community input. The following section provide our thoughts on places where the TMP could be revised. It starts with a list of comments organized by page number. That is followed by some more general comments on Appendix K and a few other key areas. [Comments given in Following Table] 1) Add bicycle and pedestrian design standards to Appendix K: Striping Plan The Striping Plan does not include design standards or typical sections to prescribe the type of bicycle facility for each roadway. Without this guidance, how will City of Bozeman Engineering Staff or consultants hired by the City know what bicycle facility to use? Will standard details be adopted after the TMP is adopted? If so, what is the timeline for adopting such standards? There are new projects being submitted every week to the City’s Community Development and Engineering Staff that include new roadway sections; these are being designed according to the typical sections in the 2007 TMP. In the case of bike facilities, that means we are providing outdated design that is over 10 years old and that ignores state-of-the-practices designs such as those in the 2012 AASHTO Guide for Bikeway Design, the NACTO Urban Bikeway Designs (National Association of City Transportation Officials), and FHWA design guidelines for bicycle facilities. Without specific design standards, consulting engineers will not know what to design for their clients’ projects, and City of Bozeman Engineering staff who approve new development applications will not be able to regulate roadway design. The current practice of utilizing Bozeman’s Complete Streets resolution is inadequate and should be replaced by a codified system. The resolution provides no design details for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, but rather states that “current best practices” be used. But if such best practices are not included in the 2017 TMP, what will require Engineering staff, consultants, and developers to design for connectivity and safety? New development POSSIBLE CHANGES AFTER FURTHER DIRECTION The striping plans were drawn under generally broad guidance and don’t get into the details of car lane/bicycle lane widths, crossings etc. This effort was a high-level attempt to define road configurations based on functional classification only, assuming everything is urban. Details about bike lane widths would be reviewed with individual projects. The striping plans drawn for Appendix K use typical sections from the 2007 LRTP Update. If the City of Bozeman desires we can bring the actual typical sections graphics over from the 2007 LRTP Update and place them in Appendix K. A Bike Lane Width table could be added under the premise that the depicted widths are the most desirable potential bike lane widths but the specific local characteristics of each project will be considered in the final design, as follows: 336
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 21 Comments on Draft Reporthappens very fast in Bozeman these days, and without standard design details, Engineering and Community Development staff will be further bogged down in getting projects through the system. In addition, not providing design standards in Appendix K is inconsistent with the Pedestrian Spot Improvements and Bicycle Improvements Recommendations in Chapter 4. In these sections for example, the TMP does an excellent job of providing detailed, best practices designs based on roadway conditions, safety issues, and connectivity needs. The bicycle recommendations in particular show a deep level of creativity and design intelligence given by one of the country’s leading experts on innovative bicycle facilities. This same level of detail should be provided in any part of the TMP pertaining to new roadway development. Following are questions/issues with specific text in the Striping Plan introduction on p. 1 of Appendix K: This visionary Corridor Striping Plan provides high-level recommendations for roadway configurations on a corridor-by-corridor basis for future full buildout conditions. “High-level” may not be appropriate in designating type and width of bicycle lanes, unless further Best Practices design are referred to in the TMP, or codified through some other City of Bozeman process immediately after the 2017 TMP is adopted. Without typical sections or other design standards in the Striping Plans, it is impossible to tell if a roadway requires an outdated 5’ bike lane, or a best practices buffered/separated bike lane or other innovative design. The configurations were identified based on the defined typical sections with the broad assumption that most of the major street network would be developed to urban roadway standards with characteristics such as curb and gutter, bicycle lanes and sidewalks, at some point in the future. Where is the detail on the “urban roadway standards”? If they are not provided in the 2017 TMP, what document in the City’s development processes guides the application of these standards? The striping plans are considered conceptual in nature. Corridor-specific considerations will need to be made during project development. What “development” does this refer to: when the City of Bozeman designs and constructs a roadway, when a private developer designs and constructs a roadway, or both? If it is the latter, what design specifications will a private developer be provided if there are no “typical sections” provided in the 2016 TMP such as those from the 2007 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan? If it is a City of Bozeman roadway project, how do current or future engineers in the Public Works Department choose bicycle facility design? Where in the 2016 TMP are City engineering staff, consultants, and developers sent to know what to build on a given roadway? 2) Add bike facility design detail to CMSN and CTSM project descriptions Similar to the situation described for Appendix K above, the projects planned for the Committed Major Street Network and Committed Transportation System Management in Chapter 4 lack details for bicycle facilities. Without design standards provided somewhere in the 2017 TMP, how will Engineering staff and consultants know what to design, and how to estimate roadway project costs including right-of-way? If further detail is to be provided at a later time, the 2017 TMP should explain when and where it will occur, and what City process will regulate new roadway design. Supporting Considerations: Streets with multiple travel lanes benefit more from the presence of buffers. Consider 2-3 ft parking side buffer if on-street parking is high-turnover (2 hours or less)’ Bike lanes may be marked at 4 feet if buffers on both sides are used. Combined width of buffers and bike lane should not typically exceed 9 ft total as it could promote use of the space by motor vehicles. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Appendix H: Facility Recommendations Technical Memorandum contains additional detail on preliminary configurations and associated non-motorized facilities for MSN and TSM projects. Committed MSN and TSM projects, which are taken directly from the City’s CIP, are listed as presented in that document. 337
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 22 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 3) Winter Bicycle Routes Policy and Practices When bicycle lanes are buried in snow and ice they basically cease to exist, in effect closing a given roadway to an important transportation mode in Bozeman. The TMP should include a special section on Winter Bicycle Routes that sets forth policies and procedures to prioritize and maintain some bike routes throughout the snow and ice seasons. Just as all motor vehicle travel lanes are maintained for use throughout winter, bike routes that people depend on shouldn’t simply disappear when winter arrives. While severely cold temperatures do reduce winter biking, many people are still dependent on biking and will continue to ride in even the coldest temperatures. The TMP should include a Winter Bicycle Routes policy that institutionalizes the selection of the most highly-utilized bike routes for focused snow and ice removal on par with that provided for car travel lanes. While it may not be financially feasible to clear all bike lanes and bike routes in winter, high-priority bike routes must be kept safe and accessible, and the City should increase its winter maintenance budget and operations to accomplish this. Based on public input for the 2017 TMP and additional analysis, a limited number of bike routes would be targeted, publicized, and evaluated each year. 4) Maintenance Budget & Operations to Support Innovative Bicycle Facility Design Since the last 2007 Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan was adopted, huge progress has been made in the area of bicycle facility design in the U.S., most notably the creation of the NACTO Urban Design Guide in 2010, followed by innovative design included in the 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and similar guidance supported by FHWA. Many of these innovative designs call for additional striping and pavement markings for buffered bike lanes, green paint and markings to carry bike lanes through intersections, bike boxes (a.k.a. bicycle advanced stop bars), two-stage turn queue boxes, and others. These designs have been shown to improve safety and connectivity while reducing Level of Traffic Stress, the bicycling equivalent of Level of Service. All these innovations have contributed to a growing bicycle mode split in the U.S., and should be fully integrated into any city’s roadway designs and maintenance operations. However, they are more expensive to install and more importantly in Bozeman where snow plows scrape off pavement markings, they require additional maintenance funding and staffing. It is understandable that the City may be reluctant to utilize these new markings under current maintenance budget levels, but a good case can be made for a policy change that would support a robust maintenance program that would result in both safer bicycling and higher bike mode split. Lack of commitment to maintenance should not keep Bozeman from utilizing current Best Practices in infrastructure design, and the TMP should include a discussion of this. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. The TMP is not policy. It may be more appropriate to have BABAB work with the Public Works Dept. to see what more can be done regarding winter maintenance of bicycle routes. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. The TMP is not geared to establish maintenance procedures or operating budgets. It may be more appropriate to have BABAB work with the Public Works Dept. to see what more can be done regarding winter maintenance budgeting or operations for bicycle routes. 338
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 23 Comments on Draft ReportComments Received from WTI (continued) ID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 27 17-Mar-17 WTI (note: received after deadline of 5:00 PM on 03/17/2017) Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 “Improvements” – How do we define? See ITE article (Making the Case for Transportation Language Reform: Removing Bias, by Ian Lockwood). NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 5 Consider incorporating Performance Measures and Targets (currently 6.2) with the Goals and Objectives. Inclusion of the Performance Measures and Target here will frame the recommendations section and will simplify the ability to see the proposed performance measures for each objective. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. The Performance Measures and Targets are new components of the TMP and are derivatives of the entire planning process. They are more appropriate to be placed in the implementation portion of the TMP. 5 Objective 2.1 – how do we define “efficient”? Are we using the existing system efficiently by getting more people into one vehicle (carpool, vanpool, bus, etc.), or when we say that the “street network is adequate” do we mean adding capacity? (see Objective 2.2) NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 5 Objective 2.2 – We again use the word “improvements”, as in, “...through improvements in intersection and roadway capacity.” We can increase capacity by reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicles. Perhaps we should emphasize that, indicating that we are moving away from simply building more lane miles. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 5 Transit is a key aspect to improving the efficiency of the transportation system. Consider adding an objective such as “Promote and support the expansion of the Streamline Transit system” to express the importance that transit plays in improved efficient use of existing transportation network. CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. We will add an objective with the wording as provided. 5 Traffic Operations offers potential for improving the performance of the existing transportation network. Consider adding an objective such as “Explore options to utilize technology to increase operational efficiency of the existing transportation network.” CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. We will add an objective with the wording as provided. 6 Consider the use of “facilities” rather than “amenities.” Amenities may imply something optional. CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. We will review and re-word “amenities” to “facilities” as appropriate. 7 Objective 4.1 Consider incorporating or referencing the goals defined in the 2013 Community Transportation Safety Plan. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/bozemanctsp/docs/boz_ctsp_final_07_2013.pdf NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 17 Table 2-3 shows there is a 6.8% “other means of commuting” based on ACS data. Does this refer to bicycle commuters? Do American Community Survey (ACS) results include commuting trips to schools and MSU or just the “commuting workers” mentioned? In the case of MSU, if student trips to and within campus are not included, then the ACS data is NOT representing thousands of additional trips each day. Since many student trips are by walking, public transit, and bicycle, the mode splits in Table 2.3 could be way off. The text needs to explain whether or not student trips were counted in order for us to accurately count mode splits. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 339
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 24 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 19 2.1.2. Employment and Income Trends - Shouldn’t MSU students traveling to campus be counted as “commuting workers” for the purposes of this section? Since the purpose of quantifying # of commuters to various employers in Bozeman is to estimate the travel demand to these locations, students traveling to MSU should figure in the commute data just as Faculty and Staff are. Otherwise, we don’t have a realistic count of the number of people traveling to MSU each day. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 24 Consider adding Active Transportation modes to these descriptions for the various streets. Bicycle traffic in particular should be included in the descriptions since they legally are vehicles. Even though the 2.3.2 Active Transportation Network follows on the next page, these modes should still be included within descriptions of functional classifications in order to emphasize that Bozeman is striving for a balanced, multimodal system. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Section 2.3.2.1 adequately captures the definition(s) for bicycle and pedestrian active transportation modes. 26 Consider identifying these as On-Street Bike Lanes and eliminating the word separated from the description. “On-street Bike lanes are a type of bikeway that use signage and striping to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and motorists. On-street Bike lanes encourage predictable movement by both bicyclists and motorists. Bozeman has approximately 33 miles of on-street bike lanes.” Consider mentioning the effect that MV speed and parked cars have on the safety and comfort of these facilities. Consider using a different photo for the on-street bike lanes. Consider using one that shows a fully striped bike lane adjacent to a parking lane or one that does not include a parking lane. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will modify the language as follows: Bike lanes are a type of on-street bikeway that uses signage and striping to delineate the right-of-way assigned to bicyclists and motorists. Bike lanes encourage predictable movement by both bicyclists and motorists. Bike lanes can vary in comfort depending on the speed and volume of passing motorists and the overall size of the roadway. Bike lanes of greater width help to make them more comfortable along busier roadways. Bozeman has approximately 33 miles of on-street bike lanes. We will provide a new photo as requested. 27 Consider including the limitations of shared use paths for higher speed cycling often desired by commuting cyclists. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 28 Natural Surface Trails- It should be noted that natural surface trails have inherent limitations as regular transportation routes since during the winter and shoulder months they may not be passable or safe. Since Bozeman has such a large number of trails—92 miles—that are natural surface, in quantifying the city’s Active Transportation network it’s key to remember that big chunks of it are not available all year-round. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add an addition to page 28 that states that Bozeman’s network of natural surface trails provide significant transportation utility for many residents; however many can become unsuable in the winter due to snow accumulation. 28 Consider a general discussion of facility types that includes potential user types as well as relative comfort of the facilities. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 31 In the Arterials and Collectors section consider adding that these roads with higher MV volumes and speeds are barriers and are often unpleasant places to bike and walk. Under the crossings section, consider adding increased frequency of crossings as desirable. Thinking of places like S 19th Ave between College and Kagy. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add the following additional language: Similar to on-street bicycle facilities, an arterial or collectors width and traffic speed and/or volume can influence how comfortable or 340
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 25 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE pleasant the street is to walk along. Greater separation distance from moving traffic generally increases comfort. 33 Transit Facilities. Need to include something about Galavan, and provide information regarding funding. We have information on costs, etc. for the street network, and bike/ped goals. Nothing on transit. Consider the following: Galavan was established in 1973 to provide transportation services to senior citizens and persons with a disability. This demand-response service provides over 30,000 rides per year, and is considered an important part of the transportation service in the greater Bozeman area. For Fiscal Year 2017, Galavan’s budget was approximately $400,000, which is about one-fourth of that of Streamline’s $1.6 million budget. As the Bozeman area grows, increased support (funding) for these services will be important so that the community can reduce the number of single occupancy vehicle trips in the area. People will be able to reduce their individual costs for mobility, and the existing infrastructure will be more efficient, by having multiple people on one vehicle (bus). Based on current expenses, adding an additional route to Streamline will cost about $258,000 per year. That provides twelve hours of service per day for six days per week (Monday – Saturday). Based on previous and current studies, it is anticipated that by 2040, Streamline and Galavan will need to add additional services to meet demands. Given the growth in the greater Bozeman area, it is anticipated that the Streamline/Galavan budget should grow to $6 million per year by 2040. It should be noted that the $6 million per year figure does not include the full cost of capital equipment (buses). Under the current funding program, Federal Transit Administration funds, managed by the Montana Department of Transportation, pay for 80 to 86% of the cost of the vehicles used by Streamline and Galavan. The “local portion” for the vehicles is the in annual budget, however. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add the language as suggested. 35 Active Transportation Facility Maintenance -It should be boldly stated that during months of snow and ice, a LARGE number of Bozeman bicycle facilities for all intents and purposes cease to exist. This simple fact is critical to those people who depend on bicycling for transportation (including a large percentage of MSU students) no matter how cold and snowy conditions are. This raises the subject of maintenance high on the priority list for the bicycling network, and suggests a new, more robust and fully funded bike facility snow removal program be established, including a system to prioritize the most important bike routes throughout the city and clearing snow and ice from those facilities at the same time streets are cleared for cars. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. CHAPTER 2 STATE OF THE COMMUNITY 40 2.4.1 the end of 2nd paragraph “… to determine if these roads need to be expanded to accommodate the existing or projected traffic demands.” Road expansion is only one method to accommodate traffic demand, which often leads to a more dangerous environment for people traveling by foot, bike and bus. Perhaps we should emphasize moving people, rather than just cars, indicating that we are moving away from road expansion as our only choice. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 341
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 26 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 42 This sentence does not look correct in Section 2.4.2 "Both MDT and the city of Bozeman have collected regular pedestrian and bicycles data for years, allowing long term trends to be understood". We aren’t aware of any regular bike/ped data collection- but hope we are moving in that direction! BABAB has collected bicycle counts for three days in the fall. Perhaps reword this sentence and use a word such as “limited” to describe the data collection efforts and ability to use this data to determine trends. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will replace the word “regular” with the word “limited” as suggested. 42 Journey to Work/Commuting (ACS) 2010 - 2014 Data. Are trips to school and MSU included? As mentioned above, not including MSU’s 15,000+ students in “commuting” data would critically skew the mode split data. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 42 Consider rewording the last sentence to say “This indicates needs with infrastructure….” There is clear indication that improved infrastructure connectivity is needed. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will reword the sentence language as suggested. 45 Bike and Pedestrian Intersection Traffic Counts (2015). Provide some information on, what time of day were these counts were taken. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 45 2.4.3 intersection operations- this section presents a narrow view of LOS for motor vehicles at peak hours that may mislead readers. Consider revising the text or copying your good discussion on this from page 122 -Chapter 5 to this section. “LOS are a microscopic approach to evaluating traffic operations. Intersection LOS defines intersection performance in terms of vehicle delay and does not factor in alternative travel modes nor does it take into consideration the health of the overall transportation system. Intersection LOS is often based on a single hour, or peak hours, for which the system is most congested. A more macroscopic approach to improving the transportation system, not just reducing peak hour delay at single intersections, should be taken.” A good resource on this topic can be found in Chapter 7 of “A Citizen’s Guide to Better Streets”. Consider ensuring the use of motor vehicle or vehicle when discussing LOS as this is a motor vehicle measure. Consider including language that clarifies that LOS is a measure of peak hour delay (often reporting on the peak 15 mins) and the intersection likely functions with little or no delay during most hours of the day. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add the language depicted and from Chapter 5 in section 2.4.3 for reinforcement. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 46 Figure 2.13 – Similar to above comment, please make it clear that this LOS figure refers to motor vehicles only at peak commute hours. Label on figure what the A-F ratings refer to such as F= > 80 seconds increased mv travel time…. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 47 Consider including the critical fact that major streets often interrupt/disrupt low stress networks NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 49 Does Fig. 2.15 on page 49 include bicycle and pedestrian crashes? NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Bicycle and pedestrian crashes are not included in Figure 2.15. 342
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 27 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 54 Why were locations of these crashes not shown? Can locations be shown in the final version of the TMP? This is critical to prioritizing where attention—and money—should be focused to make the active transportation network safe. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Bicycle and pedestrian crashes are not shown spatially due to dataset limitations and inconsistent reporting formats. 54 Were the 23% of bicycle crashes that occurred “within a bicycle lane” in the intersection or the tangent section of the roadway? This is critical to knowing what aspect of the bike lane design may contribute to a crash. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. We do not have the dataset to answer this questions due to dataset limitations and inconsistent reporting formats. 54 Consider revising final sentence to read “…local streets, that ARE another place…” This is an important recommendation. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 55 For the 59% of bike crashes and 36% of ped crashes by impaired driving by motorists. Does impaired refer to alcohol or drugs or does it also include distracted driving, such as use of cell phones. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. The dataset only includes impaired driving, not distracted driving. CHAPTER 3 GROWTH, TRAVEL FORECASTS, AND NEEDS 61 Table 3.4 appears to have a typo. For the year 2020, should it be 84, 111 (rather than 8,411) CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for catching this typo. We will change the 8411 number (it should be 81,751). 63 traffic model assumed traffic will be similar as today. Change language to reflect the need to meet higher bike, ped, bus mode share goals. Consider “…how motor vehicle traffic patterns…” for the first sentence. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add the words “motor vehicle” as suggested. 65 Figure 3.2 - Similar comment to that on page 46, this figure on its own may be misleading to readers. Please make it clear that this LOS figure refers to motor vehicles only at peak commute hours. Label on figure what the A-F ratings refer to such as F= > 80 seconds increased mv travel time… NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 69 Consider adding a discussion of the additional trip reduction potential of increasing transit frequency and reach. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. CHAPTER 4 IMPROVING THE SYSTEM 71 This section recommends many MSN projects to become 5 lane streets, which promote high speeds and tend to have the highest crash rates. Communities across the country are converting their 4 or 5 lane roads to 3 lanes (called a road diet). Benefits of 3 lanes rather than 4 include: An overall crash reduction of 19 to 47 percent (FHWA, Road Diet Informational Guide, 2014). Reduction of rear‐end and left‐turn crashes through the use of a dedicated left‐turn lane. Fewer lanes for pedestrians to cross, space for pedestrian refuge islands. Improves speed limit compliance and reduces crash severity. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 343
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 28 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE Allows more space for high quality bicycle facilities. 4 and 5 lane roadways appear to be contradictory to many of the goals and objectives of this plan. While we are not suggesting this is appropriate for every street, it is important to assess assumptions that 4-5 lanes are necessary. Research shows building more lanes leads to more traffic. No city has ever built its way out of congestion by adding more lanes. Numerous studies show that adding capacity to roadways fails to alleviate congestion for long because it actually increases vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (Handy, 2015 Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion). 71 Where in the TMP will roadway standards/cross sections be defined, e.g., principal arterial, urban collector, etc? In the prior section on the Committed Major Street Network (CMSN), more detail is provided including mention of bike lanes, shared-use paths, medians, etc. For these Recommended Major Street Network roadways no such detail is provided, and bicycle facilities aren’t mentioned at all. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Appendix H: Facility Recommendations Technical Memorandum contains additional detail on preliminary configurations and associated non-motorized facilities. Appendix K shows the conceptual corridor striping plans developed for this purpose. 72 CMSN-4 doesn’t the cross section include shared use path now? CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. We will modify the description to reflect the addition of the shared use path. 73 Add language about not only upgrading intersections for traffic volumes, but also to be safe and comfortable for people on foot and bike. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 73 Find out what "representative typical sections were chosen from the 2007 TMP. Standard cross sections require updates to reflect newer guidelines. (from NACTO and FHWA) NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Appendix H: Facility Recommendations Technical Memorandum contains additional detail on preliminary configurations and associated non-motorized facilities. Appendix K shows the conceptual corridor striping plans developed for this purpose. 77 Babcock Street – a conservation easement exists along Gooch Hill making the extension of Babcock Street west to Gooch Hill very unlikely, even in the 20+ year horizon of this plan. Consider removing this from the Future Road Connections. CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. We will modify the maps and text as appropriate to terminate the future extension of West Babcock at the theoretical north-south extension of Westgate Avenue, rather than all the way to Gooch Hill Road as presently depicted. 79 Committed TSM Improvements – Consider adding descriptions of bicycle intersection treatments here. As the bicycle crash data in chapter 2.5 shows, 78% of crashes occur at intersections and driveways, and 65% of crashes occur on arterial streets. We have many tried-and-tested design tools, such as the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, to help make intersections safer for bicyclists. The TMP should be stating when those are called for, and provide those details. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 344
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 29 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 80-81 Does "small" roundabout refer to single lane? Large to double lane? Consider adding discussion of different intersection types in terms of safety for all road users. Oregon’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide, 2011 provides a discussion of modern roundabouts in Chapter 6. Some benefits of single lane roundabouts include: • Reduced need for more travel lanes (signals create stop-and-go conditions, resulting in a need for extra travel lanes to handle capacity at intersections). • Reduced crash rates; • Reduced severity of injuries (due to slower speeds); • Reduced long-term costs (compared to traffic signals, which require electrical • power); and • Reduced liability by transportation agencies (there are no signals to fail). NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 85 This chapter should state up front that some of the Spot Improvements include bicycle facilities. Several of the spot improvements include treatments to improve access and safety for bicyclists that do not appear in the Bicycle Improvements section in 4.4. This could mislead City of Bozeman engineering staff or consultants who might assume that all the recommended bike improvements for any given location are confined to section 4.4 and do not occur elsewhere in the TMP document. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will change the last paragraph under 4.3.1 to: Each of these issues is addressed in this section through a variety of infrastructure and programmatic improvements. Figure 4.3 displays the recommended sidewalks, intersection improvements, and trails which will benefit pedestrian (and in many cases bicycle) activity. All improvements will improve the City’s accessibility to pedestrians of all ages and abilities through accessible design. The city of Bozeman should consider adopting the draft Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and continue to retrofit its network for improved accessibility for all users. 85 Consider rewording the second sentence of 4.3 to something like “The recommendations are intended to encourage active living by residents and visitors and accommodate a variety of ability levels with particular emphasis on establishing a well-connected pedestrian network that is comfortable and accessible to a wider range of the population.” CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add the language as suggested. 86 Good recommendation to amend UDO to require sidewalk construction as a basic component of subdivisions that should be installed w/ streets and utilities before individual lots are developed. How can the TDM team follow up to move this forward? NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 88 Spot-8 consider including a striping plan for the short term recommendations. This intersection needs to have striping updated as soon as possible to provide better indication of where bicycles should be positioned for safety. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 88 Spot-9 Irving students do not generally cross here anymore. The Irving School Walking School Bus from Family and Graduate Housing established its route along College, crossing 11th at the roundabout and then crossing College at 9th. When the SRTS plans were developed there were crossing guards at CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add an option to SPOT 5 for a protected intersection or roundabout for the second scenario. 345
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 30 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 12th/College and 11th/Alderson. These no longer exist. Consider removing this recommendation if based solely on Irving School. There is still a crosswalk at this location. We will leave this in but remove the reference to the SRTS. 89 SPOT -11 Will MDT allow HAWK at an intersection? MUTCD allows but does not recommend? Consideration of improvement at 7th and Villard. This is an existing school crossing. RRFB is being proposed. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add the following text to the description at the beginning: This project supports the formalization of a bicycle boulevard along Lamme St. 89 SPOT 12 & 13 – These improvements were approved for TA funding and are in development already. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 89 SPOT-16 Consider Grant or Garfield first, with recommended bike lanes on Grant and existing MSU bike/ped traffic at Garfield? Galligator crossing needs path improvements to define crossing at Lincoln. Depending on Kagy reconstruction and MOR Galligator corridor may relocate. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. City will adjust priorities depending on opportunities and constraints at the time. 90 SPOT-22 There is currently room to restripe this intersection to include a BL through while maintaining the RT lane. Consider including a restriping plan for this intersection. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 90 SPOT-27 – consider recommending bulb out(s) to improve ped visibility as well as reducing right turn issue. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add a third option for bulb-outs to be retrofitted with any roadway/streetscape work on College. 91 These intersection design recommendations should be adopted into Engineering standards for roadway design, and integrated into development regulation documents. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 91 SPOT-40 Consider including N 22nd as a potential location for this. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add a second option in the location column that says W. Stevens St and N. 19th Ave or N. 22nd Ave and N. 19th Ave 91 Consider adding a recommendation to automatically give walk signal with green and eliminate the need to use the “beg button”. This was done on Main St. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 91 Consider adding SPOT improvement on Garfield at the Galligator crossing recommending making this a raised crossing. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 91 Consider adding SPOT improvements for College St between 11th and 8th Ave to add bulb outs and enhanced crossings for this high traffic pedestrian area. Demonstration projects could help define and refine the concepts to be used. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add a sentence to explore bicycle and pedestrian features such as bike lanes and bulb-outs under MSN-19. 93 Consider including reference to Ithaca, NY sidewalk funding program that established districts for funding sidewalk program. http://www.cityofithaca.org/219/Sidewalk-Policy Also, consider referencing Burlington, VT that has a city run snow removal program. https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/uploadedFiles/BurlingtonVTgov/Departments/Public_Works/Streets_and_Sidewalks/FY12%20DPW%20Snowfighting%20Program.pdf NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 346
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 31 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 95 Consider changing label to “On-street Bike Lanes” NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 96 Consider adding a discussion of: preferred facility types based on user type, the minimum grid concept, the importance of a connected network that includes intersection treatments particularly at arterial and collector crossings. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 96 Consider adding further details for Bicycle Boulevards including examples and visuals. Consider including the “advanced treatment” options of traffic diverters, etc. These should definitely be included in future planning for the network in Bozeman. If this plan is looking out to 2040 it is not too early to introduce these concepts. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 97 BL-2 consider option of advisory BL similar to College St NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 97 General – MSU Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) recommends separated bike lanes in many places including W Garfield & W Lincoln CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will review the final MSU BMP for consistency as the BMP has gone through several iterations since the City’s TMP process was initiated. 98 BL-8 the MSU BMP recommends development of a pathway connection for bicycles NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 99 BL-11 Long term what are the standards set forth in the Bozeman TMP? CHANGE RECOMMENDED The striping plans drawn for Appendix K use typical sections from the 2007 LRTP Update. If the City of Bozeman desires we can bring the actual typical sections graphics over from the 2007 LRTP Update and place them in Appendix K. 100 BB-1 consider referencing specific spot improvement CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will remove reference to spot improvements and intersection modifications as none are proposed. 100 BB-3 consider referencing SPOT-11, others? CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will change reference to SPOT-11. 100 Consider including Villard & Aspen as BBs. Villard is direct connection to Beall west of HS and is a school crossing at N 7th. Aspen could connect from N7th all the way to Front St with a bridge that has been discussed by the NE neighborhood and path connections through Centennial and N Grand Parks. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 101 SR-4 MSU BMP recommends BL with 10’ travel lane. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add option for bike lane in table, and change text to “shared lane markings or 5-foot bike lane and 10’ travel lane could also be implemented.” 347
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 32 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 106 Consider adding a discussion of a winter maintenance and establishing a bike and ped counting program. Could be as simple as requesting data be collected by all consultants and that MDT include bike ped classifications on all counts conducted in Bozeman. Could include purchase of equipment and data plan from EcoCounter as Missoula does. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will work on developing and adding language that speaks to a more robust bike and ped counting program. CHAPTER 5 POLICY AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK 112 Consider removing sentence “Due to the experiences with these traditional TDM measures over the past few decades, it became clear that the whole TDM concept needed to be changed.” While partially true, this paints TDM efforts in a light of being unsuccessful. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will remove the sentence as suggested. 112 Section 5.2 Transportation Demand Management (Final Paragraph) Please edit to say the following: The city of Bozeman is embarking on a golden opportunity beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 with the commitment for financial participation for a newly created TDM initiative. This is the first initiative of its kind in the Greater Bozeman area, and is being funded by the Western Transportation Institute through a Federal grant, with match funds being provided by the city of Bozeman and Montana State University. It is anticipated that this initiative will initially be funded for three years, and will focus on reducing overall vehicle miles traveled through a number of TDM efforts, including an emphasis on walking, biking, carpooling, vanpooling and transit. Additional information on these and other TDM strategies is provided in the following section. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will modify the final paragraph as suggested. 117 Guaranteed Ride Home Programs - As noted in the text, the GRH program is for more than transit commuters, including those who car- or van-pool. Perhaps it would be easiest to simply remove the text from the “header” that says, “for Transit Riders.” CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will modify the header as suggested. 118 Consider rewording such as “Portions of a connected network are in place to use alternative modes of transportation including transit, walking and bicycling. Increased connectivity and expansion of these networks will be needed as the community grows.” CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will modify the language as suggested. 122 “A more macroscopic approach to improving the transportation system, not just reducing peak hour delay at single intersections, should be taken.” Are there specific suggestions that should be included? NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCIAL STRATEGIES 129 In the first paragraph consider referencing the idea of a minimum grid for the active transportation network. In the third paragraph consider including user comfort as an important facility attribute to be considered. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 129 Cross sections and intersection treatments are a critical aspect of the vision for a transportation network and are missing from the plan. Consider including examples from and references to documents such as the NACTO Guides. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 131 Consider adding separated bike lanes to the visionary Active Transportation Network. For certain corridors, this should be the preferred facility type. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. Bike lanes are already depicted on Figure 6.2. 348
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 33 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 132 Consider moving or adding this section to Section 1.3. Having the Goals, Obj. and Perf Measures in one place is helpful for a complete understanding. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 133, 134 Several goals (2, 3, 5, 6 & 7) note the percentage of the city within 1/8 mile of a bus stop or bike lane. In transit, it is generally considered that someone has bus service if they are within ¼ mile of a stop. Therefore, at least for transit, I would use the ¼ mile distance, even if we keep the bike lane distance at 1/8 mile. CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will modify the language as suggested to identify the ¼ mile distance. 133, 134 Goal #6. There is nothing about transit ridership. Not sure where it should go, but perhaps we need something about the percentage of trips taken by transit. Or, instead of having targets for modes such as walking, biking and transit, should we have an overall goal of something like 50% or fewer trips will be taken by single occupancy vehicles. A goal like that supports all other modes, and TDM efforts such as carpooling, vanpooling, etc. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 133, 134 The goals and targets for bike lanes and shared use paths should state within a distance of a connected network of bike lanes. Simple proximity to a section of bike lane that is not connected should not be considered a goal. Goal 6 should include perf measures and targets for public involvement since it is one of the objectives. This could include the use of demonstration projects to test design options. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. APPENDIX K - Corridor Striping Plans The comments below recommend some representative changes to the striping plan, rather than an exhaustive list. It was our understanding that the striping plan was originally intended to allow for relatively low cost, short term changes to striping that could provide better guidance for people walking and biking, especially at intersections, creating a more predictable and safe environment. However, this striping plan does not include any dimensions or bike/pedestrian specific guidance that would meet that intent. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. It is unclear why the commenter assumes how the corridor striping plans are to be developed. The scope of services for this effort are for high level conceptual corridor schematics with very basic line work within the roadway prism. Design details including dimensioning, annotations, individual intersections treatments, etc., are not part of this associated planning effort. 1 Should include striping plans for key intersections where bike lane markings currently need to be added or modified. Intersections which currently need improved striping include: S 3rd Ave/Kagy Blvd, N 7th Ave/Oak St (including Walmart access), N 19th Ave/Oak St, S 23rd/Babcock/Main St, Cottonwood Rd/Babcock, Cottonwood/Fallon, S 19th/Kagy. Several of these intersections include existing striping that violates the MUTCD by striping a bike lane to the right of a right turn lane. These striping plans should be produced and implemented with the annual restriping this summer. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 1 Using the 2007 cross sections does not bring the street standards up to current state of the practice for bike infrastructure. NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 6 S 3rd at Goldenstein. Bike treatment? Bike box? Bike lane shown dashed for each turn lane? NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 349
BOZEMANTMP TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN March 17, 2016 34 Comments on Draft ReportID DATE RECEIVED COMMENT RESPONSE 8 S 3rd at Graf(w) - SB bike lane treatment: bike box? Left turn bike lane? Roundabout? NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 8 S 3rd at Graf ( e) - SB bike lane treatment: carry with through lane NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 10 S 3rd/Kagy Willson needs striping update now not in 5 years with Kagy reconstruction, carry bike lane with through lane NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 12 S 11th continue median? NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 14 Widen sidewalk/path at roundabout to provide bike and ped space, consider separate facilities NO CHANGE RECOMMENDED Thank you for your comment. 28 7-Apr-17 Bob Abelin (note: received after deadline of 5:00 PM on 03/17/2017) Dear Mr. Key, I would like to take this opportunity to provide comment regarding the Bozeman TMP update. The developers of the DNRC property between North 7th Avenue and Interstate 90 are currently exploring access options for 255 acres of potential commercial property in this area. Currently the property is largely landlocked to the west and north between I-90 and the Montana Rail Link railroad tracks. In order to provide better access to this property, the developers are currently exploring several different options to create a new connection across I-90. These options may include a new overpass, underpass, or ramp modification between Baxter Lane and the Frontage Road. The alternatives may involve a connection to Dead Mans Gulch or other cross street providing direct access to 19th. A new crossing of Interstate 90 in this area would provide better access to the DNRC development property and could improve traffic flow patterns along Baxter Lane and North 19th Avenue by creating an alternative connection to Griffin Drive to the east. This crossing is not proposed as a new interchange connection with I-90. We suggest that a potential MSN project be included within the TMP to help move this project forward. Bob Abelin, P.E. PTOE Abelin Traffic Services 406-459-1443 CHANGE RECOMMENDED We will add an additional project identified as MSN-48 that suggests an overpass or underpass be considered for a new east-west connection across Interstate 90 near the theoretical extension of Baxter Lane to Griffin Drive. We did identify this in the current version of the TMP for a visionary trail corridor over or under I-90. 350