The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01- Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update ENGINEERING DESK COPY DO NOT REMOVE Greater D Area Transportation Plan 200 1 Update ,Y 0000 i Prepared By '+ Robert Peccia & Associates Helena, Montana June, 2001 T PEr`'q I � � � r Oct Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update Prepared for: Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee Bozeman, Montana In Cooperation with: City of Bozeman Gallatin County Montana Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Adopted By Transportation Coordinating Committee, May 23, 2001 June, 2001 Prepared by Robert Peccia& Associates 825 Custer Avenue P.O. Box 5653 Helena, Montana 59604 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Acknowledgments The successful completion of this project was made possible through the cooperation and assistance of many individuals. The following people provided guidance and support throughout the course of this study: Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee Members Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Debbie Arkell, Director, Bozeman Office of Public Service Bill Armold, Planning Director, Gallatin County Bob Burkhardt, Designee, Federal Highway Administration Andrew Epple, Director, Bozeman Office of Planning & Community Development Jason Giard, District Engineer, Butte District Montana Department of Transportation Clark Johnson, Bozeman City Manager Bob Lashaway, Facilities Service Director, Montana State University Joe Menicucci, Belgrade City Manager Doug Moeller, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Montana Department of Transportation Bill Murdock, Chairperson, Gallatin County Commissioner Ed Musser, President, City Planning Board Lee Provance, Road Supervisor, Gallatin County Howard Van Noy, Representative, Gallatin County Planning Board Paul Weingart, Citizen Member, Bozeman Marcia Youngman, Mayor, City of Bozeman Lynn Zanto, Supervisor, Urban Planning, Montana Department of Transportation Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian &Traffic Safety Committee Representative Other Important Contributors to the Bozeman Transportation Plan MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Alen Vander Wey, Transportation Modeler Thomas Stuber, Transit Planner CITY OF BOZEMAN Ron Brey, Assistant City Manager Chris Saunders, Associate Planner Carol Schott, Recording Secretary GALLATIN COUNTY John Shepard, Planner BOZEMAN BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD Alex Phillips Robert Peccia &Associates Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update GALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST Gary Vodehnal BOZEMAN DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Bert Hopeman Kendall Dittmar List of Preparers The Traffic & Transportation Division of the consulting firm of Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc., Helena, Montana prepared this study. The following members of our firm were major contributors to this study or helped prepare the document: Robert J. Peccia, P.E., Principal-In-Charge Douglas E. Widmayer, P.E., Project Manager Robert L. Abelin, E.I., Project Designer Nicholas L. Ladas, Graphics Designer Kelly P. Quinn, Computer System Manager Mary A. Bell, Production Manager SUB-CONSULTANT James Boyer, Socioeconomic Consultant BETA, DBE Consultant -Editorial Services Robert Peccia &Associates Executive Summary Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Undate Executive Summary The current traffic conditions in the greater Bozeman area are relatively good, with only a few notable exceptions. At the time of this study, only a few corridors were experiencing greater than acceptable levels of traffic congestion. For the most part these corridors included the 19th Avenue corridor from Durston to Kagy, Durston Road from North 7ch to North 19th, and a few short sections of West Main Street. Only four signalized intersections and seven unsignalized intersections in the community are currently experiencing excessive vehicle delays. Most of the components of the street network are functioning adequately at this time; however these good conditions are in the process of change. Many corridors and intersections within the community will reach their functional capacities over the next 20 years as a result of the anticipated growth in the area. The Gallatin valley is one of the fastest growing areas in Montana. It is anticipated that over 10,000 new homes will be built in the area over the next 20 years. There will be significant increases in population and employment. Most of this growth will occur within the study area of this Plan. This Plan Update was produced in coordination with the concurrent growth planning efforts for the Bozeman and Gallatin County Growth Plans. The highest levels of growth in the Bozeman area are expected to occur in the northwest and southeast portions of the community. Infill is also expected along the corridors that connect Bozeman to Belgrade and Four Corners. This growth translates into additional traffic and higher demands on the transportation system. Growth within the Bozeman area was projected using a computer traffic model. The model used current socio-economic data and growth trends to project traffic volumes. These projected traffic volumes identified future traffic problems within the area. The projections indicate that many sections of the current street network will be insufficient to meet the traffic demands generated by future growth. The anticipated traffic demand in the year 2020 will produce unacceptable traffic congestion, and excessive vehicle delays at 40 major intersections. Several major corridors will need to be expanded to handle the additional traffic including 19th; College; Babcock; Durston; and Rouse. Numerous new roads will also be required in the next 20 years to provide access to the new growth areas of the community. Without the recommended system upgrades, the anticipated increase in traffic volumes will overload these arterials. Even with the recommended road improvements contained in this Plan, traffic volumes on some arterials will grow to the point that some traffic congestion will still occur. As the arterial network approaches capacity, some drivers will try to avoid congestion on the arterial routes by using neighborhood streets as "short-cuts." This reaction to poor driving conditions on the major routes can have devastating safety impacts on neighborhood streets. Because of this fact, it is necessary for the community to establish a process for dealing with requests for traffic calming to resolve neighborhood traffic problems. The recommended traffic calming process outlined in Chapter 12 contains information about effective traffic calming techniques. Also included are a structured methodology and a well-defined approach to address these types of neighborhood complaints. Robert Peccia &Associates i Executive Summary Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update One of the most important pieces of information that is provided in this Plan is a projection of the major street network. A map showing this projection is presented in Chapter 11, and identifies where the arterial and collector routes of the community should be located as the area develops. This map, along with recommended street standards, is an important planning tool. This projection of the future road system is essential for the city and county planners. It provides a blueprint of how the arterial network should be developed. It enables the planners to locate future arterial corridors, and to request appropriate amounts of rights-of-way and new road sections throughout the development process. This will allow the community to create a logical and functional road network for the future. It is important to note that identifying the desired general alignment of future road corridors is significantly different from building roads to encourage development. The socio-economic trends indicate that substantial development will occur within the 20-year planning horizon of this transportation plan. This map of the future road system will insure that anticipated development also produces an appropriate road system. This Plan also supports the development of effective alternatives to driving. It encourages the use of transit and non-motorized modes of travel by recommending development of necessary infrastructure. This will not only help to moderate increases in traffic demand, but it will also help to produce a very desirable multi-modal transportation system. This Plan recommends the creation of a public transit authority that will provide an effective transit alternative to commuting in private vehicles. The Plan recommends a bicycle route system connecting the residential areas with the schools and business areas. An examination of the sidewalk network is discussed, as are recommended sidewalk improvements. These include recommendations to repair existing sidewalks, to provide new sidewalks where they are missing, and to upgrade the major sidewalk network to meet ADA requirements. A map of the recommended off-road trails network is also included in the Plan. In order to efficiently respond to traffic demands within the community, a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) strategy is provided. Possible TDM strategies include ride-sharing; carpools; non-motorized forms of transportation; and public transit. Another possible strategy is to encourage local businesses to allow employees to use flex-time to help shift traffic demand away from the peak hours. The analysis of the future traffic conditions indicated a need for numerous improvements in the area. These improvements are broken down into two categories: Transportation System Management (TSM) Improvements, and Major Improvements. TSM projects focus mainly on intersection improvements, such as the addition of turning lanes and signalization. A total of 49 TSM projects are recommended at an estimated cost of about $7 million. The Major Improvement projects focus on upgrading entire road corridors and the construction of new roadways. Forty Major Improvements are recommended at a total cost of approximately $211 million. The cost of the recommended improvement projects far exceeds the funds available through the federal-aid programs that are traditionally used to finance transportation improvements. Many projects will need to be financed by the private sector during the development process. Robert Peccia &Associates ii Executive Sumntary Greater Bozenwn Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update A strategy for the implementation of the recommended TSM and Major Improvements is provided at the end of this document. The TSM projects should be completed as needed and as funding allows. Implementation of the TSM projects will keep most of the transportation system functioning at a satisfactory level during the 20-year planning period. However, a select group of Major Improvement projects must be implemented in order for the system to function effectively. The top ten recommended Major Improvements projects are listed below and prioritized by need: Top Ten Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Projects (Listed in order of importance to the community.) 1. South 19th, West Main to College: Improve to urban arterial standard. 2. Construct Airport Interchange and connect to the Frontage Road. 3. South 19th, College to Kagy: Improve to urban arterial standard. 4. Frontage Road, Bozeman to Belgrade: Improve to rural arterial standard. 5. North 19th, Springhill to Baxter: Improve to urban arterial standard. 6. Durston, North 19th to Ferguson: Improve to urban arterial standard. 7. West College, Main to South 19th: Improve to urban arterial standard. 8. Rouse, East Main to Story Mill Road: Improve to urban arterial standard. 9. Kagy Boulevard, South 19th to Willson: Improve to urban arterial standard. 10. West Babcock, Main to Ferguson: Improve to urban collector standard. Robert Peccia &Associates iii Executive Summary Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update Top Programs To Be Implemented (Not listed in order of importance to the community.) • Adopt the Recommended Major Street Network shown in FIGURES 11-1 and 11-2. Estimated Cost: Unknown • Adopt the Recommended Street Standards contained in Chapter 11. Estimated Cost: Unknown • Adopt the Recommended Bike Route System shown in FIGURE 6-3. Estimated Cost: Unknown • Adopt the Recommended Trails Network shown in FIGURE 6-4. Estimated Cost: Unknown • Adopt Traffic Calming Program Estimated Cost: Unknown • Adopt Transportation Demand Management Program Estimated Cost: Unknown • Major Sidewalk Network Improvements: includes completing sidewalk system and repairing portions in poor condition, and upgrading all intersections on the major street network to include handicap access on all corners. Estimated Cost: $2,298,000 • Municipal Transit System: recommend combining Bobcat Transit and Gal-a-Van services into a single municipal system, and seek federal transit funding for rolling stock, facilities, and operating assistance; expand fixed route service area; expand service times to include nights and weekends; continue to serve Four Corners and Belgrade; and include fixed route along Main Street from the Mall to Haggerty Lane. Estimated Cost: Unknown • Downtown Bozeman: Since there is interest in improving the operation and appearance of the downtown area, it is recommended to conduct an in-depth study of the downtown area including the adjacent streets. The study should include street network options; potential parking modifications; traffic patterns; traffic control; pedestrian and bicycle amenities; safety; streetscape appearance; and how any modifications will change the economics of the downtown businesses. The study should be completed as soon as possible, preferably before the planning of the next major paving project in the downtown area. Estimated Cost: $30,000 Robert Peccia &Associates iv Executive Sununary Greater Bozeman Area Tran�Wortation Plan, 2001 Update • Area-Wide Street Name Program: There are many inconsistent street names within the study area. These include street name changes along a corridor that make driving and locating addresses confusing. The street name system should be revised to eliminate inconsistencies. As part of this program it is recommended that large street name signs be used throughout the community. Clearly visible street name signs tend to reduce driver confusion and improve traffic flow. Estimated Cost: Unknown • Right-of-way Acquisition Program: There are roads that have been used for years without easements or other legal grants of right-of-way to the public for use. These roads pose problems when traffic demand requires improvements to the existing surfaces. The City, County, and State should consistently work to acquire needed public right-of-ways for future and existing streets. Estimated Cost: Unknown • Right-of-way Management Program: There are many elements which can affect the carrying capacity and long term maintenance of roads. The management of access points, occupancy of rights-of-way by utilities, and other activities must be coordinated and controlled in order to preserve the functionality and value represented by the street system. Estimated Cost: Unknown Robert Peccia &Associates v Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Project Background............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Study Area........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Transportation Planning Goals............................................................................ 1-3 1.4 Previous Transportation Planning Efforts........................................................... 1-4 1.5 Public Involvement.............................................................................................. 1-4 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Existing Road System .........................................................................................2-1 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes....................................................................................2-1 2.3 Existing Signal System........................................................................................2-6 2.4 Intersection Level of Service...............................................................................2-6 2.5 Travel Speed........................................................................................................2-10 2.6 Truck Traffic .......................................................................................................2-13 2.7 Pavement Survey.................................................................................................2-14 2.8 Street Lighting.....................................................................................................2-14 CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING 3.1 Traffic Model Development................................................................................3-1 3.2 Socioeconomic Trends ........................................................................................3-2 3.3 Population and Employment Projections ............................................................3-4 3.4 Allocation of Growth within the Study Area......................................................3-5 3.5 Committed Transportation Improvements .........................................................3-7 3.6 Traffic Volume Projections.................................................................................3-8 3.7 Network Alternatives Test Run Analysis............................................................3-8 CHAPTER 4: PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 4.1 Corridor Volumes and Capacity..........................................................................4-1 4.2 Intersection Level of Service...............................................................................4-3 4.3 Accident Analysis................................................................................................4-6 4.4 Transit System.....................................................................................................4-9 4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle System............................................................................4-9 4.6 Downtown Bozeman...........................................................................................4-10 4.7 Traffic Calming ..................................................................................................4-10 Robert Peccia &Associates Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update CHAPTER 5: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT 5.1 Role of TDM in the Plan Update.........................................................................5-1 5.2 List of TDM Strategies and Their Effectiveness.................................................5-1 5.3 Conclusions Based on Preliminary TDM Evaluation for Bozeman....................5-4 5.4 Recommended TDM Program ............................................................................5-6 CHAPTER 6: PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ANALYSIS 6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Issues Regarding Pedestrians and Bicyclists in Bozeman...................................6-1 6.3 Major Sidewalk Network....................................................................................6-2 6.4 ADA Compliance................................................................................................6-5 6.5 Bicycle Facilities.................................................................................................6-5 6.6 Bozeman Area Trails...........................................................................................6-7 6.7 Implementation....................................................................................................6-1 1 CHAPTER 7: TRANSIT ANALYSIS 7.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Bobcat Transit.....................................................................................................7-1 7.3 Gal-A-Van...........................................................................................................7-2 7.4 Other Transit Providers .......................................................................................7-4 7.5 Transit Questionnaire..........................................................................................7-5 7.6 Recommended Transit Goals ..............................................................................7-9 7.7 Ridership Estimate ..............................................................................................7-16 7.8 Transit Funding...................................................................................................7-16 7.9 Roles &Responsibilities.....................................................................................7-17 CHAPTER 8: DOWNTOWN BOZEMAN 8.1 Parking Supply....................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Parking Utilization ..............................................................................................8-2 8.3 Downtown Traffic Circulation............................................................................8-5 8.4 Recommended Actions........................................................................................8-13 CHAPTER 9: RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS 9.1 TSM Projects.......................................................................................................9-1 9.2 Committed TSM (CTSM) Improvements...........................................................9-3 9.3 Recommended TSM Improvements....................................................................9-3 CHAPTER 10: RECOMMENDED MAJOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 10.1 Recommended Programs................................................................................... 10-1 10.2 Committed Major Improvement Projects.......................................................... 10-2 10.3 Recommended Major Iitiprovements Projects .................................................. 10-3 Robert Peccia &Associates Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update CHAPTER 11: RECOMMENDED MAJOR STREET NETWORK AND STREET STANDARDS 11.1 Functional Highway Systems in Urbanized Areas............................................ 11-1 11.2 Facility Size Versus Traffic Volume................................................................. 11-3 11.3 Recommended Major Street Network............................................................... 11-4 11.4 Right-Of-Way.................................................................................................... 11-10 11.5 Recommended Street Standards........................................................................ 11-10 CHAPTER 12: TRAFFIC CALMING 12.1 Purpose of Traffic Calming .............................................................................. 12-1 12.2 History of Traffic Calming................................................................................ 12-1 12.3 Types of Traffic Calming Measures.................................................................. 12-2 12.4 Incorporating Traffic Calming in New Street Designs...................................... 12-4 12.5 Traffic Calming Program Summary.................................................................. 12-12 12.6 Traffic Calming Program for Existing Streets.................................................... 12-13 CHAPTER 13: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 13.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 13-1 13.2 Funding Sources................................................................................................ 13-1 13.3 Federal Aid Funding Programs ......................................................................... 13-2 13.4 State Funding Programs .................................................................................... 13-8 13.5 Local Funding Sources...................................................................................... 13-10 13.6 Summary of Current Financial Status ............................................................... 13-15 CHAPTER 14: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 14.1 Initial Considerations ........................................................................................ 14-1 14.2 Development Strategy for Major Network Improvement Projects.................... 14-1 14.3 Transportation System Management (TSM) Strategy ...................................... 14-5 CHAPTER 15: ADMINISTRATION AND AMENDMENTS 15.1 Administration and Amendments...................................................................... 1 5-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Approximate Road Capacity ................................................................................2-5 Table 2-2 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections ............................................................2-6 Table 2-3 1999 LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ...............................................2-10 Table 2-4 Percentage of Trucks Compared to Total Volume ...............................................2-13 Table 2-5 Historic Heavy Vehicle Counts ............................................................................2-14 Table 3-1 Gallatin County Population and Employment Trends 1970-2000........................3-2 Table 3-2 Gallatin County Employment Trends by Economic Sector 1970-1998 ...............3-3 Table 3-3 Gallatin County Populations and Employment Projections 2000-2020 ..............3-5 Table 4-1 Approximate Road Capacity ................... ...........4-1 .................................................. Table 4-2 Signal Warrant Analysis of Existing Conditions .................................................4-6 Table 4-3 High Accident Intersections (Ranked on Accident Severity) ..............................4-7 Robert Peccia &Associates Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Table 4-4 High Accident Intersections (Ranked by Accident Rate) ....................................4-8 Table 4-5 Accident Analysis of Road Segments...................................................................4-9 Table 7-1 Montana Mass Transit System Information..........................................................7-16 Table8-1 Downtown Parking ...............................................................................................8-2 Table 8-2 Utilization of City-Operated Lots .........................................................................8-2 Table 8-3 Summary of Off-Street Parking Use in Downtown Bozeman..............................8-5 Table 8-4 Summary of On-Street Parking Use in Downtown Bozeman...............................8-5 Table 9-1 TSM Projects from 1993 Plan Included in 2000 Plan Update..............................9-1 Table 10-1 Major Projects from the 1993 Plan Included in the 2001 Plan Update............... 10-3 Table 12-1 Physical Traffic Calming Measures.................................................................... 12-5 Table 13-1 Project Funding Available for Transportation Projects ...................I.................. 13-16 Table 14-1 Recommended Major Improvement Project Priorities ....................................... 14-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 14 Study Area Boundary........................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2-1 1998 Annual Average Daily Traffic - ADT (Study Area)...................................2-2 Figure 2-2 1998 ADT Map Bozeman Area...........................................................................2-3 Figure 2-3 Existing Signalized Intersections (Bozeman Area).............................................2-7 Figure 2-4 Existing Signalized Intersections LOS Analysis (A.M. and P.M.)......................2-9 Figure 2-5 Travel Speed (Bozeman Area).............................................................................2-11 Figure 2-6 Running Speed and Delay (Bozeman Area) .......................................................2-12 Figure 2-7 Pavement Survey (Bozeman Area)......................................................................2-15 Figure 2-8 Corridor Lighting (Bozeman Area) ....................................................................2-16 Figure 3-1 Gallatin County Population Trends and Projections 1970-2020.........................3-6 Figure 3-2 Gallatin County Employment Trends and Projections Full and Part Time Employment 1970-2020....................................................3-6 Figure 3-3 2010 Average Daily Traffic-ADT (Study Area)..................................................3-9 Figure 3-4 2010 Average Daily Traffic-ADT (Bozeman Area)............................................3-10 Figure 3-5 2020 Average Daily Traffic-ADT (Study Area)..................................................3-11 Figure 3-6 2020 Average Daily Traffic-ADT (Bozeman Area)............................................3-12 Figure 4-1 Identified Transportation Problems.....................................................................4-5 Figure 6-1 Major Sidewalk System.......................................................................................6-3 Figure 6-2 Handicap Access Ramp Inventory.......................................................................6-6 Figure6-3 Bike Route Network............................................................................................6-8 Figure 6-4 Bike Route Network............................................................................................6-9 Figure 6-5 Bozeman Area Trail Network..............................................................................6-13 Figure 7-1 Bobcat Transit System Route Map......................................................................7-3 Figure 7-2 Proposed Transit Routes......................................................................................7-14 Figure 8-1 Peak Weekday Utilization of Off-Street and On-Street Parking Areas...............8-3 Figure 8-2 Evening Utilization of Off-Street and On-Street Parking Areas .........................8-4 Figure 8-3 Historic Downtown Traffic Volumes..................................................................8-6 Figure 8-4 Current Lane Configuration 1999 and 2020 Volumes.........................................8-8 Figure 8-5 3-Lane Configuration 1999 and 2020 Volumes ..................................................8-9 Figure 8-6 Reversed Flow One-Way Couplit 1999 and 2020 Volumes................................8-10 Figure 8-7 Two-Way Configuration 1999 and 2020 Volumes..............................................8-11 Robert Peccia &Associates Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Figure 9-1 TSM Improvements (Study Area) .......................................................................9-5 Figure 9-2 TSM Improvements (Bozeman Area)..................................................................9-6 Figure 10-1 Recommended Improvements (Study Area)......................................................10-4 Figure 10-2 Recommended Improvements (Bozeman Area)................................................10-5 Figure 11-1 Recommended Local Street Standards..............................................................11-5 Figure 11-2 Recommended Collector Street Standards ........................................................11-6 Figure 11-3 Recommended Minor Arterial Street Standards................................................11-7 Figure 11-4 Recommended Principal Arterial Street Standards ...........................................11-8 Figure 11-5 Recommended Street Standards with Trail Option...........................................11-9 Figure 11-6 Existing Major Street Network and Future Right-Of-Way Corridor Needs (Study Area)..........................................................................11-12 Figure 11-7 Existing Major Street Network and Future Right-Of-Way Corridor Needs (Bozeman Area) ...................................................................11-13 Figure11-8 Truck Route Map...............................................................................................11-14 Robert Peccia&Associates Chapter I Introduction and Background Introduction and Background Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update Chapter 1 : Introduction and Background This update of the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan is intended as a guide for the decision- makers in the Bozeman community. It contains a multi-modal analysis of the transportation system in the Bozeman area. This Plan includes an examination of the traffic operations, road network, transit services, non-motorized transportation alternatives, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and growth management techniques that will help encourage the use of alternative modes of travel. This document identifies the problems with the various transportation systems and offers recommendations in the form of improvement projects and progressive programs that will relieve existing problems and/or meet future needs. 1.1 Project Background The Bozeman Urban Transportation Plan Update was last initiated in 1992, and adopted in 1993. Typically these plans are updated every ten years. In the fall of 1998, the local planners decided to update the Plan before the normal ten-year cycle because of the unprecedented amount of growth that occurred in the Bozeman area during the preceding five years. Robert Peccia and Associates was subsequently selected to assist the community planners update the Transportation Plan in June of 1999. Transportation planning in the Bozeman area is overseen and guided by the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC). This group is made up of representatives from the City of Bozeman,Gallatin County,the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), citizen representatives, and other community organizations. TCC membership is listed on the acknowledgements page at the beginning of this document. The TCC played an interactive role in the development of this plan update. 1.2 Study Area The study area for this project was established in consultation with the TCC and includes all of the area that is generally bounded by the Gallatin River to the west,Baseline Road to the north, and the Gallatin National Forest to the south and east. The study area does not include the City of Belgrade. FIGURE 1-1 shows the exact boundaries of the study area. The study area for this Plan is larger than the area studied in the 1993 update. The larger area was chosen because unless significant changes in land use policy are implemented development is likely to occur in much of the outlying rural land during the 20 year planning horizon of this Plan. This larger study area is useful because the traffic analysis and evaluation can include the impacts of commuter traffic being generated from the outlying areas between Bozeman and Four Corners, Gallatin Gateway and Belgrade. The larger study also allows for better advance planning of the future road network in the outlying areas of the greater Bozeman community. Robert Peccia &Associates 1-1 I E O I J m _ 3 J I I a 46 co co ( (0 I IN i-•aAi I 1� - '- i ..1- - I � w w � rr/��„"K I 1 i - a I iwrw.or wrr+u � ., I a� a I intF - I i w•nw,.tir a wr I I � I I I I cu i Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan ! { d j Year 2001 Update Figure 1 �� j �=, — ccStudy Area Boundary Introduction and Background Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 1.3 Transportation Planning Goals The primary goal of this update of the Plan is to develop a strategy that will produce an integrated intermodal transportation system for the greater Bozeman area. The overall transportation system consists of four principal modes of travel including: conventional road traffic (private cars and trucks); pedestrian;bicycle; and transit systems. In past transportation planning efforts,the emphasis has been on the road system with only the car and truck traffic in mind. It is a goal of this Plan to incorporate a complete review of the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit systems, and to provide recommendations that will address any deficiencies in their relative infrastructures. Another goal of this Plan is to help organize and prioritize the projects and programs that are being considered by the City, County, and State in the greater Bozeman area. There has been a considerable amount of transportation planning done in the past that has independently evaluated various aspects of the transportation system. The thoughts and recommendations produced in these past planning efforts need to be combined into one cohesive guiding document. The final goal is to produce a Plan that is actively used to guide the transportation decision making process so that transportation development supports land use policy throughout the course of the next 20 years. The Plan must be sustainable, financially responsible, and provide real multi-modal opportunities to all travelers in the community. The Plan must be responsive to the quality-of-life issues that are important in Bozeman, such as air quality, neighborhood integrity, and safety. This Plan was developed with the transportation planning goals from the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County taken into consideration, and in consultation with the City of Belgrade. The Draft Bozeman 2020 Community Plan (which was developed concurrently with the Transportation Plan) includes a variety of transportation related goals and objectives that were incorporated into the City of Bozeman portion of this Plan. These goals are listed below: • Maintain and enhance the functionality of the transportation system. • Ensure that a variety of travel options exist which allow safe, logical, and balanced transportation choices. • Encourage transportation options that reduce resource consumption, increase social interaction, support safe neighborhoods, and increase the ability of the existing transportation facilities to accommodate a growing city. • Establish and maintain an integrated system of transportation and recreational pathways, including bicycle and pedestrian trails, neighborhood parks, green belts, and open space. For the full text of the goals, objectives, policies, and description of the interrelationships between land use and transportation please review the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. Robert Peccia &Associates 1-3 Introduction and Background Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update The Draft Gallatin County Growth Policy (which was concurrently being developed) includes a variety of transportation related goals and strategies. These goals and strategies are described below: Goal: Promote a safe and efficient transportation system. • Develop a comprehensive county transportation plan • Develop coordinated road standards with other jurisdictions. • Ensure multi-modal transportation opportunities. • Require that development provide coordinated circulation patterns. 1.4 Previous Transportation Planning Efforts In the course of data collection, past plans and studies were obtained. From the review of these documents, applicable issues were incorporated into this Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. The contributing documents are as follows: • 1981 and 1993 Bozeman Transportation Plans; • Bozeman Arterials EIS; • North 191h and Oak Street Corridor Master Plan; • Bozeman Downtown Improvement Plan; • Parks and Trails Master Plan; • 1990 Bozeman Area Master Plan; • Gallatin County Master Plan; • Gallatin County Road and Bridge Inventory; • City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan; and • Water and Wastewater Facility Plans. The Bozeman Growth Plan and the Gallatin County Growth Plan were being developed at the same time as this Transportation Plan Update. This Plan was developed in coordination with these two growth planning efforts. 1.5 Public Involvement The primary goal of the communications program for the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update was to keep the public informed and involved in the project. A second goal of the process was to integrate the opinions and issues identified by the public, as a result of the program, into the project approach and methodology, wherever feasible. The methods that were used to achieve these goals included: formation of advisory committees; outreach to key constituencies; education of decision-makers; transit questionnaires; news releases; and public events. Robert Peccia &Associates 1-4 Introduction and Backeround Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 1.5.1 Summary of Program Components Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) The TCC is an established group of technically oriented individuals representing most of the agencies in the community that have transportation interests. TCC membership is listed on the acknowledgements page at the beginning of this document. The TCC was the principal guiding force behind this Plan and met on a monthly basis during its development. The consultant presented information relating to all facets of the Plan development at these meetings. The TCC participated as an active partner in the review of the planning material and provided guidance to the consultant throughout the planning process. Transit Advisory Committee An ad-hoc Transit Advisory Committee was established for the purpose of providing direction and advice in the planning of the future transit system for the community. This group consisted of knowledgeable transit-industry individuals currently providing transit service in the Bozeman area. This group met twice during the transit-planning phase of the project. They were involved in reviewing the results of a transit questionnaire as administered to transit riders (using the Bobcat and Gal-A-Van transit services), as well as to the general public. They were also involved in discussions about the transit needs of the community, and ways to provide the best means of public transit for the greater Bozeman area. In the course of the meetings it became clear that the Transit Advisory Committee members supported the development of a unified public transit system. Transit Questionnaire A questionnaire was developed and administered in an effort to determine the transit needs of the community, and to obtain opinions about the type of transit service that would be most appropriate. The contents of the questionnaire were developed with the assistance of, and reviewed by, the Transit Advisory Committee and the TCC. Not only was the questionnaire distributed to riders of the Bobcat transit system and Gal-A-Van,but it was also available to the general public at several locations including the Department of Motor Vehicles,Bozeman Public Library, Bozeman Senior Center, and the County Courthouse. Approximately 8,000 transit questionnaires were distributed through a variety of means, 2,089 were returned to the Office of Planning and Community Development. Bozeman Bicycle Advisory Board The consultant met with members of this advisory board several times during the planning process. They were involved in providing input into the street standards, and they played an integral role in developing the recommended bicycle route system. Robert Peccia &Associates 1-5 Introduction and Background Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update Bozeman's Downtown Improvement District and the Downtown Bozeman Association The consultant met with members of these organizations throughout the planning process. They reviewed data and analysis results, and provided input on a variety of issues relating to the downtown area. 1.5.2 Public Involvement Events Public Meetines Two public meetings were held during the study process. The first meeting was held at a time when the data collection process was nearing completion. This meeting focused on informing the public about the current and future transportation problems that had been identified to date, and receiving public comment on which issues should be addressed in the Plan. A variety of key issues were identified. 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 alternatives to the automobile. Specific problem intersections and roadway corridors were identified, and in many cases, the public suggested potential solutions or remedies. The effects of population growth on traffic volumes and transportation infrastructure were discussed and commented on by the public. The second public meeting was held after the preliminary set of recommended improvements was developed. The public provided input on the recommendations, along with their opinions as to which projects should have the highest priority. A large number of citizens present indicated a need to lower the speed limits on the Frontage Road, Jackrabbit Lane, and Huffine Lane. They also indicated a need to increase speed-limit enforcement. This same group expressed their concern about traffic safety on the Frontage Road, and the need to make improving this corridor a high priority. TCC Workshops Three TCC Workshops were held during the planning process. The purpose of the first workshop was to review the set of recommendations proposed by the consultant, and to establish the list of recommended major improvement projects that would be included in the draft Plan. During this workshop TCC members provided input on the need for each project, and the appropriateness of the recommended improvements. The second TCC workshop focused on the financial analysis and the prioritization of the recommended major improvement projects. The final workshop, held after the public hearing, focused on providing the consultant with changes that were required to take the Plan document from the draft to the final version. Robert Peccia &Associates 1-6 Introduction and Background Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Public Hearin A public hearing was conducted near the completion of this planning process to obtain public comment on the draft document. The public hearing covered all elements of the draft and significant additional time for public comment was provided after the public hearing closed. The public review and comment period extended from October 18, 2000 to May 4, 2000. After reviewing the comments received at the public hearing, the TCC met with the consultant to provide comments and direction in revising the draft document, and developing the final version of the Plan. News Releases Television and newspaper articles were used several times during the planning process to help keep the public informed. These news releases generally were issued prior to public meetings (and the public hearing), to generate interest in the process, and to encourage participation by the public. Internet Access The results of the traffic studies and analyses conducted during the study process were made available to the public on the Internet. As sections of the report and graphic displays became available, they were posted on the web site for public review and comment. This enabled the public to stay abreast of the developments occurring during the planning process. It also provided an opportunity for the public to submit comments. Growth Policy Overlap The City and County were developing their respective growth policies during the same time period as the development of this transportation plan. Information gathered for the growth policies, especially the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, including survey results, general comments, and other transportation related information was provided to the consultant. Robert Peccia &Associates 1-7 Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 2: Existing Conditions 2.1 Existing Road System In an effort to clearly understand the existing traffic conditions, it was necessary to gather current information about different aspects of the transportation system. Existing traffic volume data from 1997 and 1998 was used to determine annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on major road segments within the community. Traffic data was also collected in the fall of 1999, and in the spring and summer of 2000. The data was used to determine current operational characteristics, and to identify any traffic problems that may exist or are likely to occur within the foreseeable future. A variety of information was gathered to help evaluate the system including: • Existing Major Street Network review • Machine traffic volume counts • Intersection turning movement counts • Intersection data required to conduct level of service analyses • Current traffic signal operation information • Travel time aid delay studies • Truck counts • Pedestrian and bicycle counts • Downtown parking counts • Pavement condition inventory • Corridor street lighting inventory • Inventory of the major sidewalk system • Intersection wheel chair ramp inventory • Traffic accident records 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes One of the best ways to evaluate a street system is to compare the traffic volumes to the approximate capacity of each road. Traffic volumes for the study area are periodically monitored by local and state agencies. Traffic volumes collected by the City of Bozeman, Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), and Gallatin County were used to determine current traffic conditions, and to provide reliable data on historic traffic volumes. Traffic volumes are monitored at a total of 145 locations within the study area by these three agencies. Existing traffic volume data from 1997 and 1998 was used to determine annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes on major road segments within the community. This information is shown in FIGURE 2-1 and 2-2. These figures show that the most highly traveled corridors are North 19th which currently carries between 15,000 and 20,0000 vehicles per day (vpd); North 71n which experiences 20,000 vpd; and West Main Street which has a current traffic volume of 20,000 to 24,000 vdp. Robert Peccia &Associates 2-1 _.._.._.._.._.._.._- _.._.._.._.._..�.._.. ._.._.._.._.._..r.._.._.._.._: f._. I I �✓/ j i � 0 O_ c-- N N m l / R I W O 0 0 0 0 0 a�mi Zf j NOOOOO E o ------- x , - --- --------- .... . --� - _ ------- W 0 0 0 0 LO O O Z t - � j i- - - - -� � J o c4 Sri N 1 1 c I �. 1 " wwi 1 1 � t I 00V I 1 w w S ; o g , I` d ; C-T& M j Lv t 3 " c�a —.0100 00e1£ 00 009 c OnI --- ---------- ---- --- I ---------- --------------------- g j Opp C, 00£' OOL I '8 OR 000, C/) tF i � I � o OR OOZ 004'£ "� I .l ) o - j I j Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan rear2001 Update Figure 2-1 m I ! 1998 Annual Average _ 0061ti o >s -� �tg ) I 1_- g Daily Traffic* AADT M E f — s ! (Study Area) ice. _.._.._.._.._.._.._.. .._.._.._.. .._.._.._. _.._.............._.._.._.._.._.. .._. ...... _.— .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.� o000 000_oo_ I o CDLn o Ln Eco -PH dnImisogovAnl G 0 lO O N N c/J Z O 00 O O O Z $ LU O •-' "-' 000 a) 16 Z 0 N 0000 _�E� 00 00 � 0 ON � N OOLL O a� J c - I � ` r SHIN pl'�Wld od BI - �. j OrrOL'S OOL'L a 'Pa lim Alois /� I PAls Pucfl !H u, H � $ 1 — Sourtlo„ h Rd. of- -1 00£`£ o IJ 14U -0 006` � nr_ 2,900 009 0 oo£'s of o �_ -�-r M o <� 8 0 - — - U / ^ _ oC2oU u JG,up (0 uc, a~' '-f e 9 N - u 4 in Pa f fY 009 Pa 1 N _ ` o `" b' 0081%4 OOL`t PIE s - * ci 00 oc zi-_ £L g 001'L 009 b �, $ II llLIff_ yr n 41S6fJ 1 '- fJ1_ I— n m co _ ; _ o _ OOS S 17,000 OOLB vs,s 4 OOL'�t 006'11 009,E 000 -- fi Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update sin x - o Figure 2-2 CD 1998 ADT Map* Bozeman Area Existing Conditions Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update After identifying the current traffic volumes, the existing road network was examined to determine the current size of the major routes. The existing five-lane corridors within the greater Bozeman area include: • North 7th-Main Street to Griffin Drive • North 19th- Main Street to Baxter Lane • Main Street/Huffine Lane-7th to Jackrabbit Lane The existing four-lane corridors include: • Interstate 90 • Main Street-7th to Interstate 90 The existing three-lane corridors include: • South 19`h-Main Street to Kagy Boulevard • North 191h-Baxter Lane to Springhill Road • Kagy-Willson to Highland • Oak Street-North 7th to North 19`h • The Southern portion of Springhill Road Although other roadways within the network have short sections with additional lanes, these roads are the only corridors that uniformly consist of more than two lanes. Although the capacity of an urban roadway is usually influenced by the operation of the major intersections, the capacity of an entire corridor depends greatly on the size and design features of the roadway. The factors that determine the capacity of a road include land use adjacent to the road; access and intersection spacing and numbers; road alignment and grade; pavement conditions; lane and shoulder width: on-street parking; intersection function; speed; turning movements; vehicle fleet mix; adequate road design; land use controls; street network management; and good planning and maintenance. Proper use of all of these tools will increase the number of vehicles that a specific lane segment may carry. However, the number of lanes is the primary factor in evaluating total road capacity since any lane configuration has an upper volume limit regardless of how carefully it has been designed. The function of intersections, as discussed in Section 4.2, is a very critical element and can artificially limit lane capacity. The model discussed in Chapter 3 assumed that intersections will not artificially limit corridor capacity. A general "rule-of-thumb" guide that is used to quickly estimate the approximate capacity of an existing road for planning purposes is presented in TABLE 2-1. A general "rule- of-thumb" guide for future roads is presented in TABLE 4-1. Robert Peccia &Associates 2-4 Existing Conditions Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE 2-1. Approximate Trigger Volumes for Planning of E !sting Roadways Road Segment Volumes Two Lane Road Up to 12,000 VPD* Three Lane Road Up to 18,000 VPD* Four Lane Road Up to 24,000 VPD* Five Lane Road Up to 35,000 VPD* * Additional volumes may be obtained in some locations with adequate road design, access control, and other capacity enhancing methods. For further discussion of this subject please see Section 4.1 By using this rule-of-thumb for roadway capacity, it is evident that portions of North 19th and South 19`' are likely approaching the capacity of the existing road. TABLE 2-1 is a volume level which is appropriate for planning purposes within the heavily developed portions of the study area. In newly developing areas, there are opportunities to achieve additional lane capacity improvements as discussed above and in Section 4.1. The careful, appropriate, and consistent use of the capacity enhancing mechanisms listed above can provide for long-term cost savings and help maintain roads at a scale comfortable to the community. Two important factors to consider in achieving these higher volumes are peak hour demand and access control. The volumes shown in TABLE 2-1 are 24-hour averages; however, traffic is not smoothly distributed during the day. The major street network shows significant peaks of demand, especially the work "rush hour". These limited times create the greatest periods of stress on the transportation system. By concentrating large volumes in a brief period of time, a road's short-term capacity may be exceeded and a road user's perception of congestion is strongly influenced. The use of TDM measures discussed in Chapter 5, and the pedestrian and bicycle programs discussed in Chapter 6, can help to smooth out the peaks and thereby extend the adequate service life of a specific road configuration. The Plan strongly recommends the pursuit of this approach as a low-cost means of meeting a portion of expected transportation demand. Each time a roadway is intersected by a driveway or another street it raises the potential for conflicts between transportation users. The resulting conflicts can substantially reduce the roadway's ability to carry traffic volumes if conflicts occur frequently. This long established principle is the design basis for the interstate highway system which carefully restricts access to designated entrance and exit points. Arterial streets are intended for longer distance travel and have a low function of accessing adjoining properties. Access control is therefore very important on the higher volume elements of a community's transportation system. Collector streets and especially local streets do provide the higher levels of immediate property access required for transportation users to enter and exit the roadway network. In order to achieve volumes in excess of that shown in TABLE 2-1, access control should be put in place by the appropriate governing body. It is strongly recommended that access control standards appropriate to each classification of street be incorporated into the subdivision and zoning regulations of the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County. Follow-up monitoring of the effects of access control will aid in future transportation planning efforts. Robert Peccia &Associates 2-5 Existing Conditions Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 2.3 Existing Signal System The best way to analyze the operation of an entire road network is to examine the signalized intersections. Currently, there are 35 signalized intersections in the greater Bozeman area. Most of the signals are located along the Main Street, North 7`h, and 19th corridors. Twenty of these signals are functioning as part of a coordinated system, while the other 15 are operating independently. There are three separate coordinated signal systems in Bozeman. FIGURE 2-3 shows all of the current signalized intersections and the coordinated signal systems. 2.4 Intersection Level of Service Turning movement counts were collected during the fall of 1999 at all but seven of the signalized intersections, and at 18 major unsignalized intersections within the study area. The remaining seven signalized intersections were counted by MDT in 1997. Traffic was counted from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at each count site. The data was used to analyze A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic at each location. From this data, accurate information about the operational characteristics of each intersection was also obtained. The Level of Service (LOS) for an intersection is a qualitative measure of the physical characteristics and operational conditions within a traffic stream. It includes perceptions by motorists and passengers of the characteristics and conditions. The LOS provides a means for identifying problem intersections and comparing intersections within a system. The LOS represents the range of operating conditions for different types of facilities. The value is based on the ability of a road or intersection to accommodate varying amounts of traffic. These levels are given letter designations from "A" to "F," whereby LOS "A" represents the best operating conditions, and LOS "F," the worst or saturated flow conditions. This analysis is intended to determine how well roads or intersections currently function with respect to variables, such as traffic flow and other prevailing conditions. The LOS evaluation was conducted according to the procedures outlined in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) - Special Report 209 and the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) for Roadway Sections. The LOS for an intersection is based on the average delay of vehicles that approach the intersection. Intersection delay is a direct measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. TABLE 2-2 shows the range in stopped delay per vehicle for each LOS rating. TABLE 2-2 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (sec) A 5.0 or less B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F More than 60.1 Robert Peccia &Associates 2-6 C c M c N cv •- 3 !E O Cj) O p C ?` X CLCY) i 07 CO O O c m Cn E O -0 ram+ a V x 1� c co a O N C CO CO n 1vli.h�l lll i u 14ndC3 � a) '@ O OO QC) !Yc — O to M _ C O a) O 1 �J�tin15 Sourduuyll Rd N M ` L C p = c Q M Q d C C / nd aerlt N trcb O o J W W snow h _ Z .� COJ a in Nu7H ti an U 511W N o AV os NA S y Z,tapri'6'1 PaAalueyl c - °n d 9 0 I G O Q y a RRu WE S _�ie^ '-G h Vl V Z5 rn C�ntnr r� l7 f O C a m a0�d�1lP11 — SineC1 7 n3ii.o.� i 0 ,i w Ll LL1 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update Figure 2-3 Existing Signalized Intersections Bozeman Area) Existing Conditions Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 2.4.1 Signalized Intersections The signalized intersections within the study area were analyzed using the traffic analysis program HCS 3.1 that utilizes the 1997 HCM calculation procedures. This program uses detailed information on geometry, lane use, signal timing, peak hour volumes, and arrival types. This information is then used to calculate delays, and to determine the capacity of each intersection approach. A summary of morning and evening LOS for the signalized intersections is shown in FIGURE 2-4. A letter designation indicates the LOS at each of those intersections. An intersection is determined to be functioning adequately if the intersection is operating at LOS "C" or better. The LOS analysis of the signalized intersections in Bozeman indicates operational problems at four intersections including: North 19th and Durston; North 7th and Durston; Main and 19`h; and South 19th and College. 2.4.2 Unsignalized Intersections The level of service can also be analyzed for intersections that have Yield or Stop controls. In the analysis of an unsignalized intersection, the primary consideration for determining the LOS is the availability of gaps or spaces between vehicles on the major roadway. The size and spacing of these gaps determine whether or not motorists on the minor street can safely access the major roadway. The LOS rating for an intersection is based upon the general delay of traffic on the minor street. Major unsignalized intersections in the Bozeman area were evaluated to determine the LOS during morning and evening peak traffic conditions. The results of this analysis are presented in TABLE 2-3. The LOS on the minor street is broken down by leg of the intersection. Robert Peccia &Associates 2-8 2:. 'Pd sYll3 1 Boa S 21 U Mn Ca I L I t 4 -- I A.y dny.aoi�saggelel \ a-+ L O o 1 ,1 > CU O -- i' — 11 N COm IM FF W W U a 1 o c CU rrr�r................' J Q U :3 � � m 'Ptl�11VJU'ed b � N{ynlanvd. �- � Sl dill R�• � — _ Y♦� r Q PN II.�JJ��1$ � P^I9AoQ14fi.41 goufJoteyp Rd. N - V a' ny xj — a en �A ! `f_ -� andasnoaN 7 :� Sn CO G CO m H�elg a a I f Ca �!! m m n :yCQ y i os A !' , u -R07- -- ;Ill a PIE S ® c- U m U IcaV — — m M y4co, S i NM ID V 1 Qa { u u - W61 N - `� Z Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan a� - (off CDOd Year 2001 Update 'I.Fi Figure 2-4 .l°� _ „��.aln��-� �,_ _ � Existing Signalized Intersection ir,ep s 0 c m ego —_ Level of Service Analysis ? L U U �-- —� — tp (A.M. & P.M.) l m tm Bozeman Area U `d PH UOs.IlilUl-- — - .. Ts Existing Conditions Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE 2-3 1999 Level of Service (LOS) for Unsi nalized Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Major Street Minor Street Major Street Minor Street NA 91nand Baxter A B/D A F/F N. 7th and Griffin A A/F A C/F Rouse and Griffin A C/B A C/B Story Mill and Bridger Canyon Dr. A B/A A B/A Rouse and Oak A B A C Rouse and Peach A B/B A C/D U.S. 191 and Cottonwood A E/F A F/F U.S. 191 and Fowler A F A F E. Main and Wallace A B/C A B/F S.11 and College C C D D Willson and College A C/D A RE S. 19th and Kagy B B A D S. 1 Vn and Kagy A B/E A B/F Kagy and Sourdough A D/B A C/C S. 19th and Goldenstein A B A B The LOS analysis of the unsignalized intersections in the Bozeman area shows operational problems at seven intersections including: North 19th and Baxter; North 7th and Griffin; U.S. 191 and Cottonwood; U.S. 191 and Fowler; East Main and Wallace; Willson and College; and South 1 lch and Kagy. 2.5 Travel Speed In an effort to determine general traffic and delay patterns, a travel time and delay study was performed. Six routes were identified which include most of the major traffic routes through the area. Each roadway segment was traveled 12 times (six times in each direction) using the average-car-analysis method during peak hours. This information was used to determine the average travel speed and running speed, as well as intersection delay for each corridor. Travel speed is defined as the speed at which a vehicle travels between two points including any delays. Running speed refers to the actual vehicle speed while the vehicle is in motion (travel speed minus delay). The information presented in FIGURES 2-5 and 2-6 illustrates the results of the travel time and delay studies. In most areas the average travel speeds were relatively close to the posted speed limit for the routes. Major intersection delays (greater than 25 seconds of average stopped time) were experienced at several intersections. The intersections and specific approaches where these delays occurred are listed below: Robert Peccia &Associates 2-10 U nLO 'pa dnryaogsaggeAcj C 0- CL d t p W N C V M to W N to to to (D Z iu a m / (D LO to to % ( J J NMU� c o cc) P2!sll!N palwed n c z" N StoN Mill Rd• � e I ��{,ind BIY �__ - Y Pa IM — — _ - P^18P��e1N�N1 _I C Sourdough Rd. nti 3aep tcuP�-� -p N C, \\rLlf- Q L IN I 0 CO CO � pa hjueW •pa A010CM b a) fn N)LN 6pp co CI) (0 U a� > W -0 co Wier y�-� Vs11ey �. Z � a ILI —— 3 �a Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan S!AeQ �i�alMo� _ rear2001 Update -6 U d Figure 2-5 J y �—. Travel Speed Bozeman Area Pa uosn5nj — _0 i� Oo > ` (' y tt = > � Q > ' d Q N O `- U) • o + 4p � -! P,�_i;Ixa°ysaggCdu! _ � O �~ O -� CL ' I m 1 222 c > O co i X 1 ` w .� W N 1 1 1 0) (� � C � CD C J J � N cy) i J (Z �F �-4 NCI 5'lf1F1 p^luil'd Stoll c � o UI Fd / �e t ht:utd glv w PS IEVd /o1S — \ / r.it — ,� 'P^I Ct RI1r11jR1N Sourdough Rd. N ' / 0 7Fj -0 _ `n cltA�o. O L O a > a 0 ' -0 MM « of t M _ _ c O PZ+(OfUrpy 'P�.(iylleW — .� .s > Lj C i I U co - u - j cn O a 0 M O C cv r- t L0 N G. C E I 4761 N 11161s C cn qT oil r�ntur I - Z .� Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan °J _ Year 2001 Update Figure 2-6 — = Running Speed & Delay Bozeman Area — ty uosllbm y Existing Conditions Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update • North Bound (NB), South Bound (SB), East Bound(EB) 19`h and Main • NB, SB 11`h and Main • NB, SB 7`h and Durston • SB, West Bound (WB) 7`h and Mendenhall • EB 11`h and Mendenhall • SB, WB 11`h and College • NB, WB 19`h and College • NB Rouse and Main • NB Highland and Main • EB Kagy and Willson 2.6 Truck Traffic A truck count was performed at the North 7`h Avenue and West Main Street intersection in July, 2000. This count was done in an effort to determine what, if any, change has occurred in truck traffic when compared to a similar count done at this intersection in 1991. This count was conducted to identify truck types in the downtown area, and to determine the percentage of the total daily truck traffic by volume. The count included truck volume, travel direction, and truck classification. Truck volumes were aggregated to include various kinds of tractor-trailer combinations, heavy single and dual axle trucks, busses, recreation vehicles (RV's), and vehicles with trailers. The number of trucks in the traffic stream is important because high volumes of trucks or vehicles with truck-like operating characteristics (e.g., slower start-up speeds and large turning radius requirements), may inhibit traffic flows during the peak travel periods. It is also important to compare current count information with data collected in earlier counts to determine if any significant changes have occurred in truck volumes. The results of the truck counts are shown in TABLE 2-4. The table presents the estimated percentage of trucks in the entire fleet for the morning and evening peak hours. Traffic volume data for the area indicates that volumes in general have not changed significantly from the 1991 counts. TABLE 2-4 Percenta a of Trucks Compare to Total Volume* 1991 Entire Count Period AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour East Main Street Downtown 1.7% 2.6% 1.2% North 7m 2.3% 5.3% 1.7% West Main Street 1.5% 3.6% 2.4% 2000 East Main Street Downtown 2.5% 2.6% 2.2% North 71" 2.4% 3.0% 0.6% West Main Street 1.8% 3.2% 0.3% "Data based on information collected between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on 12-9-91 and 7-26-00. TABLE 2-5 shows the breakdown of all heavy vehicle traffic by leg at the West Main/North 7`h intersection. The data indicates that there has been very little change in the truck distribution. Robert Peccia &Associates 2-13 Existing Conditions Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update The only movement where truck traffic has changed is on West Main due to an increase in both single-unit trucks and semi-truck traffic. TABLE 2-5 Historic Heavy Vehicle Counts* Single Semi- Unit Trucks Trucks with Busses RVs 1991 Trailers East Main Street Downtown 134 95 19 5 North 7'" 100 66 26 4 West Main Street 114 91 19 5 2000 East Main Street Downtown 132 94 8 56 North 7 105 42 5 42 West Main Street 1 163 114 5 56 *Data based on information collected between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on 12-9-91 and 7-26-00. 2.7 Pavement Survey A subjective windshield survey was conducted to evaluate the current pavement condition on the major street network. The roads were given a rating of good, medium or poor. New roads or roads which showed little sign of age were given a "good" rating. Roads that shown some cracking or other signs of aging, but still provided a good driving surface, were given a "medium" rating. Older roads that showed heavy cracking, potholes, or rutting, were given a "poor" rating. FIGURE 2-7 shows that most of the roads are in good or medium condition. Only a few old or high-traffic roads were given a poor rating. 2.8 Street Lighting Street lighting is an important element in street design. Inadequate street lighting can create traffic safety problems such as making it difficult to identify the road alignment and the location of intersections. It is of particular concern with respect to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Adequate street lighting tends to encourage walking and bicycling as a means of travel. Street lighting also has a tendency to reduce crime. Many intersections on the major street network are illuminated, but for a street segment to be considered "lighted," mid-block lighting along the corridor must exist. FIGURE 2-8 shows the location of current corridor lighting on the Major Street Network. The figure shows that although many routes have corridor lighting, many other critical areas, such as the streets around the MSU campus, are not lighted. Robert Peccia & ssociates 2-14 i Z r l�_:— SII!H Foa urr c � M 11 gt i I Rd. blond ai olY�'` � 4° Aa!r!V A-is SourtJur had. I } 'ue It — — SV _ A` 1i _ Q 41IN till" /' I ritG:: -- r o S i�1 tt - Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update �I Figure 2-7 Pavement Survey ` -� Bozeman Area P)j siu3 iXW -- - - O lTl � •L cc i,, LU I —�--- f t"JJJ - - m stoyl� -\ 7 PN l/n/v drols P J£i P+lC146fH �-"N Sourdough Rd. oQ l r -'ay ar9r - � 11A�'" 'any tlspob N w J >r3oi9 - ct _'anca u k N W 'PH A011mi'v -PH Aalmjq - o - 411 L 71 S PJE S r, Q T 11161 N 161 �IIcY for �_ c -- Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update �j 1— Figure 2-8 4 Cry Ln _ Corridor Lighting ro _T Bozeman Area Iry uo.nRra� — Chapter 4 Problem Identification Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 4: Problem Identification 4.1 Corridor Volumes and Capacity Roadway capacity is of critical importance when looking at the growth of a community. As traffic volume increases, the vehicle flow deteriorates. When traffic volumes approach and exceed the available capacity, the road begins to fail. For this reason it is important to look at the size and configuration of the current roadways and determine if these roads need to be expanded to accommodate the existing or future traffic needs. The capacity of a road is a function of a number of factors including intersection function, land use adjacent to the road, access and intersection spacing, road alignment and grade, speed, turning movements, vehicle fleet mix, adequate road design, land use controls, street network management, and good planning and maintenance. Proper use of all of these tools will increase the number of vehicles that a specific lane segment may carry. However, the number of lanes is the primary factor in evaluating road capacity since any lane configuration has an upper volume limit regardless of how carefully it has been designed. The function of intersections, as discussed in Section 4.2, is a very critical element and can artificially limit lane capacity. The model discussed in Chapter 3 assumed that intersections will not artificially limit corridor capacity. The approximate volume capacity of typical existing road segments was discussed in Chapter 2. TABLE 4-1 shows a range of volumes for roadways developed in the future. TABLE 4-1. Approximate Trigger Volumes for Planning of Future Roadway Improvements Road Segment Volumes' Volumes2 Two Lane Road Up to 12,000 VPD Up to 15,000 VPD* Three Lane Road Up to 18,000 VPD Up to 22,500 VPD* Four Lane Road Up to 24,000 VPD Up to 30,000 VPD* Five Lane Road Up to 35,000 VPD Up to 43,750 VPD* ' Historical management conditions 2 Ideal management conditions * Additional volumes may be obtained in some locations with adequate road design, access control, and other capacity enhancing methods. TABLE 4-1 is a capacity level which is appropriate for planning purposes in developing areas of the study area. In newly developing areas there are opportunities to achieve additional lane capacity improvements. The careful, appropriate, and consistent use of the capacity enhancing mechanisms listed above can provide for long-term cost savings and help maintain roads at a scale comfortable to the community. Two important factors to consider in achieving these higher volumes are peak hour demand and access control. The volumes shown in TABLE 4-1 are 24-hour averages; however, traffic is not smoothly distributed during the day. The major street network shows significant peaks of demand, especially the work "rush" hour. These limited times create the greatest periods of Robert Peccia &Associates 4-1 Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update stress on the transportation system. By concentrating large volumes in a brief period of time, a road's short-term capacity may be exceeded and a road user's perception of congestion is strongly influenced. The use of TDM measures discussed in Chapter 5 and the pedestrian and bicycle programs discussed in Chapter 6 can help to smooth out the peaks and thereby extend the adequate service life of a specific road configuration. The Plan strongly recommends the pursuit of this approach as a low-cost means of meeting a portion of expected transportation demand. Each time a roadway is intersected by a driveway or another street it raises the potential for conflicts between transportation users. The resulting conflicts can substantially reduce the roadway's ability to carry traffic volumes if conflicts occur frequently. This long established principle is the design basis for the interstate highway system which carefully restricts access to designated entrance and exit points. Arterial streets are intended for longer distance travel and have a low function of accessing adjoining properties. Access control is therefore very important on the higher volume elements of a community's transportation system. Collector streets and especially local streets do provide the higher levels of immediate property access required for transportation users to enter and exit the roadway network. In order to achieve volumes in excess of that shown in Column 2 of TABLE 4-1, access control should be put in place by the appropriate governing body. It is strongly recommended that access control standards appropriate to each classification of street be incorporated into the subdivision and zoning regulations of the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County. Follow up monitoring of the effects of access control will aid in future transportation planning efforts. Using the traffic model for the greater Bozeman area it was possible to determine the traffic volume on all major roads within the study area. These roads were analyzed for the current, year 2010 and year 2020 conditions to determine if the roads have an adequate number of lanes for the traffic volume. FIGURES 3-5 and 3-6 presented in Chapter 3 show the projected traffic volumes for the year 2020 within the study area. A comparison of the current traffic volumes to the number of travel lanes on the major corridors showed that the following roads are currently undersized: • Durston - North 7`h to 19th • Southl9`h Avenue - Main to Kagy • Willson -Main to Olive A similar comparison using projected traffic volumes for the year 2020 indicates that the following roads do not currently have adequate lane capacity to handle the anticipated traffic: • Frontage Road - Bozeman to Belgrade • Springhill Road -Frontage Road to Sypes Canyon Road • North 19`h—Baxter to Springhill Road • Durston Road- 19`h to Willson • Durston Road -West of 19th • South 19`h—Main to Kagy • West Main—North 7`h to North 11`h Robert Peccia &Associates 4-2 Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update • West Main—North 19th to West Babcock • Willson Avenue -Main to Garfield • Kagy Boulevard- 19th to Willson • South 3rd —Kagy to Graf • College - Main to 19th 4.2 Intersection Level of Service Urban road systems are ultimately controlled by the function of the major intersections. Intersection failure directly reduces the number of vehicles that can be accommodated during the peak hours that have the highest demand and the total daily capacity of a corridor. As a result of this strong impact on corridor function, intersection improvements can be a very cost-effective means of increasing a corridor's traffic volume capacity. In some circumstances, corridor expansion projects may be able to be delayed with correct intersection improvements. Due to the significant portion of total expense for road construction projects used for project design, construction mobilization, and adjacent area rehabilitation, a careful analysis must be made of the expected service life from intersection-only improvements. If adequate design life can not be achieved with only improvements to the intersection then a corridor expansion may be the most efficient solution. With that in mind it is important to determine how well the major intersections are functioning by determining their Level of Service (LOS). The LOS analyses used in this study were based upon parameters outlined in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209 (HCM), and the Highway Capacity Software (HCS). The LOS analysis evaluates the operation of the intersection and provides the results of the analysis using a grading system that ranges from LOS A to LOS F. The best grade is LOS A, which indicates smooth operation, no traffic congestion and ample reserve capacity. Grades of LOS B or LOS C are both considered acceptable with only a small amount of traffic congestion and moderate vehicle queue lengths. A grade of LOS D is the beginning of the unacceptable range. LOS D is an indication that although the intersection continues to operate it experiences traffic congestion and long vehicle queues. As traffic demand approaches or exceeds the available capacity, intersection failure occurs. This is indicated by a grade of LOS E. When the intersection fails, vehicles can no longer pass through the intersection during a single green phase of the signal cycle, resulting in extensive amounts of traffic congestion and long vehicle queues. LOS F is an indication of an over-saturated condition. When this occurs in several locations within an urban area, a condition commonly known as "grid-lock"usually occurs. The LOS analyses of the existing conditions in Bozeman revealed that several signalized intersections are currently functioning at LOS D or lower. These intersections include: 19th and Durston; 7th and Durston; 19th and Main; and 19th and College. All other signalized intersections in the area are functioning adequately at this time. Robert Peccia &Associates 4-3 Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Using the existing data from the 1999 traffic counts, numerous unsignalized intersections in the Bozeman area were-analyzed to-determine if any operational problems-exit at these intersections. These intersections were analyzed using similar criteria as used for the signalized intersections. To correct operational problems at unsignalized intersections often requires the addition of separate turn lanes and/or the installation of a traffic signal. The following unsignalized intersections have a LOS D or lower: • North 19th and Baxter • North 7th and Griffin • Rouse and Peach • U.S. 191 and Cottonwood • U.S. 191 and Fowler • Main and Wallace • South 1 lth and College • Willson and College • South 19`h and Kagy • South 11`h and Kagy Projections for traffic volumes were made for the top 50 intersections in the greater Bozeman area. These projections were based on growth rates and model runs for the year 2020. This data was then used to determine the LOS for the intersections under anticipated peak hour conditions in the year 2020. Using the current street layouts, lane-use configurations, and traffic control, combined with the projected 2020 traffic volumes, the analysis indicated that ten intersections will operate at LOS D, two at LOS E, and 28 intersections will be over saturated at LOS F. The results of this analysis are presented in FIGURE 4-1. This analysis provides a clear indication that several corridors will need to be expanded and many intersections will need to be upgraded and have high volume traffic control measures installed during the next 20 years. A separate analysis was conducted to determine if any intersections currently meet signal warrants. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices was used to conduct the warrant analyses. The signal warrants are nationally accepted minimum standards that must be met in order for a traffic signal to be considered at an intersection. An intersection must meet at least one warrant to be eligible for signalization. The warrants are as follows: 1. Eight-hour Vehicular Volume 2. Four-hour Vehicle Volume 3. Peak Hour Vehicle Volume 4. Pedestrian Volume 5. Coordinated Signal System 6. Accident Experience 7. Road Network TABLE 4-2 shows the results of the signal warrant analysis based upon existing conditions. The table shows which warrants are currently met for each intersection. The data indicates that all of Robert Peccia &Associates 4-4 1 1 i CD i UK i. o o c i E0 0 { N : a, /..1 I... .._.._.._.. _ Al CO I 0 (1) J o a`. T ..�' •� ' I7L p1Vd. U m` t1L�i11��' I F11gh�� }' UC U Q u Cu s11 n nI P lJJ c Cu I P^184 2 rdo RV. (� W L 0 a)J p _X U. U W any r)y ........................... 11 Ld — / % L. o �.—.._.._.._ IJ! N 1,95 85 C 2 y I Pas • \ \ LA- �.._..I IIJ91 N UW. iI LL. Qe. ..— z _..J ....... i,1 � L U 4Jf1 NSA I4161 S W — LL j LL IL (.. _.. —.._. V-1-7 — —I �•— _.. '• 4JLZ • _..—.. _..—.._.._.. — u�etfnto� slneQ o 0 rn rn m U. m C-6 06 C C Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan pb uosnf iaj 0 J CO Year 2001 Update Cn E2 E2 Figure 4-1 �- Z Identified Intersection PJ1JL'l I OO O PrJPp�t,t,�1l.� Z Problems i Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update the unsignalized intersections analyzed, except for the intersection of Rouse and Peach, currently meet signal warrants. Of these intersections signal projects are currently planned for North 19th and Baxter, and North 7`h and Griffin. TABLE 4-2 Signal Warrant Anal sis of xisting Conditions Intersection #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 North 19'"and Baxter X X Rouse and Peach -College and Willson X X X X X North 71"and Griffin X X X US 191 and Cottonwood X X US 191 and Fowler X X Main and Wallace X South 11 and Kagy X X South 19"and Kagy X X X 11`"and College X X 4.3 Accident Analysis Accident information from the MDT Safety Management System was analyzed to determine high accident locations. These locations were analyzed to determine general accident characteristics, and to identify probable roadway deficiencies and solutions. For this study, the three-year period between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1998 was analyzed. The accident records were reviewed to identify the top 25 high accident locations within the study area based upon accident frequency. All of these locations were at intersections, which are shown on FIGURE 4-1. These intersections were then analyzed to determine two important qualitative characteristics: accident severity and accident rate. Accident severity is calculated by giving a value of five to any accident that resulted in a fatality; a value of two to accidents that resulted in an injury; and a value of one to accidents where only property damage occurred. The summation of these values divided by the number of accidents equals the accident severity rate. TABLE 4-3 shows the accident severity rates for the top 25 high accident locations. Robert Peccia &Associates 4-6 Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE 4-3 High Accident-Intersections Ranked by Accident Severit * Number of Injury Fatal Severity Intersection Collisions Accidents Accidents Rate South 19"and Kagy 12 5 1 1.75 Jackrabbit and South 1-90 19 9 0 1.47 Baxter and North 7'" 22 10 0 1.45 North 7"and Oak 16 7 0 1.44 College and 19 ' 21 8 0 1.38 Babcock and 19" 28 10 0 1.36 Mendenhall and 7 14 5 0 1.36 Beall and 19" 17 6 0 1.35 Villard and 3` 12 4 0 1.33 Koch and 19"' 28 8 0 1.29 North 7"'and Griffin 14 4 0 1.29 Olive and 10' 15 4 0 1.27 Mendenhall and Willson 11 3 0 1.27 North 7 and Durston 19 5 0 1.26 19'" and County Market 16 4 0 1.25 Olive and Willson 17 4 0 1.24 Babcock and Tracy 17 4 0 1.24 Garfield and Willson 17 4 0 1.24 College and 8" _ 13 3 0 1.23 19'"and Durston 29 6 0 1.21 Main and 19" 14 3 0 1.21 Babcock and Willson 14 3 0 1.21 Lamme and Grand 21 4 0 1.19 Babcock and Rouse 20 1 0 1.05 Koch and Grand 14 1 0 1.07 *Based on data collected January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1998. The accident rate is a number that relates the number of accidents that occur at an intersection to the number of vehicles entering that intersection. The total number of vehicles that entered each intersection during the three-year study period was determined and then compared to the number of accidents that occurred during that same period. Comparing these numbers produces an intersection accident rate that is measured in accidents per million vehicles entering. The accident rates for the 25 high accident intersections are listed in TABLE 4-4. Robert Peccia &Associates 4-7 Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE 4-4 High Accident Intersections Ranked by Accident Rate Accident Accident Rate Frequency (Average Accident (Accidents/million Intersection Annual Number of Severity vehicles entering the Accidents) intersection) Lamme and Grand 7 1.19 13.70 Olive and 10"' 5 1.27 6.84 Villard and 3` 4 1.33 6.45 Koch and Grand 5 1.07 3.41 Babcock and Rouse 7 1.05 2.34 Babcock and Tracy 6 1.24 1.96 Garfield and Willson 6 1.24 1.46 Babcock and 19 9 1.36 1.32 Koch and 19 9 1.29 1.17 Mendenhall and Willson 4 1.27 1.08 Jackrabbit and South 1-90 6 1.47 1.02 College and 8,n4 1.23 1.01 Baxter and North 7 in 7 1.45 0.95 19'"and Durston 10 1.21 0.94 Olive and Willson 6 1.24 0.91 Babcock and Willson 5 1.21 0.91 North 7" and Griffin 5 1.29 0.86 South 19`"and Kagy 4 1.75 0.83 College and 19" 7 1.38 0.73 Beall and 19" 6 1.35 0.70 19'" and County Market 5 1.25 0.63 Mendenhall and 7 n5 1.29 0.61 North 7"and Durston 6 1.26 0.59 North 7'" and Oak 5 1.44 0.55 Main and I gin5 1.21 0.34 *Based on data collected January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1998 An accident analysis was conducted for major road segments outside the city limits, but within the study area. For this analysis, entire road segments were studied to determine if any segments had a high accident history. The accident rates for the road segments were determined by calculating the number of accidents per million vehicle miles traveled. Accident severity rates were calculated for entire road segments. Although the severity rate for road segments is calculated the same as for intersections, the accident rate for roads segments is fundamentally different. Accident rates for road segments are based on the number of accidents compared to the number of vehicle miles driven on the road segment during the same time period. This rate is typically stated as the number of accidents per million vehicle miles traveled (ACC/MVMT). The accident rates for road segments can not be directly compared to the rates used in the intersection accident analysis. TABLE 4-5 shows the accident and severity rates for several major road segments within the study area. Robert Peccia &Associates 4-8 Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Table 4-5 Accident Analysis of Road Segments* Number of Injury Fatal Severity Accident Rate Location Accidents Accidents Accidents Rate (ACC/MVMT Springhill Road—19` to 23 4 0 1.17 5.36 Study Area Boundary South W' - South of 39 11 0 1.28 2.75 Kagy Jackrabbit Lane—I-90 to 76 34 1 1.50 1.99 Four Corners Frontage Road- Belgrade 89 32 2 1.45 1.45 to Bozeman Gallatin Road- Four 38 14 0 1.37 1.22 Corners to Gallatin Gateway Huffine Lane- Four 21 10 1 1.67 1.14 Corners to Cottonwood *Based on data collected January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1998 4.4 Transit System There is a need for alternatives to private vehicle transportation. There are several specialized transportation systems operating within the study area, which provide various services. Unfortunately none of these providers adequately serve the general public of the community. Transit is considered an important component in a balanced transportation system. A transit questionnaire was circulated as part of the planning process to determine how the general public feels about the need for transit service. The results of the questionnaire indicate that 90 percent of the respondents believe there is a need for a well-developed public transit system in the Bozeman area. A detailed analysis of the existing transit providers within the Bozeman area is presented in Chapter 6 along with recommendations on how to develop a public transit system that will meet the needs of the community. 4.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle System Walking and bicycling, as means of transportation, are popular in Bozeman. Unfortunately the community does not have the completed necessary infrastructure networks to fully support and encourage these activities. Although there is a system of sidewalks, many sections are missing or in a state of disrepair. There are only a few designated bicycle routes, and even fewer bicycle lanes. Information relating to the need for pedestrian and bicycle route improvements, along with the recommended sidewalk, trails, and bicycle route systems are presented in Chapter 7. Robert Peccia &Associates 4-9 Problem Identification Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 4.6 Downtown Bozeman During the development of this Plan the Downtown Business Association was contacted to seek their help in identifying traffic and parking problems in the downtown area. The Downtown Business Association expressed concern about the traffic conditions within the downtown area, and an interest in making the downtown a more pedestrian-friendly environment by modifying the streetscape. They also mentioned the long-standing question about the one-way traffic circulation pattern in the downtown area. Information relating to the traffic and parking conditions in downtown Bozeman is presented in Chapter 8. 4.7 Traffic Calming Traffic congestion tends to change driving characteristics. Once drivers become late due to traffic congestion, they attempt to make up the lost time by speeding or driving aggressively. In many cases drivers choose alternative routes that include local streets to avoid congested areas. Aggressive driving practices and unwanted "cut-through" creates an unsafe environment for the traveling public. Traffic calming is a relatively new technique that is an effective response to this problem. Traffic calming can take many forms and be used to remedy a variety of types of unwanted driver behavior on local and collector streets. Traffic calming is not typically used on the arterial routes. However, proper initial street network design and individual street design can serve some of the same purposes by encouraging safe and appropriate drive behavior. Please see Chapter 12 for the full discussion of traffic calming. Over the past decade, there have been a growing number of requests by the public for the City to implement traffic calming. It is important that there is an established policy for handling requests for traffic calming. Chapter 12 defines traffic calming, identifies a variety of traffic calming measures, and details the recommended traffic-calming program. Robert Peccia &Associates 4-10 'l _l 1 Chapter 5 l Transportation Demand Management l l 1 i 1 _ 1 J J _l J Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 5: Transportation Demand Management 5.1 Role of TDM in the Plan Update Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to an integrated set of strategies designed to reduce travel rather than accommodate it with additional road capacity. TDM is defined as: Programs and policies designed to maximize the people moving capability of the transportation system by increasing the number of persons in each vehicle, (increasing the use of non-motorized travel options), or by influencing the timing of, location or need to travel. (FHWA, 1993) TDM is an integral part of the Greater Bozeman Urban Area Transportation Plan Update because it potentially addresses several policy needs: air quality,traffic congestion, mobility, accessibility, and the desire for a sustainable community. However,TDM is not the only solution. The ability to change travel behavior necessitates an appreciation of the fact that not everyone can use a travel alternative due to the complexity and nature of their daily routines. As communities such as Bozeman grow,the growth in number of vehicles and travel demand should be accommodated by a combination of road improvements; transit service improvements; bicycle and pedestrian improvements; and a program to reduce travel (vehicle trips and the vehicle miles traveled)via transportation demand management in conjunction with appropriate land use planning. This Chapter of the Plan describes which TDM measures are appropriate and acceptable for the Bozeman community. 5.2 List of TDM Strategies and Their Effectiveness A list of potential TDM strategies is provided below. This list has been divided into public sector strategies and private sector strategies. Public Sector Strategies: • Better Transit Service • Parking Fees (metered public parking spaces) • More Bicycle Paths • High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)Lanes • More Walking Routes • Reduced Parking Supply • Parking Tax (tax on private parking spaces) • Land Use Policies Favorable to TDM Private Sector Strategies: • Commuter Subsidies (for using alternatives to driving alone) • Car Pool Programs (organized by citizens) Robert Peccia and Associates S-1 Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update • Van Pool Programs (organized by employers) • Trip Chaining,combining trips into a logical sequence that reduces the total miles driven to reach the same destinations. • Flex-time • Telecommuting • Compressed Work Weeks (e.g., 4140 schedule) • Parking Charges (for private parking areas) A combination of methods is the most effective in reducing demand. The next step in the process is to prioritize these strategies to determine community preferences, and begin to develop packages of TDM strategies. These preferences and strategies can be analyzed to determine their impact on reducing trips. In order to prioritize the strategies, several questions must be answered relating to applicability, cost effectiveness, and community support. Using national experience as a basis, the strategies are classified according to their cost effectiveness as follows: The Most Cost Effective TDM Strategies • Financial Incentives (Bozeman Urban Area Transportation Plan Update, commuter subsidies for not driving alone) • Financial Disincentives (e.g., parking tax or charges) • Bicycle and Walking Programs, Facilities and Subsidies • Parking Management (i.e., reducing the supply of available parking) Thus, pricing, parking and provision of non-motorized options are among the most cost effective (greatest trip reduction impact at the lowest cost) alternatives. Taxes and/or charges for parking are among the least popular strategies, but most effective and cost-effective because they can immediately change travel behavior, and can be revenue neutral or even generate revenue to fund improved travel alternatives. Moderately Cost Effective TDM Strategies • Compressed Work Weeks (e.g., 4/40 schedules) • Telecommuting • Car Pool and Van Pool Programs Compressed workweeks and telecommuting are among the most popular strategies with commuters because they offer employees more time at home. However, these strategies can be costly to employers because they involve a change in the basic operating policies of the work site. Car pool and van pool programs are also less cost effective because they generally only involve improved information on these travel alternatives (e.g.,ride-matching computer systems, marketing campaigns, etc.). These programs can be expensive to manage and produce limited impact without supportive incentives or disincentives. Robert Peccia and Associates 5-2 Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Cost Ineffective TDM Strategies • TDM Marketing Programs (without incentives) • Shuttles (for commuters, lunchtime travelers, etc.) • Transit Service Improvements (without incentives) Shuttles that connect employment sites to retail areas are often cited as necessary to allow ride sharers to get around midday without their cars. However,most shuttle programs of this type exhibit very low ridership and very high per rider cost. That is not to say all shuttles, such as student/campus shuttles, are ineffective. Likewise, transit service improvements can be very expensive and ineffective if incentives are not in place. Cost Effectiveness Unknown • TDM Friendly Land Use Policies • TDM Strategies Applied to Non-Commute Travel While some early evidence suggests that transit-oriented, bicycle-oriented, and pedestrian-oriented developments are effective in increasing the use of these modes at new residential, commercial and office sites, the cost effectiveness of these strategies is still somewhat unknown. One study in southern California showed that employers who combined financial incentives with an aesthetically pleasing work site exhibited trip reduction results 10 percent higher than those without these two critical strategies. Finally, the application of TDM strategies to non-commute trips is somewhat problematic. In Bozeman, commute (home-base work) trips and college student trips account for most all of the travel in the region. On the one hand, school, shopping, recreational and other trips most likely exhibit higher auto occupancy rates. This makes sense when one considers the amount of natural car pooling that occurs to schools, to the store, to restaurants, etc. However, many TDM strategies cannot be applied to these other travel markets. For example, one cannot really telecommute to the store. Other TDM strategies, such as parking taxes and bicycle improvements, can influence all travel markets. Employer and Area-wide TDM Strategies - A range of employer-based and area-wide strategies can be considered. These strategies include the following: • Minimal Voluntary Ride-sharing Program: assuming voluntary participation among employers (a low proportion of whom are implementing programs), this program includes support of car pools, van pools and transit, as well as preferential parking for car pools and van pools. • Maximum Voluntary Ride-sharing Program: still assuming low participation among employers, this program includes additional support, such as significant alternative work Robert Peccia and Associates 5-3 Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update arrangements (compressed workweeks and telecommuting),preferential parking, and direct financial subsidies to car poolers, van poolers, and transit riders ($0.50 per day). • Voluntary Alternative Work Arrangement Program: again assuming voluntary participation among the region's employers, this program involves offering 30 percent of all employees compressed work weeks and giving another 25 percent the option of telecommuting(acknowledging that only about 20 percent of eligible employees will choose to do so). • Trip Reduction Ordinance: this type of employer-based program would mandate all employers to implement the maximum ride-sharing program outlined above. • Voluntary Ride-sharing plus Transit Service Improvements: a voluntary ride-sharing program for employers with area-wide improvements to transit service such as frequency and coverage increases, and preferential treatment to expedite bus run times. • Voluntary Ride-sharing plus Transit Improvements and a Parking Tax: a voluntary employer program and transit service improvements with a $1 per day parking tax on all public and private parking spaces (non-residential). • Developer-based Ride-sharing Requirements: new developments would be required to implement a moderate ride-sharing program (moderate support, preferential parking, alternative work arrangements, and subsidies), and site design improvements that are conducive to TDM (such as transit shelters, bicycle storage, etc.). 5.3 Conclusions Based on Preliminary TDM Evaluation for Bozeman The object of this analysis is to provide the planners and policy-makers in Bozeman with a range of TDM programs, strategies and estimated impacts in terms of reducing traffic. The intent of the information provided is to assist in facilitating a consensus on the preferred TDM program to be included in the Plan update. The following overall conclusions are offered: • Employer-based programs will have limited long-term impacts. Alone, these programs do not sufficiently reduce regional traffic volumes. This is because Bozeman is comprised of relatively small employers that are generally less effective in facilitating commute alternatives. The exception to this might be the University, which would likely realize a greater impact from employer-based strategies given its control over key travel variables, notably parking. • Employer programs should be considered as an interim step. Even though employer programs are less effective due to the employment composition of Bozeman, a voluntary program, focused on the downtown (and perhaps the University) should be considered. A Robert Peccia and Associates 5-4 Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update demonstration program would provide local planners and policy-makers with valuable information on the specific strategies and marketing techniques to encourage commute alternatives. Unlike efforts aimed at the general population, the program should target large employers and work through appointed and dedicated coordinators. The program should be launched by local government(City and County)employers, and might involve the formation of a Transportation Management Association(TMA). Flextime among large employers and the University should also be tested. • Transit service improvements would have limited impacts. The transit service improvements (increased coverage and frequency, faster running times, etc.), will not likely yield significant trip reduction impacts on a regional basis. However, when applied to the downtown and University subareas, with heavier concentrations of commuter and student trips, the results may be more encouraging. • Land use and non-motorized TDM strategies can be effective. The implementation of land use policies that are TDM-friendly, combined with improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, can impact all types of travel. The potential impact of these strategies may be greater in the long run than traditional employer-based TDM measures. These measures, considered alone, could reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), although the impacts may be somewhat weather-dependent. • Area-wide pricing strategies are the most effective strategy. While politically among the least popular measures,the fact remains that financial incentives and disincentives, especially area-wide parking pricing strategies, are the most effective techniques for reducing trips and encouraging travelers to use alternative modes of transportation and times of day. A regional parking tax could significantly reduce trips and VMT. • A range of regional impacts is possible from TDM. The impacts presented here range from a low reduction in trips (for a voluntary ride-sharing program), to a theoretical maximum trip reduction of 25 percent (for a combination of all strategies). However, the results possible in Bozeman are highly dependent on the community support for changing travel behavior. The maximum impact is based on a combination of programs that has not, to date, been implemented anywhere in the U.S. The steps in incorporating TDM into the Bozeman Transportation Plan Update involve the selection of a preferred set of TDM strategies, and then the specification of a recommended short- and long- run TDM program for Bozeman. The choices for the preferred TDM program generally involved the following elements, alone or in combination: • developer requirements (new employment); • trip reduction ordinance (all employers); • transit service improvements; • voluntary employer program; Robert Peccia and Associates 5-5 Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update • parking fees or taxes; • TDM-friendly land use policies; and • bicycle and pedestrian facility and program improvements. It is recommended that the preferred TDM program consists of four principle TDM program elements: 1) a voluntary employer program; 2) an-enhanced bicycle-and-pedestrian program;-3) an improved transit system; and 4) modified land use policies to encourage TDM. Each is discussed in more detail in the next subsection. It is believed that the non-motorized strategies offer the potential for reducing a significant number of trips in a cost-effective manner, and that a voluntary employer program is a good short-term objective. The belief is that the land use policy initiative would address necessary long-term measures. It is also believed that several TDM strategies should be rejected outright as being infeasible or unacceptable. These include parking pricing and any type of mandatory requirements on employers and developers. The Montana Department of Transportation is developing a Montana specific "TDM Toolbox". In evaluating local options for TDM it is suggested to look for programs and alternatives that have been successfully implemented in Montana. 5.4 Recommended TDM Program Based on the preferred TDM strategies described above, a short- and long-range TDM program can be outlined for the Bozeman area. This program description is not intended as a fully articulated plan for implementing TDM strategies over the next 20 years; rather it is intended as a framework from which to develop such a plan. As mentioned above, the plan should have at least two distinct time frames, or perhaps three: a short-range plan (1 to 3 years); a medium-range plan (5 to 10 years); and possibly a long-range plan (10 to 20 years). Short-ranme TDM Projeram: Maximize Volunteerism (1 to 3 years) A program could be developed with the following components: • Voluntary Employer Cooperative Program: With the assistance of the City, County, University, and a select group of other major employers, form a business cooperative to explore the implementation of TDM programs within each organization. This might involve a pilot program, whereby the City would work with several existing and new employer programs to test and evaluate employee acceptance and the effectiveness of various TDM strategies. The impetus for business involvement should not only be traffic congestion and air quality; rather TDM should be sold as a good business practice that benefits participants by solving site access problems, assisting with employee recruitment or retention, and providing additional employee benefits. • Small Employer TDM Program: Bozeman has a very large proportion of employers with less than 50 employees, most of which with less than ten employees. This clearly affects the Robert Peccia and Associates 5-6 Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update ability to group employees into car pools,but does not preclude the use of transit,bicycling, walking, or even alternative work arrangements (e.g., 4/40 schedules and telecommuting). While the small employer market has been a difficult one for the TDM profession to tackle, some techniques, including multi-tenant-building campaigns, can be effective. • Education on Smart Trip-making: Since the employer elements of the program only effect commute trips and some student trips, an aggressive educational campaign to combine or avoid other types of trips could be implemented. This would be designed to reduce VMT and cold starts by encouraging residents to combine trips (e.g., to drop off school children and shop at the grocery store), or to avoid trips by using the telephone, computer or televisions to access information and services. • Flex-time and Staggered Shifts at Largest Employment Sites: Changing the arrival and departure times of commuters and students can be a very effective way to alleviate peak period, localized traffic congestion. While these strategies do not reduce trips or VMT (and therefore, do not have an air quality benefit), they tend to be, very effective in University communities. While many employers in Bozeman already have informal flexible schedules, the formalization of flex-time and staggered hours among employers, at places like the University, and the City and County, could go a long way to reduce congestion around these sites and on heavily congested corridors. • Enhanced Bicycle/Pedestrian Program: Given that the greatest TDM impacts are anticipated to be derived from the enhanced non-motorized program, implementation of three related program elements should be initiated. First, a bicycle and pedestrian system improvement program should be implemented on an aggressive schedule. Second, non- motorized information should be produced and distributed to reflect these new facilities on an ongoing basis. As the bicycle and pedestrian systems are improved and connectivity enhanced, marketing of the program should reflect the ease at which travelers can get around on foot or by pedal. Finally, as part of the employer pilot programs, financial subsidies for non-motorized modes should be encouraged. • Improved Transit System: A public transit system should be developed to serve the most popular destinations within the community, such as the University, downtown and mall, as well as Four Corners and Belgrade. If demand exists, the transit system should be extended to other communities within the valley. Medium-ranize TDM Program: Land Use and Non-Motorized(5 to 10 years) The TDM program for the medium-range future--five to ten years from now--should build upon the short-range program, and initiate strategies that have a longer-range impact, such as land use policies. These strategies include: • Expansion of Employer Cooperative Program into TMA: Based on the experience of the trial period of the business cooperative program, additional employers and organizations Robert Peccia and Associates 5-7 Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update should be recruited to participate in the program. If the cooperative program is successful (demonstrating the interest and commitment of the involved organizations),the effort could be expanded into a Transportation Management Association (TMA), initially focused on downtown Bozeman and the University. The TMA could relieve the City from the day-to- day responsibilities of operating the program, and provide additional focus and resolve to the efforts. • Continued Implementation of the Bicycle/Pedestrian/Transit Program: Those projects programmed for implementation in five to ten years should be completed. Then the supporting information and incentive elements, as developed, could be continued to assure that maximum use and benefits are derived from the capital investment. • Land Use Policies and Practices Supportive of TDM: The relationship between land use policies and travel behavior cannot be overstated. Modifying existing land use policies and practices, to be more TDM-friendly, could be very effective as a long-term solution. Supportive land use policies include: 1. Parking maximums - reduced parking requirements to encourage the implementation of TDM measures and parking supply management. 2. Shared parking-allowing two different and adjacent land uses (e.g., office building and movie theaters),to build and manage shared parking that is less than that required of each site. 3. Density bonuses - in certain areas, densification and mixed uses can reduce overall trip generation rates, and make shared ride and transit options more effective. 4. In-filling - by allowing residential development close to downtown and major employment areas, the ability of residents to bicycle, walk, or use transit to commute is enhanced. Other growth management techniques, as suggested in the new growth management plan, could also be supportive of TDM. 5. Site design guidelines - as described below, a number of TDM-friendly site design practices can be incorporated into the development review process, as either a comprehensive policy or on a case-by-case basis for zoning variances. • TDM-friendly Site Design Features: As mentioned above, site design features that are supportive of TDM programs can be incorporated into site plans, and required or negotiated as part of the review process. This is a very common practice throughout the U.S. and has already been used on a limited basis in Montana. Such features should be considered for growing areas. An illustrative list of some site design features includes: > provision for bus shelters and information kiosks; > allowance for van pools in any downtown or University parking structure; > secure and safe bicycle storage at employment, school and retail locations; > showers and lockers for bicyclist and walkers at large employment sites; and > pedestrian system connectivity with adjacent sites and other paths. Robert Peccia and Associates 5-8 Transportation Demand Management Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Long-range TDM Program: Contingency Measures (10 to 20 years) The final element of the Bozeman TDM program should be long-range contingency measures to address traffic problems (e.g., congestion, accessibility, mobility or air quality),become untenable. Should air quality or traffic congestion levels reach intolerable levels, Bozeman could revisit the analyses made as part of the 20-year plan. This would include investigating the need to implement more stringent, but less popular measures, such as parking pricing and mandatory TDM programs. While not a recommendation of this Plan,the possibility of needing more aggressive TDM measures, should the short- and medium-range programs fall short of expectations, should not be totally ignored. Clearly TDM has an important place in the Bozeman Urban Area Transportation Plan Update. However, the voluntary employer programs, bicycle/pedestrian improvements, transit system development and land use strategies are insufficient to completely avoid the need for key roadway capacity expansion projects, but may help defer the need for construction for a period of time. The highest priority should be the implementation of the non-motorized improvements; but even a modest reduction in vehicle trips during certain times of the year would avoid the need for certain capacity enhancements. Supportive of congestion relief, air quality improvement and regional mobility goals, TDM should be implemented on an incremental basis to test and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of the strategies analyzed in this Plan. Several short-term TDM program elements have been suggested that are relatively low-cost and readily available. Bozeman should strive to build more local experience with TDM programs by developing a detailed short- range plan and pilot program, and then revisiting that plan in three to five years. Robert Peccia and Associates 5-9 Chapter 3 Travel Demand Forecasting Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 3: Travel Demand Forecasting 3.1 Traffic Model Development Travel patterns within the Bozeman area, along with the characteristics and geographic distribution of population settlement, businesses, and government activities, are interrelated. In the 1990s, the increases in the Bozeman area's overall population and employment resulted in major increases in traffic on Bozeman area roadways. New housing development on the city's periphery, in unincorporated areas elsewhere in the transportation planning area, and in areas outside of the planning area, have dispersed and distanced the home related travel. Geographic distribution of recent housing development contributes substantially to traffic on roadways leading into Bozeman. Substantial new commercial development along travel corridors entering Bozeman also has attracted major traffic increases to these roadways. Expansion of industrial employment on Bozeman's periphery also contributes traffic growth on roadways entering and leaving the city. To be able to accurately assess current conditions, and to project future conditions, it was necessary to develop a transportation model. The Bozeman area transportation system was modeled in cooperation with MDT utilizing TransCAD, version 3.5 (created by the Caliper Corporation of Newton, Massachusetts). Traffic forecasts for the Bozeman area were conducted using the methodology commonly applied in motorized vehicle demand forecasting. The first step in developing the transportation model was to establish the modeling area. In this case, the model area boundary is significantly larger than the study area. This larger modeling area was necessary because traffic generated from outlying communities contributes to the traffic load within the study area. It was also considered desirable to model the larger area for future modeling efforts within Gallatin County. The modeling area essentially encompasses all populated areas with Gallatin County, except for the community of West Yellowstone. All of the established roads within the modeling area were then coded to create a link-node network, with each link representing a road segment, and each node representing an intersection. The next step involved subdividing the entire modeling area into sub-areas known as transportation analysis zones (TAZ's). The Bozeman transportation model divides the transportation planning area into 108 TAZ's. Existing socio-economic data (population and employment statistics including number of residences, business, and government activities), was identified for each TAZ, then compiled and entered into the model. The last step in the model development involved calibrating the model. This means that the model was run with the results being compared to the existing ground count traffic volumes. The model parameters for the various links in the link-node network were then adjusted to produce a model result that matches the known ground count volumes. Generated from the model is an estimate of traffic volumes for each roadway within the modeling area during an average weekday. In order to estimate future traffic volumes, additional information relating to the projected growth of population and employment in each TAZ was coded into the model. Socio-economic data was developed for the years 2010 and 2020. With the future socio-economic data, the Robert Peccia &Associates 3-1 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update model is now capable of forecasting the future traffic conditions that will occur as a result of the anticipated growth. From this information it is possible to identify future traffic problems. Knowing the magnitude and location of the future problems, the model can be modified by adding new roads to the network. In this way the model is used as a tool to assess the potential of these proposed changes, thereby eliminating or mitigating some of these anticipated problems. Any modeling effort requires certain assumptions to be made regarding future conditions. If the actual circumstances develop substantially different from the assumptions then the model will be less accurate. In order to help ensure a best possible match between the model and future development, the consultant coordinated with various local agencies in developing the materials contained in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. It will be valuable to periodically review and update the transportation plan to allow for the correction of any erroneous assumptions. If the high transportation demand expected over the 20-year time horizon of the Plan is avoided or does not occur then there will be a reduced need for transportation projects and individual construction projects can be delayed or avoided. The greater Bozeman area is a service, retail, and tourism destination for a wide area. As a result, demand for transportation services is marked by different characteristics than if it were a more isolated community. The longer distance travel of commuters and tourists is less likely to respond to TDM measures described in Chapter 5. Therefore, future traffic expectations must take into account these non-typical travelers. 3.2 Socio-economic Trends Population and economic growth are largely responsible for increases in motor vehicle and other travel in the Bozeman area. In recent decades, Gallatin County has been one of Montana's fastest growing areas. TABLE 3-1 shows that from 1970 through 2000, the county's population nearly doubled, increasing by an estimated 32,000 persons. In 2000, the county's population is estimated to be 65,000. TABLE 3-1 Gallatin County Population and Em to ment Trends 1970-2000 Year Population Employment 1970 32,754 13,396 1980 43,120 21,796 1990 50,301 31,983 2000* 65,000 51,000 *Population and employment data for 2000 are estimates. The vast majority of Gallatin County's resident population lives in the "Greater Bozeman" area. In the year 2000, about 48,000 people live within the Bozeman transportation study area. About 31,000 area residents live inside the city of Bozeman. Another 17,000 transportation study area residents live in unincorporated areas surrounding the city. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-2 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update In 2000, the Gallatin County economy supported an estimated 51,000 jobs. From 1970 to 2000, the number of jobs in Gallatin County more than tripled. County employment increased by 8,400 jobs in the 1970s, 10,200 jobs in the 1980s, and an estimated 19,000 jobs in the 1990s. The county economy is focused in the Bozeman area; about 80 percent of county-wide employment (an estimated 40,000 jobs), is located inside the transportation study area. TABLE 3-2 displays county-wide employment by economic sector from 1970 through 1998. TABLE 3-2 Gallatin County Employment Trends by Economic Sector 1970-1998 Year 1970 1980 1990 1998 1970-98 Total employment 13,396 21,796 31,992 47,353 +33,957 Farm Employment 1,212 1,075 1,128 1,173 -39 Agricultural Services & Forestry 106 172 370 758 + 652 Mining 30 105 174 166 + 136 Construction 656 1,227 1,804 4 089 +3,433 Manufacturing 1,002 1,328 2,032 3,050 +2,048 Transportation & Public Utilities 420 772 1,029 1,550 + 1,130 Wholesale Trade 247 555 1,099 1 897 + 1,650 Retail Trade 2,394 4,355 6,342 9,924 +7,530 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 812 1,622 2,314 3 002 + 2,190 Services 2,598 4,490 8,530 13,484 +10,886 Government 3,919 6,095 7,170 8,260 +4,341 Federal, Civilian 454 567 610 543 +89 Military 293 278 404 365 +72 State & Local 3,172 5,250 6,156 7,352 +4,180 State 2,300 3,923 4,517 5,194 +2,894 Local 872 1,327 1,639 2,158 + 1,286 *Includes total full-time and part-time employment. Source: US Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis,REIS Data Series,2000. Bozeman serves as the employment and shopping hub for persons living northwest of the study area along Interstate 90 (including Belgrade, Manhattan, Three Forks, small towns, and rural residences); residential areas to the west of Montana Highway 85; and residential developments in the foothills and canyon areas to the north, east, and south. Considerable back-and-forth travel also occurs between Bozeman and Gallatin Canyon. Travel to and from Gallatin Canyon is greatest in winter, when the Big Sky Ski Resort is in full operation. Montana State University (MSU) is a major focal point for travel inside the study area. In the fall of 2000, MSU had an enrollment of 11,763 students. The University is by far the Bozeman area's largest employer. Enrollment numbers at MSU grew rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s, slowing in the 1990s. The University's enrollment trends reflect the evolving age distributions of both Montana and national populations. The portion of the population in the peak age group attending college is less than it was in 1970s and 1980s. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-3 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 3.3 Population and Employment Projections Population and economic projections are used to predict future travel patterns, and to analyze the potential performance capabilities of the Bozeman area road network. Projections of the study area's future population and employment are developed from Gallatin County trends (regression line projections). Three projection scenarios are provided through the year 2020. All three scenarios predict substantial overall population and economic growth. Scenario 1, the "Very High Growth" scenario, assumes that the Gallatin County economy will continue to grow at the same rate it did in the 1990s. In Scenario 1, Gallatin County's population is assumed to grow at the same rate as the area's employment. In this scenario Gallatin County employment will grow to nearly 90,000 jobs, and population will increase to over 110,000 people by 2020. The Very High Growth scenario was selected as the basis for the transportation modeling and represents a continuation of the current level of development. This scenario was selected so that adequate services would be planned for if the current levels of development continue. If this growth rate is not sustained, then demand will not occur and projects may be delayed or avoided. For the 20-year horizon of the Plan, the Gallatin County Growth Policy utilizes a slightly lower population estimate. Due to land policy choices the City of Bozeman Growth Policy utilized an estimate growth rate most similar to Scenario 3. However, as noted above the Very High Growth Rate was deliberately selected for this plan's modeling purposes in order to provide a cushion in expected demand and prevent inadequate future needs planning. Scenario 2, the "High Growth" scenario, assumes that the Gallatin County population will grow at the same rate as what occurred in the 1990s. Employment growth is assumed to parallel the county's population increases. Under Scenario 2, the county's year 2020 population will grow to above 95,000, and employment to above 75,000. Scenario 3, the "Moderate Growth" Scenario, builds from much longer-term population and employment trends. Scenario 3 assumes that trends from 1970 through the 1990s will continue through 2020. Under the Moderate Growth Scenario, the county will reach about 85,000 people and 70,000 jobs in 2020. A breakdown of the population and employment projections produced in each scenario are presented in TABLE 3-3 and shown graphically in FIGURES 3-1 and 3-2. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-4 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE 3-3 Gallatin County Population and Employment Projections 2000-2020 Scenario 1 Scenario 3 "VeryHigh Scenario 2 "Moderate Growth" "High Growth" Growth" Population Population Population 2000 65,229 65,229 65,229 2010 87,876 80,901 74,649 2020 111,707 96,573 84,068 Employment Employment Employment 2000 51,110 51,110 51,110 2010 70,128 1 63,390 61,400 2020 89,145 1 75,670 71,690 Also of importance will be future enrollments at MSU. The number of students attending Montana elementary and high schools is not growing. The University's ability to increase its enrollment will be influenced by its abilities to attract a greater share of Montana high school graduates, recruit out-of-state students, and provide programs that appeal to older citizens. 3.4 Allocation of Growth within the Study Area The modeling of travel patterns in 2010 and 2020 requires identification of future socio- economic characteristics within each Transportation Analysis Zone. County population and employment projections were translated into predictions of increases in housing and employment within the Bozeman transportation study area. About 75 percent of future housing, and 80 percent of future employment, were allocated to occur with the transportation study area. Most of the housing and employment growth outside of the study area was allocated to other areas in northern Gallatin County. An ad-hoc Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) was formed to discuss and reach consensus on the distribution of future housing and employment growth within the study area. The committee's membership was recruited from the staff of public agencies and utilities familiar with ongoing development trends in the "Greater Bozeman" area. The committee included staff from the City of Bozeman Planning Department; the Gallatin County Planning Department; the Bozeman Public School District; the Montana Power Company; US West; the U.S. Postal Service; and the Gallatin County Health Department. The committee's work considered recent land use trends; land availability and development capabilities; land use regulations; planned public improvements; and known development proposals. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-5 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2000 Update Figure 3-1 Gallatin County Population Trends & Projections 197G 2020 120,000 100,000 — A00000 Scenario 1 Very High C 80,000 Growth +, Scenario 2 7 60,000 High Growth a 0 (L 40,000 Scenario 3 Moderate 20,000 Growth 0 O U) O Ln O rn O rn O Ln O r- t- 00 co O O O O T T N O O O O O O O O O O O T T T T T T N N N N N Figure 3-2 Gallatin County Employment Trends & Projections, Full and Part Time Employment 1970-2020 100,000 80,000 — Scenario 1 Very High Growth 60,000 - - - A Scenario 2 0 High Growth E 40,000 - -- w Scenario 3 20,000 - - Moderate 1� Growth 0 I. O Ln O Ln O Ln O 0 O Ln O t` W CO O O O O — r N O O O O O O O O O O O T T T T T T N N N N N Robert Peccia &Associates 3-6 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update The LUAC predicted that lands to the west of North 19th Avenue would attract major new residential development. Substantial housing growth is also predicted on both sides of U.S. Highway 191 near the western boundary of the city, the Highland Boulevard area, and in the areas of Sourdough Road and South 19`h Avenue. Substantial new housing also is predicted in areas south of Belgrade and near Four Corners. The North 19`h Avenue area is expected to attract significant additional commercial development. Major retail and office expansion is predicted along North 19`h Avenue and nearby side streets. On Bozeman's west side, the West Main/U.S. 191 corridor is also expected to attract major retail and office type development. Lower density commercial development is predicted to extend westward along U.S. 191/Huffine Lane to the Four Corners area. Future industrial business growth is anticipated to be greatest to the north of Interstate 90 near North 7ch Avenue and the Frontage Road. The Deaconess Hospital area of Highland Avenue is expected to attract substantial increases in medical sector employment. The LUAC foresaw less intensive residential growth in many other locations. Infilling and more concentrated residential development were predicted in established residential areas in the city. Lower density residential development was predicted in unincorporated areas in all directions surrounding the city. Bozeman's Central Business District was expected to attract some increases in office type employment, and a small amount of growth in retail trade. North 7`h Avenue, North Rouse Avenue, and East Main Street are cited as commercial and industrial growth areas. Kagy Boulevard and Oak Street are expected to attract new business development. The location of expected growth areas was coordinated with the City and County growth policies. Please refer to the future land use maps in those documents for expected areas of development. 3.5 Committed Transportation Improvements During the development of the traffic model, the existing road network is coded into the computer. This existing network is often called the "E Network." At this time all committed improvement projects must also be considered. A committed improvement project is one that has been approved by the TCC, and has a committed funding source in place. These committed improvements are assumed to occur in the near future, and therefore should be included in the model. The addition of the committed improvements produces what is known as the "E+C Network." It is the E+C Network that is used for all future year analyses. The committed improvements included in the modeling process are listed below: • Install a new traffic signal at the intersection on Griffin and North 7`h; • Install a new traffic signal at Baxter and North 19`h; • Restrict east bound left turns at the intersection of Baxter and North 7ch; Robert Peccia &Associates 3-7 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update • Upgrade the intersection of Secondary Route 205 (Frontage Rd. or old Highway 10) and Valley Center by adding left turn lanes; • Install a left turn lane at the Secondary Route 205 (Frontage Rd. or old Highway 10) and Nelson intersection; • Reconstruct Durston as a three-lane road from North 7ch to North 19`h; • Upgrade the traffic signal and make geometric improvements at Main and North 19`h (widen south approach; add a double left on the west approach; extend the left turn lane on the north approach; and modify the South 19`h/Babcock intersection to restrict some movements); • Reconstruct Valley Center Drive from Jackrabbit Lane to the I-90 underpass east of hidden Valley Road; and • Upgrade all of the older traffic signals and coordinate the entire signal system. 3.6 Traffic Volume Projections • The traffic model was used to produce traffic forecasts for the years 2010 and 2020. These traffic volume projections are presented in FIGURES 3-3 through 3-6. These projections indicate that the traffic volumes on some of the major corridors will increase significantly over the next 20 years. By the year 2020, traffic volumes on several sections of the principal arterial system will increase to over 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd). These sections include: the northern portion of North 71h (over 34,OOOvpd); the northern section of North 191h (35,000 vpd); West Main west of 191h (over 32,000 vpd); and West Main west of North 71h (over 30,000 vpd). Other routes are forecast to increase in traffic volume. These include Durston (over 23,000 vpd), West College (over 17,000 vpd), and portions of Kagy (over 14,000 vpd). Main Street through Downtown Bozeman is forecast to increase to about 20,000 vpd. The volumes shown in FIGURES 3-3 through 3-6 are based on the assumptions and street network of this plan. Modifications to the street network or development that differs from the assumptions used for the model may create a different future demand pattern. 3.7 Network Alternatives Test Run Analysis Using the traffic model provided by MDT, it is possible to produce traffic assignments that predict the effects of major modifications and additions to the street network. Alternatives such as the addition of new arterial links, street closures, or the extension of existing routes were identified and discussed. Major improvements can then be grouped together and superimposed on the existing network. The impacts of implementing the alternative actions can then be determined for each test run. These tests help determine possible benefits and drawbacks of a variety of possible changes to the major street network. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-8 I I O00000 o j 0 0 0 0 0 00 -0 aZI l J O O N N M M m j Z M O O 0 0 0 O O Z O �- — o ! W 0 0 0 `O O O O D I (� ........... - ------ ww-wwwww.3.w------. - wwww- ----• LJ.I .-. C O O O C I �� I Cr-1 _.._.._.._.._.._. _.._.._.._.._.._.. -. �._.._.._.._ILL j c c0 2 CCU l - £ , CO �. o j m 0 ; oos's o i eel -60 cc (D I v m oo° I a) I CO) E) � �--• ,w. I co m CO CI Z . -------------- ............. _: ---- ---- --------- --------------------- m ww,.�. a� O w»rt wr+-w OOVZ wr.w wi.+w� I ate, � ' O L • � Q I O O � � ✓ ! y "iRnd` wr w�wws I ' �►` I F]CO tF � I Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan CD CD — --•—• O _ f Year 2001 Update -�- ; Figure 3-3 ooZ�� __ ; 2010 Average Daily -� oal�iT 000'o� a _ _ Traffic (ADT) f f Study Area %..._.._.._.._ ._.._.._.. .._.._.._.. .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._•._.._.._.._.._.. ._.-_.._.._.._••_.._.._.._•._.. .._. _••_•._.._.._.._.._ ._:. .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.: -- PH SfIIJ VOJ O _E UK Z H ' 0000 fn 00000 i O O — oo - 0 0 0 0 0 0 � Q> v N OL OL O E E ~ • o —i— I PH dripoilsag C ge�el Q O � N N M = � (U (n Z O O O .. � +r +� o 0 1O r O O O O Z Z 4) .2 O — — O O -0 f 1 W Nc) 00000 E T z f 0 0 0 0 0 0 to ONLO IN .._.._ .._..—.._.._..� \ 009Z c Q ti 'z _ yoo ti -`--{ N 6♦ of r Mill(0-11 r t,bfnJ BI U story_ 'Pa/M loM 009'L11 n - OOZ'L v OOQ9 —,t-1 'PN8PlraPlfiAl aNdoll hRd. rn F-: C i Oq'£ ypp OOL.B / U _ c. L U CO�B 6 OOL'L _ll 3,000 006Z c`a 006'0 c =1 O f o 0 0 a C _ o o � 00 w AOPrrry 'PH AJlorsv •10 � T O 1OOC w Lnj� �p0 009'Ol — -— �— H CDOOL'Z PIE s 0 -- � m o -,c O L-' ••- 0048 ♦ p I p �`v M 419 t N Q• o 009'9 *��o 10o OOV'0 `LL ooa'�lt ooL'sL oos's 006'8 •- ;tIV=! ' 1 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 90 Year 2001 Update as��u�'n-- o a S!APQ — ,,�,��. r Figure 3-4 _ � s _ 2010 Average Daily Traffic -f, (ADT) o _ Bozeman Area I o00000 oO00000 Now" o 0 c COrNN (MM j 0 LO V.- m i Z 0 0 0 00000 Z O +. +. a) l� 2 I _ V� I CD NOO66660 E Zi 3 IE '►�e — w�ww J O N L v CV N C•M a } ccIs 7V CD i I _ , _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.,_..� i 0 I � � �ii. r r a) � w •' •� � M i I C0 w w _ ` Cc cc 1 _-_ - aEi iJ110-0 p �- -te -- - �- I � U 1 00 VE z C - N I i I v�i wwwI (0 I � , � � nw•.r .ww I a m 1 CLS i m I •.......� ........... -------- ---------------------•. I CO ml _ wnn ¢ 2I w ¢ , Co cn • ! w w OR o i j o I Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan _.._..— Year 2001 Update ` ► Figure 3-5 _ ! 2020 Average Daily 3 009`8, I 1 ! Traffic ADT -{ 0 f ' Study Area .._.. .._.._.._.. .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. _.._.._..—.. 0006 .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. of I o O00000 Lz N 00000Oo -0 � � o o oo E E ~ w py dnNjogsagq4, O LO V.- Z Z O O O O O O O O 0 O o W O +-' y-' 00000 I WCV 0000000 E E o 00000000 O O '@ m I \tea J OCV L NNM » Q I 009`£ ti Z moo m PN g!??H i+ah7ed C.o %Mi m o 9 � U MIN Rr� r .,„•..,f � g/n � o Pa IIIW.uolg 003'8 C P^f8 puvlrlfiiH 009E N _ I � � � Sourrlou h Rd -•I C � �� 'N'' I <.• O 0 -0 3,900 c "s CO C; 0 8 } �g` oU pa 6a1ucy! ��a � o�N � II w _ — Q ' -- • I C� CO ,gyp 00 - DOL `n o 00A 0 P� gi01 Oo£oL 000 $ g796NQ N 00L`9 1� 31, OK 0Z 00OV ! 009'6L 009'b OVU o .- greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update - - •..,.• _ u,.al,,,o� o � Figure 3-6 N i 2020 Average Daily 0 -� —.--� Traffic (ADT) I Bozeman Area � PN uosnGi�,l -- Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Thirteen separate scenarios have been test modeled. Twelve of the model runs examined the traffic volume changes resulting from various modifications to the street network. One model run included a growth management scenario which modified the expected growth locations to represent a higher density, more compact development pattern. Listed below are descriptions of the proposed modifications included in each model run, along with a brief description of the resulting changes. TEST RUN NO. 1 included adding the following roads to the E+C network to produce a northwest street grid: • Extend Fowler Lane from Valley Center to Huffine Lane. • Extend Cottonwood Road from Valley Center to Babcock. • Connect Hulbert Street, Deadman's Gulch, Baxter Lane, Oak Street, and Durston Road from North 19th to Cottonwood Road. Test No. 1 Results: The presence of the street grid did not adversely impact any corridors, and is considered a desirable addition to the network. It reduces traffic on North 19th and Durston. The following changes were noted_ • North 7th (decreased ADT by 1,500) • North I9th (decreased ADT by 5,000) • Fowler (ADT = 2,500 to 5,000) • North Cottonwood (ADT = 5,000 to 13,000) • South Cottonwood (ADT=10,000) • Deadman's Gulch (ADT 4,500) • Baxter, North 19th to Cottonwood (ADT 5,700 to 7,800) • West Oak, North 19th to Cottonwood (ADT = 6,500 to 12,000) • Oak, North 19`h to North 7th (ADT = 13000 to 15,000) • Durston, North I9th to Cottonwood (ADT = 3,000 to 6,000) • Durston, North 19th to North 7ch (ADT = 12,000) • West Main (decreased ADT by 2,000 to 8,000) TEST RUN NO. 2 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • All aspects of Test Run No. 1. • Construct the Airport Interchange on I-90 connecting it to the Frontage Road to the north and Love Lane to the south. Upgrade Love Lane south to Huffine Lane. • Extend North I I'h and North 151h from Durston Road to Baxter Lane. • Extend Kagy Boulevard and connect it to Cottonwood Road at Stucky Road. • Upgrade Cottonwood Road from Stucky Road to Huffine Lane. • Extend 7`h Street south from Main to Babcock. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-13 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Test No. 2 Results: Airport Interchange - The addition of the Airport Interchange tends to improve access to the airport, along with providing better interstate access from the Frontage Road. The link connection between the Frontage Road and the interchange would carry 5,000 vpd. The volumes on the Frontage Road would be reduced by 2,000 vpd, and volumes on 1-90 would increase by 1,500 vpd. Love Lane would carry about 1,000 vpd. This addition to the network is considered desirable. South Cottonwood and West Kagy - This network modification looks very desirable. South Cottonwood would carry 6,000 vpd, while West Kagy would carry 3,500 vpd. Volumes on I-191 between Cottonwood and 19tn would decrease by about 2,000 vpd, South Extension of 71n - This extension would not resolve any major traffic issues in the vicinity of Main and North 71n. The new link would carry about 2,500 vpd, while making only minor changes in traffic on Main or Babcock. This network modification is not recommended. North extension of 11`n and 15`n- These new link additions will both carry between 4,500 and 5,500 vpd. Volumes on Durston would increase by 5,000 vpd; volumes on Oak would also increase by 3,000 vpd. Traffic on North 19th would decrease by 2,000 vpd, and volumes on North 7th would decrease by 500 vpd. These links are likely to occur when this area develops. Although this network modification increases traffic on Durston, it is desirable because it reduces traffic loads on North 19tn and North 7`n TEST RUN NO. 3 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • All aspects of Test Run No. 1, plus: • Construct the Mid-Valley interchange on I-90 and connect it to Gooch Hill Road to the south and the Frontage Road and Spain Bridge Road to the north. Tie into the existing street network at Cameron Bridge Road, Oak Street, Deadman's Gulch, Durston Road, and Babcock Street. • Upgrade Gooch Hill Road from Cameron Bridge Road to Huffine Lane. • Construct a northeast arterial link connection between Oak Street East Main Street at Highland Boulevard. Use an alignment that utilizes the abandoned railroad right-of-way, a grade separated railroad crossing, and Cedar Street. • Close Babcock Street at South 191n to through east/west traffic. Allow only right in/out only at the intersection. • Extend South 11`n south from Kagy Boulevard to Graf Street, then connect Graf Street from South 19`n to South 3rd Robert Peccia &Associates 3-14 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Test No. 3 Results: Mid-Valley Interchange - The Mid-Valley interchange would produce desirable changes in the network. The interchange would produce 4,000 trips between the interchange and the Frontage Road. Traffic on Gooch Hill would vary between 7,800 vpd near the interchange, and 10,700 near the intersection of U.S. 191. Although the traffic volumes on I-90 would not change significantly, traffic volumes on the Frontage Road would decrease by 1,600 vpd east of the interchange, and increase by 2,000 vpd west of the interchange. Traffic on North 19th would decrease by 4,000 vpd, and traffic on North 7`' would decrease by 1,500 vpd. This addition to the network is recommended. This project is unlikely to be able to be constructed within the 20-year time frame of this plan since the Airport interchange has a higher priority. Northeast Arterial Connection - This link addition would carry between 1,500 and 2,500 vpd. It does not create any significant traffic reductions on Rouse or East Main Street. Nor does it significantly increase traffic on Oak Street. Considering the anticipated cost of this project and the engineering and environmental problems that would have to be resolved, this network modification is not recommended. 19th and Babcock - Restricting access and egress between 19th and Babcock does not create any significant traffic problems. The traffic volumes on Babcock would be reduced by about 800 vpd on both sides of 19th. It does not significantly change the volumes on 19th. The volumes do not change on Babcock through the Downtown area. This network modification would resolve significant traffic congestion problems and safety problems at this intersection. It would also help to resolve problems at the I9th/Main intersection. This network modification is recommended. I Ith Street Extension and East/West Connection of Graf- These new links would carry about 1,200 vpd and not create any significant traffic problems. This modification reduces traffic volumes on South P by about 3,400 vpd. It increases traffic on 11th north of Kagy by about 400 vpd. The east/west connection of Graf would work well, carrying 5,000 vpd, and cause an increase in volume on South 19th of about 2,500 vpd south of Kagy. It would not significantly change the traffic volumes on South 191h at the Main Street intersection. This network addition is recommended. TEST RUN NO. 4 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • All aspects of Test Run#1, plus: • Modify the I-90 underpass at Valley Center to a full interchange. • Extend 15th from Main Street to Babcock Street. • Connect Sourdough Road to Highland Boulevard near Sourdough Ridge Road. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-I5 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Test No. 4 Results: Valley Center Interchange - This addition had beneficial impacts on West Main, North 19tn, and North 7`h. It is considered a desirable addition to the major street network. The interchange did not significantly change traffic volumes on most of the routes included in the northwest grid (Test No. 1). Similar to the results in Test No. 1, Cottonwood would carry the large north/south volume with 5,000 to 13,000 vpd. Fowler would carry 2,500 to 5,000 vpd. The volumes did not change significantly on the Frontage Road. The following volume changes did occur: • West Main (decreased by 2,000 to 6,000 vpd) • North 19`t' (decreased by 2,000 to 5,800 vpd) • North 7th (decreased by 1,500 to 2,000 vpd) • I-90 east of interchange (increased by 6,000 to 7,500 vpd) This project is unlikely to be able to be constructed within the 20-year time frame of this plan since the Airport interchange has a higher priority. Extension of South 151h - This link addition would carry a significant amount of traffic. It would load up to about 10,000 vpd. It reduces traffic on South 11th by between 1,000 and 3,000 vpd, and reduces traffic on South 19th by about 1,500 vpd. This addition would probably create significant problems for the established neighborhoods south of Main, and problems for the schools north of Main. The problems created by this modification outweigh the benefits, and therefore are not recommended at this time. Sourdough Shift to Hi hg land - This modification does not create any traffic problems. It increases traffic on Highland by about 500 vpd, while decreasing traffic on Willson by about 500 vpd. It does not change the traffic volumes on Kagy. This addition would help to align Sourdough with Highland creating a more direct route to Main Street on the east side of Bozeman. This improvement is not recommended due to practical difficulty and affects on existing development. Alternative improvements to improve safety and relieve traffic on Sourdough Road are recommended. TEST RUN NO. 4A duplicates Test Run No. 4, except that Sourdough remains unchanged, and the alignment of Church Street would be improved to a standard collector street design. Test No. 4A Results: Upgrading the Alignment of Church Street - This improvement would increase traffic volumes on Church by 1,500 vpd. It would reduce traffic on Willson by 400 to 500 vpd. This does not significantly change traffic volumes on Highland. This network modification is recommended. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-16 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TEST RUN NO. 5 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • Change Main Street to a three-lane facility from Grand to Rouse Avenues. Test No. 5 Results: • This change would reduce traffic volumes on Main by about 1,000 vpd. It would create significant traffic congestion problems along this portion of Main Street. This modification is not recommended. TEST RUN NO. 6 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • Change Main Street to a three-lane facility from Grand to Rouse Avenues. (Test Run No. 5.) • Change Mendenhall Street to a two-way road from I Vh to Rouse Avenue, and Babcock Street to a two-way road from 8`h to Wallace Avenue. • Change Rouse Avenue to a two-way road from Main to Babcock Streets. Test No. 6 Results: These modifications did not produce any significant changes in traffic volumes on Mendenhall or Babcock, and do not appear to correct any major traffic problems in the Downtown area. Although this change would reduce traffic volumes on Main Street by about 1,000 vpd, it would create significant traffic congestion problems along this portion of Main. These modifications are not recommended. TEST RUN NO. 7 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • Change Main Street to a three-lane facility from Grand to Rouse Avenues. (Test Run No. 5.) • Change Mendenhall Street to one-way eastbound from 11`h to Rouse Avenue. • Change Babcock Street to one-way westbound from 8`h to Wallace Avenue. • Change Rouse Avenue to one-way way southbound from Main Street to Babcock. Test No. 7 Results - These modifications did not produce any significant changes in traffic volumes on Mendenhall or Babcock. Although the operation of many intersections may be improved by a reduction in the number of left turn maneuvers, it does not appear to correct any major traffic problems in the Downtown area. The modifications to Main would reduce traffic volumes on Main by about 1,000 vpd, but would create significant traffic congestion problems along this portion of Main Street. This modification is not recommended. TEST RUN NO. 8 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • Change Mendenhall Street to a two-way road from 1lth to Rouse Avenue, and Babcock Street to a two-way road from 8ch to Wallace Avenue. • Change Rouse to a two-way road from Main to Babcock Streets. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-17 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Test No. 8 Results - This test indicated that the traffic volumes on Mendenhall would increase by about 2,200 vpd, while traffic volumes on Babcock would decrease by about 3,000 vpd. Traffic volumes on Main Street did not change significantly. This modification does not appear to correct any major traffic problems in the Downtown area, although it does reduce traffic on Babcock. This modification is not recommended at this time. TEST RUN NO. 9 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • Change Mendenhall Street to one-way eastbound from 11`h to Rouse Avenue. • Change Babcock Street to one-way westbound from 8`h to Wallace Avenue. • Change Rouse Avenue to one-way way southbound from Main Street to Babcock. Test No. 9 Results - This test did not indicate that the traffic volumes on either Babcock or Mendenhall would change significantly. Traffic volumes on Main Street did not change. Although the operation of many intersections may be improved by a reduction in the number of left turn maneuvers, it does not appear to correct any major traffic problems in the Downtown area. This modification is not recommended at this time. TEST RUN NO. 10 Growth Management: • The growth management scenario, developed by the City of Bozeman's, Gallatin County's, and City of Belgrade's Planning Departments, involved rearranging the residential growth in several of the TAZ's. The total amount of residential growth within the study area was not altered. In general the scenario tends to encourage infill within the city, and higher densities of residential growth in the areas adjacent to the city. It also encourages lower residential densities in the outer portions of the study area. The details of the modifications included in the growth management scenario are on file at the MDT Urban Planning Section, and at the Bozeman Planning Department. Test No. 10 Results - This test run roduced minor volume reductions on the major corridors of West Main, North 19th, South 199, and North 71h. The growth changes included in this test run did not make any significant changes to the volumes on I-90, Huffine Lane, Frontage Road, Valley Center, or Kagy Boulevard. TEST RUN NO. 11 included the following modifications to the E+C network: • Restrict turning movements at the intersection of Babcock and South 19th to prohibit east/west through movements, left turns off of 191h, and permit only right in/out only turning movements between 19`h and Babcock. • Extending South 15`h south from Main to Babcock, with no connection south of Babcock. Robert Peccia &Associates 3-18 Travel Demand Forecasting Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Test Run No. 11 Results - The modification at Babcock and South 19th did not create any noticeable traffic problems. It did not significantly change the traffic volumes on Babcock in the Downtown area. This modification is considered desirable and is recommended. The extension of 15th carried about 3,000 vpd, resulting in a slight reduction in traffic on Main Street. This modification does not appear to correct any of the traffic problems in the area and is therefore not recommended. TEST RUN NO. 12 included the following changes to the E+C network: • The modifications are the same as itemized in Test Run No. 9, but with the addition of a southern extension of 7th from Main to Babcock. Test Run No. 12 Results - The extension of 7th carried about 3,000 vpd, increasing traffic volumes on the portion of Babcock between 7th and Willson by 2,000 vpd. Traffic on Main decreased by about 1,000 vpd. This modification did not resolve any of the traffic problems in the area and is not recommended at this time. TEST RUN NO. 13 included all of Test Run No. 3, except the Northeast Arterial, plus the following modifications: • Extend North 11th and North 15th between Durston and Baxter. • Extend Kagy west to Cottonwood. • Upgrade Cottonwood, Kagy to Huffine. • Extend 11 th south from Kagy to Graf. • Extend Graf from South 3rd to South 19th. Test Run No. 13 Results - The results of this test run were similar to those of Test Run No. 3 with the following additions: • 11th - Durston and Baxter carried between 5,500 to 8,000 vpd • 15th—Durston to Baxter carried between 2,700 to 4,700 vpd • Kagy - 19th to Cottonwood carried between 6,800 and 7,500 vpd • Cottonwood - Kagy to 191 carried about 10,000 vpd • 111h - Kagy to Graf carried 1300 vpd • Graf- South 3rd to South 19th carried between 3,500 and 4,800 vpd Robert Peccia &Associates 3-19 Chapter 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 6: Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis 6.1 Introduction This chapter of the Plan provides an overview of the current pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Bozeman area. It also recommends a course of action that addresses the needs of the community. There is limited data on pedestrian and bicycle activity within the greater Bozeman area. Pedestrian and bicycle activity was monitored as part of the intersection turning movement count effort at the major intersections. However, this data is not complete enough to provide a complete picture of pedestrian and bicycle activity. Important supplemental information relating to bicycle activity was provided by members of the Bozeman Bicycle Advisory Board. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust supplied information relating to trail use in the community. Many Bozeman residents walk or bike for recreational purposes. Many employees and students walk or ride bicycles as a means of transportation when traveling to and from work or school. The presence of Montana State University produces a considerable amount of pedestrian and bicycle activity within the Bozeman area. Student, faculty, and staff often walk or bike to the campus from the residential neighborhoods near MSU. Additional locations that experience significant pedestrian and bicycle activity are the downtown area, the areas around elementary schools, and the areas around the major shopping centers. 6.2 Issues Regarding Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bozeman Area Walking and bicycling can play a significant role in the overall transportation system by providing a realistic alternative to driving for some trips. In order for this alternative to be effective, it is essential that the infrastructure be in place and routinely maintained. The major problem facing pedestrians is the lack of a consistent sidewalk and trail network. Although sidewalks are present in many neighborhoods, the sidewalk connections between these residential areas, market places, and schools are missing. In many cases existing sidewalks are in poor condition with segments missing. Furthermore, pedestrians tend to walk along the same corridors that are principally used by motorists. The inadequate pedestrian facilities along these corridors expose pedestrians to large volumes of high-speed traffic. The downtown area in Bozeman accommodates pedestrian traffic reasonably well with sidewalks along both sides of all streets. The signal progression and phase length of the traffic signals in the downtown area provide pedestrians with reasonable opportunities to safely cross streets. Many routes within the city are without any sidewalks including Rouse; Baxter; Oak; West Durston; West Babcock; West College; and South 19`h. Continuous sidewalk sections have not been provided along any of the routes in the county that lead into Bozeman. In these cases the only space available for walking is the roadway shoulder, which is often narrow. In some cases the road has no shoulders, forcing pedestrians to walk in the driving lane, or on the edge of Robert Peccia and Associates 6-1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update the roadway. The higher travel speeds on these routes further contribute to an unsafe environment-for pedestrians. There are only a few designated bicycle lanes or routes included as part of the street network within the community. Most of these local bicycle routes are not continuous. In most cases the bicyclist is forced to ride in the driving lane, competing for space with the motorized traffic. Although both bicycling and walking are weather dependent, Bozeman has a rather robust community of walkers and bicyclists. Members of this community would continue to use this form of travel if the facilities were adequately maintained. During the winter months walking and bicycling become much more difficult due to the lack of adequate snow removal from the pedestrian/bicycle facilities. In many areas where the snow is removed from the walkways and bike paths, it is a low priority and does not occur before the routes are needed. As a result the paths become snow packed and icy, making travel more difficult, and often unsafe. In order to encourage and support pedestrian and bicycle use it is important to provide timely and adequate maintenance to sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails. 6.3 Major Sidewalk Network The major sidewalk system consists of all walkways along the major street network and other routes where heavy pedestrian traffic occurs. The major sidewalk network was inventoried to determine the current condition of the sidewalk surface. The sidewalks were inspected on a block-by-block basis. A block was considered to be in acceptable condition if the entire block had sidewalks, and if they were free of any major defects. If excessive cracking, heaving, or spalling was observed on any segment of the block, the entire block was rated as being in need of repair. FIGURE 6-1 shows the Major Sidewalk System and the results of the sidewalk condition inventory. Most of the sidewalks on the major sidewalk network were given good ratings. However, many heavily used sidewalk sections around MSU and other public schools are in need of repair. The figure also shows that sidewalks are currently nonexistent on many of the major routes within the city. The City policy and City subdivision codes require that, as development occurs, sidewalks be provided on both sides of public streets frontages. Additionally, related with previously developed areas, the City annually administers three public sidewalk programs which are: 1) an ordered sidewalk repair program; 2) an ordered new sidewalk installation program; and 3) a sidewalk snow removal enforcement program. Under the repair program, each year a portion of the City is surveyed for trip hazards and unsafe sidewalk conditions and residents are notified to replace or repair hazardous sidewalks. Under the new sidewalk construction program, the City maintains a sidewalk priority list of existing street frontages where no sidewalk exists. The areas are rated and ranked according to specific safety, need, constructability and fairness criteria. Annually, based on the ranked priority list, the City Commission holds a public hearing to consider and establish the extent of the annual new sidewalk installation program and subsequently orders property owners to construct new sidewalk. If property owners fail to repair Robert Peccia and Associates 6-2 _.._..! a c •—•.' Gill F�cl• .. •-1 .� �igliland �=—f m o .� CL nica o CO U Pn18 PUCIO/H a) Q Z o f CO N pve• j ChUCcf1 ? E j ° (� J .any asnoJY•hr : "I a i no c c — I.. C5 y B N — _.._.._.._.._.._ I — — �.. y an VI N u - LLt� r o �. ` .._.._. ._ .. u�5i ram: CD OD Ij Wk N j IG6 S u166 S a) Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan a Year 2001 Update 0p I i _.._.._.. �.._.._.._.._.._.._..i _.._.._.._ �.. aaAalien Figure 6-1 1)7 WMoZ( Major Sidewalk System Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update sidewalk or construct new sidewalk as ordered by the City, the work is completed by the City at the property owners expense. Additionally, the City annually enforces snow removal from public sidewalks by adjoining property owners. Snow enforcement personnel conduct daily inspections and if owners fail to remove snow within the time lines prescribed under City code, contract removal is subsequently completed at the owners expense and the owners are charged a fine. It is recommended that the community-wide sidewalk programs be continued. These pedestrian facilities are included in the recommended street standards presented in Chapter 11. Improvements for pedestrian related activity would include improving the current sidewalk and trail system to provide better access to destinations around Bozeman. The improvements should include corridor lighting to enhance pedestrian safety. The areas that should have substantial pedestrian facilities are those which connect destinations such as MSU, the downtown area, schools, and major shopping locations. With this in mind, the following routes have been identified for improvements. • The MSU Area: Numerous sidewalks around MSU are in need of repair. Much of the sidewalk surface to the east of the Campus is in need of improvement. Many of the intersections do not meet the requirements for ADA facilities. Of critical importance are the following corridors: Cleveland; Garfield; Grant; Willson; and 61h. The 6t ; Garfield, and Grant corridors are seriously deficient of ADA facilities. Actions to improve the ADA accessibility in the MSU area are underway. • College Street: Currently College Street has no sidewalks between 19th and West Main Street. The only sidewalks are on the South side between 19th and 1lth. This corridor should be improved to provide better access to MSU and to the Mall area. • 111h Avenue and 8th Avenue: Both Ilth Avenue and 81h Avenue are major north/south corridors for pedestrians. However, both of these streets have sections with poor sidewalk surfaces and do not meet ADA requirements on many intersections. The sidewalks on these streets should be improved. • Durston Road/Peach Street: Durston Road/Peach Street is a major east/west corridor in the northern part of the city. The ADA and sidewalk facilities on this corridor should be improved along its entire length. • 191h Avenue: Although the 19`h Avenue corridor is a major street section, Provisions should be made for pedestrians. With the increased growth along the North 19' area, pedestrian facilities should be provided to connect this part of town with South I9th and the MSU Campus area. Robert Peccia and Associates 6-4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 6.4 ADA Compliance As part of the major sidewalk network inventory, the pedestrian facilities were inspected to determine if the basic requirements of the American Disabilities Act (ADA) are being met. Wheelchair ramps are required on the corners of all intersections where sidewalks and curbs exist. All intersections on the major street network and on the major sidewalk network were checked to determine if wheelchair ramps have been provided. Spot checks were made to determine if the ramps complied with current ADA regulations with respect to grade and width. The analysis showed that much of the major sidewalk network has fully compliant ADA facilities. However, significant portions of 81h Avenue, 11`h Avenue, Main Street, Durston Road, Grant Street, and Garfield Street lacked the necessary ADA facilities. FIGURE 6-2 shows where ADA ramps exist and where ramps are missing and/or are non-compliant. 6.5 Bicycle Facilities Bicyclists use the same transportation facilities as motorized vehicles, either by design, or out of necessity. However, due to the vulnerability of bicyclists to injury, and the presence of young or inexperienced riders in the traffic stream, special considerations are needed. Bicycle riding is an important component of the overall transportation system. In an effort to encourage bicycle use for commuting purposes, it is important that a bicycle route system be established. For this reason, the major street network was reviewed to determine where bicycle use should be encouraged within the Bozeman area. Members of the Bozeman Bicycle Advisory Board were involved in developing bicycle facility standards that should be incorporated into all future street development. It was determined that it is desirable to include five-foot-wide bicycle lanes on both sides of the road on all new arterial routes and collector streets. It was also determined that dedicated bicycle lanes were not necessary on local streets due to relatively low traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. The recommended street standards presented in Chapter 11 include these bicycle facilities. Dedicated bicycle paths located adjacent to the road, but outside of the roadway, were considered acceptable only if there was a reasonable assurance that the paths would be maintained on a regular basis. Separated two-way bicycle facilities can create a safety problem at intersections. Separated two-way bicycle paths located outside of the roadway, and only on one side of the road, are only considered desirable where there are few intersection streets along the corridor. In the developed areas of the community, it is often impractical to try to adapt the current road to include designated bike lanes. In these cases it was felt that designating the road as a bicycle route with appropriate signing would be the best approach. Several aspects of bicycle riding were considered when developing the bicycle route system. These considerations included the following: Robert Peccia and Associates 6-5 �Ivd I4igp�land * --- 6- E E U � LL CU 0 o 0O � E cn U D N U U C ( � Q Z CL CU Q N L • • • 0000 • Gti�pie p o o o Q C = o • • � • • • Z •• - U an y asnod • • • * W Q 0 = • t � • W a, a v °? • • • • ® J : � � SM3: O cal � • • • • • • qj �` • • _ • • • • • • �wlR!•- • • • • • • jj • � • • • • • • • • • Imp � • • • • • • M • • • • • wo • •CU • • - :�i 1 • I a • i_m • I — I 016E N • - I ular I Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan _ Year 2001 Update G Figure 6-2 = i Handicapped Access Ramp (b. Inventory ' Bozeman Area U?J�Jf�lOj I Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update • Bicycle trip purposes can be divided into two broad categories, utilitarian and recreational. The primary objective of utilitarian riding is reaching the destination quickly, while recreational riding is done for pleasure with less concern about destination. • Bicyclists vary greatly in their riding ability and in their preference for riding environments. • Bicycle facilities should be designed for a broad range of bicyclists. • The location of bicycle routes should be based on the advisability of using a particular major road versus a parallel or adjacent roadway. • Bicycle traffic cannot be diverted to less direct routes unless more favorable factors out- weight the convenience of using direct routes. • Bicycle parking facilities should be provided at all primary destinations. Using this criteria, several corridors in particular are recommended to be developed into recreational and commuter bicycle routes including: • South Church/Sourdough Road from Main to southern terminus; • Goldenstein Road from Sourdough to South 191n; • Nash Road from Sourdough to South 191h; • South Cottonwood from Huffine to South 19tn; • Oak Street from Rouse to North 19th and beyond; • Valley Center from North 19th to Jackrabbit Lane; • South 4th Avenue from Olive to College; and • Frontage Road from North 7th to Belgrade. FIGURES 6-3 and 6-4 show the recommended Bicycle Route System. This system is designed to fulfill the existing and future needs of both utilitarian and recreational riders. Where possible, the bicycle routes within the City of Bozeman have been designed on streets paralleling major thoroughfares to encourage use of less congested facilities, but still meet travel desires of bicyclists. The overall traffic safety benefits of reducing the numbers of bicyclists on heavily traveled corridors are obvious. 6.6 Bozeman Area Trails This section of the Plan was developed with the assistance of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and the Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board. This organization has taken a lead role in acquiring corridor rights-of-way for trails throughout the Gallatin Valley. As the Bozeman area communities grow and develop, trails should be viewed as a positive and required piece of their infrastructure, just as roads are for motorized travel. The inclusion of trails into the fabric of the county will have significant benefits to our local communities' livability and well being. Trails offer a human-scaled public space, a place free from automobile traffic, where people can interact with one another and enjoy open space corridors within their communities. Everyone reaps the benefits of exercise, nature, and human interactions while going about the business of their daily lives. Robert Peccia and Associates 6-7 •— ................... ................ ............... i i C cu0- -jof co 00 I d a) a) a) U 1 1 I Z ; i 'e•.,i,•..' w ' ; VLF - ! W O) M O 0 O V) N i - J ww . . . 1 1 / ' .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..�,i ._.._.._.._� Hl`� + I —.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. 1 i a - I P.E ' I I O a) a) C U U Al Z ++ 1 cn O 1 `off — / �, L O `— E N �; ; la " m ° o _0a) �i �3 �=� I j � aci U = o o OSL) N 3 J Y_ L , jc'v) � � oaa)) •2 CU 3m I � I — } c .� � ca cn - wEE a � c cn :> n • ' c ! CD CNN a) CU O L O L a) a) L Z F- m F- -0 n a- } I I Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update ' " T Figure 6-3 N 3 Bike Route Network � I - - (Study Area) I O co 00 a e J 0- O 0 O co ' �CIO. _ +<P pa dnyoogsagge�(el CD m COo —I Z CO m '0 -0 -0 Z W J MM0 � cnCL i i W xx000 / J wwdaw CD m Pf!RIM Y St° Mill Rd In n n ` Higpiand Bivd �r� - 70 Pa ow — c / PNBPr+B1Y&N � Sourdou h Rd. cl3 O O All, jj •any asnoa N _y sno I U d7 O M ? C co 1p M p O."" 70 -0 c ro VAu N o •a os r S N �`�• � � O c � j pa eL+ulY WE o - CO p EO C - , -0 N Lj V7L N a rn m_ 8 — , O N 3 c eR 0 •> O O •� N O 0 U co -0 o e O O d� O N O >+ 4- U 0 (6 4JSL N 3 Y co .0 O O C 476E N ( 476E S O � O L " •M ry ZiHm H � ads enter 1 Valley Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan s!ne4 Year 2001 Update Figure 6-4 jI Bike Route Network _ r h (Bozeman Area) — •pa uosnWag Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Trails provide an alternative transportation system that is safe, healthy and enjoyable. A well developed trails system will lessen automobile use, thus relieving traffic congestion while reducing pollution, road building costs, maintenance costs, and vehicle ownership costs. Trails also enhance economic well being by enhancing property values and tax revenues along their corridors. Four Categories of Needs that Trails Fulfill A process should be created for developing and maintaining trails and/or a non-motorized transportation system in the Bozeman area. The following four categories help evaluate the appropriateness of trails in developing areas. Several example questions are provided with each category to illustrate an evaluation process. 1. Transportation • Can the trail connect to existing and future trails? • Can the trail provide a non-vehicular, non-automobile based transportation system within the developing area and to nearby community amenities? 2. Recreation Can the trail provide a recreational opportunity (e.g., walking,biking, running, skiing) for residents? • Can the trail connect residents to recreation facilities (e.g., parks, pools, etc.) within the community? 3. Open Space • Can the inclusion of a trail corridor preserve significant landscape features, (e.g., streams, wetlands, riparian zones, ridgelines, trees, vegetation, sensitive species, etc.)? • Can the trail provide access to natural amenities? 4. Education • Can the trail provide educational opportunities, (e.g., interpretive signing, outdoor education, research opportunities, school field trips, etc.)? General Ideas Related to Trails and the Transportation Network • Trails, sidewalks, and bike paths need to be a major component of the transportation infrastructure for our communities. The trail network must be planned, implemented, and constructed with the same emphasis and thoroughness as the road network. Trails should not be treated solely as recreational amenities in the planning process. Robert Peccia and Associates 6-10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update • A pedestrian-friendly transportation network is composed of an interconnected system of unpaved and-paved trails, boulevard trails, standard sidewalks, bike lanes and routes. This pedestrian transportation network should connect conveniently to any current or potential mass transit system. • Trail corridor and networks should be planned prior to development. Attempting to assemble and route trail systems in piece-meal fashion after development has occurred will result in a fractured and poorly planned trail network. • As the trail system evolves and grows, so does the need for maintenance. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust, with assistance from volunteers and other local community organizations, is trying to assist in this effort. Resources are very limited, and funding is needed from both the City and County Governments to help with weed control and maintenance along the trail system. • Stream drainage and irrigation ditches may offer very good trail corridors. Trails along these watercourses are aesthetically pleasing for the trail user, and provide public access. The trail can also serve as buffer against future developments encroaching on the waterway and associated riparian habitat. • Unpaved but adequately graded, surfaced, and maintained trails can function as transportation links and serve as important commuter routes, as well as providing recreational activities for non-motorized users. Two examples in Bozeman are the Gallagator Trail and the Sourdough Trail. Many people commute by mountain bike over a wide range of trail surfaces and widths, and would prefer using the trail system, rather than riding in heavy street traffic. • The following facilities and amenities should be connected via sidewalks, bike-ways, and trails: schools; hospitals; retirement homes; youth centers; parks; neighborhoods; commercial centers; mass transit hubs; existing public trails; and natural areas. 6.7 Implementation The first step in creating a comprehensive trail system is to inventory existing trails and to query local residents for ideas about non-vehicular travel systems. The Gallatin Valley Land Trust has worked with the Gallatin County Trails Committee, Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, the Local Water Quality District, City and County governments, and interested citizens to map all existing public trails in Gallatin County using GPS technology. The compilation and collection of GPS trails information was completed in July, 2000. Such detailed, accurate, and extensive mapping had never before been completed in Gallatin County; it will serve as a long- term resource to the entire community. The Gallatin County Trails Committee held several workshops around the county and queried residents about trails and possible trail corridors. The Robert Peccia and Associates 6-11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update inventory and evaluation for current and future bicycle facilities were conducted in cooperation with the Bicycle Advisory Board, a member of TCC. FIGURE 6-5 shows the proposed trail system for the Bozeman area. FIGURES 6-3 and 6-4 show the proposed bicycle route network developed in conjunction with the Bicycle Advisory Board. This trails map is based on input from the Gallatin County Trails Committee, the Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Trails Committee, and the staff and members of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust. These figures should be used as a tool in the evaluation of development requests. Developers should address how proposed developments augment the proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks. The trail network is only as strong as each individual link. Each development proposal should be evaluated during the review process to determine if the development is meeting community goals for providing a safe, healthy and pleasant non- vehicular system of transportation within Bozeman and Gallatin County. It is important to ensure, through intergovernmental cooperation, that pedestrian and bicycle networks connect at jurisdictional interfaces. Robert Peccia and Associates 6-12 c S O ar7 c a on Elba R (0 O O_ ld O y M Zj 0 0 ; a " �n o o a o [ N Q O _Ike �" >. C �2 TJ r I I L/I 0 .— L.. 7� b L IIIIIIIIIIIIII t to C tq :J :l -� a a' b • b � — — -- •� - _ � O V) to _! � Tim !�` m pC-i C coJTIT �r � u - ( — cu '� ) (6 L C L — +' r (� C (d E E > p rn O O C 3 V O p pmm p N p p C O gin .- p V f � a) a) -0 O L rn > a) (� N M Q C (: EO d (0 ` L -0 m - 3 J aU O C U C) C� >, — MCOc 'c � co cn COa) 4- c N O c O p x _ w c a) — 0 _ - _� � c � co U � c � _ I 4— F- to O p — c >, E a) L }- - - t I t v Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan ''` — I i Year 2001 Update = Figure 6-5 Bozeman Area Trail Network Chapter 7 Transit Analysis Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 7: Transit Analysis 7.1 Introduction This chapter is a summary of an independent document, the Greater Bozeman Area Transit Development Plan. The Transit Plan was prepared simultaneously with the larger Transportation Plan. Readers with an interest in more detailed information regarding transit are referred to the full Transit Plan. An ad-hoc transit advisory committee was established to provide direction and advice during the development of the transit section of this Plan. This committee consisted of knowledgeable individuals working in the transit industry who currently provide transit service in the Bozeman area. The committee met twice during the transit-planning phase of the project. They were involved in reviewing the results of the transit questionnaires, and assisting in the development of the transit recommendations included in this chapter. There are at least eleven separate transit providers in the Bozeman area that offer a wide variety of transportation services throughout the Gallatin Valley. Most of these services are specialized, providing service to specific groups of the population. The transit service providers include the following: • Bobcat Transit • Gal-A-Van • REACH • All Valley Cab • Rimrock/Trailways • Greyhound Bus • Karst Stage Bus • 4x4 Stage • Montana Motor Coach • Bridger Ski Bus • Hotel Shuttles 7.2 Bobcat Transit The Bobcat Transit System, originating in 1987, is the largest single provider of public transit within the Bozeman area. The service is operated through the Associated Students of MSU (ASMSU), and is intended for the use of MSU students, faculty, staff, and area residents. All MSU students taking seven or more credits per semester pay an additional $4.50 in tuition fees for use of the service. Faculty and staff pay $30 per semester if they wish to ride the bus. The general public may use the service for $1 per ride. Providing about 14,500 rides each year, the annual budget for the Bobcat Transit System is approximately $87,000. This translates into a cost of$6.00 per ride. Although the system is available to the general public, it is not considered Robert Peccia &Associates 7-1 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update a true public transit system. This transit service is limited to days when MSU is in session. It does not operate on weekends, at night, during semester breaks or during the summer. FIGURE 7-1 shows the current route map for the two Bobcat Transit Lines. The Bobcat Transit System operates two fixed routes, plus a contracted shuttle service with Karst Stage. All routes either begin or end at the Student Union Building (SUB) on Campus. The bus system utilizes two 40-foot Blue Bird school buses. There is no apparent marketing of the service to the general public. The buses are not marked in any way to identify them as part of the service. The buses are not ADA accessible. If handicapped individuals wish to ride the bus, they must contact Karst in advance for the provision of a special ADA-equipped vehicle. On average, Bobcat Transit provides transportation to about 100 people per day, or about one percent of the student population. Very few rides are provided to the general public. In 1998, the service provided 14,845 rides. Interviews with the riders indicate that most people heard about the service through word of mouth. This indicates that students are not made completely aware of the service at the time of registration. It is a widely held belief that the service is underutilized. A transit rider questionnaire was conducted in April, 2000 to obtain comments about the service. The questionnaire was administered to bus riders on both the Blue and Gold lines, Sixty-five responses were received. The results of the questionnaire were are as follows: • 81 percent of the riders were full or part time students, the rest were MSU faculty or staff; • the average system rider takes four one-way trips each; • 37 percent use the Blue route, 51 percent use the Gold route, and 48 percent use the shuttle; • 52 percent of the people who use the service learned about it through word-of-mouth; and • 83 percent of the respondents felt that the current bus schedule provides adequate service throughout the day. 7.3 Gal-A-Van Gal-A-Van is a local service based out of the Bozeman Senior Center. It provides transit services for seniors, wheel-chair users, and other people with disabilities. The service is funded through the Gallatin County Senior Mill Levy, the United Way, the City of Bozeman, the Older Americans' Act Title III, and individual riders' donations. The service has received federal funding assistance for purchases of rolling stock in the past. Gal-A-Van currently provides on-call, door-to-door transportation service within the Bozeman area on weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. It provides about 76 rides per day (20,000 rides per year). The annual budget for the service is $95,000. The cost per ride is estimated to be $5.29. A 1998 survey studied the possibility of expanding the service to evening and weekends. By evaluating the survey's results, it was determined that enough demand exists to make this expansion economically feasible. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-2 15 Cn PH Llllllcl."�, CO LU z _ _ f0 G .�• J • V� CDU m LC) dL a KioNl,9txli l`'n O n �rU L M U u`1 ,.I 1...�" H LLI C/) 006 (a ca o ty 06 N Y C C (O C 06 °ZS C 0 P41ppl TJOJS I I.�•� . .I' • �•��` roe — _� I I Sowco _ " U U _Ln ugh. Ca Cn CUYYCa Z 0 m (D _ rAl .•�•• I �cl1 VIA GhuC�}t Ave `\�\\ N nod i.._.._ _ r.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..I r I a ire I •�'•�• I ao t• 1 ' ice" '3A 1/ v, _ : _••—••� i v CO C — 1 _.._.._.._. _, I•• 41 N y"'- _ 1gS i t — — v..J .`•: -0 `o J E � Ca Od c.6 Od U) CoUQ c c9 mOrsL CL U [--.� � •I _.._.._ i • I I•_.� mCoiYYm UrnYY Y Y Ca M -::r U') CO 1` 00 M -- - - - Cn LLI E a`) I c /�entFf ••_..J CM L.. i _..— :� w C CO ' E rn aQ'i c c0 U .. utte E %�.._.._.. 3 o CO =3 o o c Cu a) J U U _ O 066 - 49 I Z •_• O Cn 060606 � oz$ �_ CM 06 Cn " 0) uoi w 0 a) rn E L _ _ _1L o wYci� m` ai M 0 � U � � _. _..i m � cuc» incor` aom E. L_••_f cn 0 0 CO Of c � m E E o w c fY O O O -E Cu CD 0 C) Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan r•i Year2001 Update C 000 i i Figure 7-1 ............ _,._.. Bobcat Transit System f8 ,'"J •I �:., .�:r.% � \_�•I O � G;!l1n.N�i.nJJn� I_i Route Map Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Gal-A-Van has two full-time drivers, two part-time drivers and a program manager. It provides service using four transit vehicles. The vehicles include two six-passenger Dodge Grand Caravans (1997 and 1998 model years), and two Ford E-350 mini-buses (1992 and 1995 model years), each carrying 11 passengers. All of the vehicles are handicap accessible. The two Ford mini-buses have full standing headroom. The vehicles are cleaned by the drivers on a regular basis, and maintained as needed by local service stations. The vehicles are stored in the open parking lot of the Bozeman Senior Center. 7.4 Other Transit Providers REACH R & H Transportation, under a contract with the State of Montana, provides the REACH specialized transportation service to a limited number of people with mental disabilities in the Bozeman area. This service includes both fixed-route and on-demand rides. REACH also provides transportation services for its clients needing rides between home and work, for medical appointments, grocery shopping and recreational outings. All Valley Cab All Valley Cab, established in 1991, provides on-call transportation taxi service daily from 4:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., and 24 hours by reservation. The company serves the Bozeman, Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks areas with four sedans, one minivan, and one handicapped van. Rimrock Trailways Rimrock Trailways is a Billings based company providing a variety of transit services, airport transfers, and charter services throughout Montana. Rimrock operates one scheduled bus each day that originates in Billings, travels through Bozeman, and continues on to Helena and Missoula. The bus then returns along this same route. Rimrock also provides daily bus service between Helena and Great Falls, and provides connections in Billings and Missoula with the Greyhound Bus service. Greyhound Bus Greyhound provides regional scheduled bus service through Bozeman six times each day. Greyhound makes three eastbound and three westbound trips which originate in Seattle and Chicago. Greyhound buses stop at several locations along I-90 in Gallatin County, including stops in Belgrade, Three Forks, and Manhattan. Riders can make connections in Missoula and Billings to other cities in the region. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-4 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Kars Karst Stage provides charter transit services in the Bozeman area. The company operates a variety of over-the-road coaches, transit buses, school buses and mini-buses. It provides school bus service for the Bozeman public school system. Karst routinely provides charter transit service from the Gallatin Airport to Big Sky, West Yellowstone, and Mammoth as well as charter services to destinations throughout southwest Montana. 4x4 Stage The 4x4 Stage currently operates the Gallatin airport transit concession with 12 vans, providing transportation from the Gallatin Airport to destinations throughout the region with scheduled routes to Big Sky, West Yellowstone, and Mammoth. The company also provides charter services to destinations throughout southwest Montana. Montana Motor Coach Montana Motor Coach is a charter bus company located in Bozeman. It provides group charter bus service to anywhere in the region. The company has four 40-foot long over-the-road coaches that are used in its charter service. Bridger Ski Bus The Bridger Ski Bus provides transportation to and from the Bridger Bowl Ski Area during the winter months. The service operates on weekends and holidays through a contract with Karst Stage, providing service to mostly young riders. Riders pay $55 for a season pass, or $5 per ride. The service has scheduled stops throughout Bowman. Hotel Shuttles Most hotels in the Bozeman area provide shuttle service to and from the Gallatin Airport. Most of the hotels own and operate a van that is used for this on-demand service. The Bridger Bowl Ski Area also provides a daily shuttle that provides one daily round trip service to the hotels. It is available on-call throughout the day for transportation to and from the ski area. 7.5 Transit Questionnaire TRANSIT QUESTIONAIRE - GENERAL PUBLIC This transit questionnaire was conducted in May 2000. Questionnaires were distributed with the mailing of the City's water bills, and at the Department of Motor Vehicles, Bozeman Public Library, the County Court House, and the Senior Center. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-5 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update The questionnaire provided some key questions about the need for transit service in the Bozeman area. Approximately 8,000 questionnaires were distributed and 2,089 responses were received. A random sample of 282 of the responses was taken which, 89 percent of the people believed the Bozeman area needs some sort of public transit system. Sixty-six percent thought public taxes should be used to fund such a system. A total of 68 percent stated they would use a public transit system if it existed. In the responses, 56 percent stated that they would be willing to walk three to four blocks to get to a public bus stop. The results of this questionnaire are as follows. ❑ Do you think there is a need for a transit system in the greater Bozeman area? 74% Yes, for the general public 15% Yes, but only for poor, elderly, and disabled 5% No 4% Don't know ❑ Do you think area taxpayers should help pay for the transit system in the Bozeman area? 41% Yes 25% Yes, but only to subsidize transit for the poor, elderly, and disabled 17% No 12% Don't know ❑ If the greater Bozeman area had a scheduled fixed-route transit service, would you or members of your household use it? If yes, how often? 17% Yes, daily 17% Yes, at least once a week 34% Yes, occasionally 10% Maybe/don't know 18% No, I would not use the system What would be the purpose of your bus trips? (check one or more) 33% Home to work 9% Middle/high school 27% Skiing- Bridger Bowl 28% Medical appointment 20% MSU 14% Skiing- Big Sky 47% Shopping 38% Social/recreation/entertainment 11% Other ❑ Should there be a fixed bus route along Main Street to serve Downtown businesses and the Mall? 70% Yes 11% No ❑ Are you aware that Gallatin County has the following transportation services available? Bobcat Transit 56% Yes 28% No Gal-A-Van 80% Yes 15% No All Valley Cab 88% Yes 8% No REACH 53% Yes 35% No Bridger Ski Bus 68% Yes 21% No Robert Peccia &Associates 7-6 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Greyhound Bus 87% Yes 5% No Karst-Stage Bus 77% Yes 13% No MT Motor Coach 29% Yes 53% No Rimrock/Trailways 53% Yes 34% No ❑ How often do you use the following transportation systems? (check one per category - number of one-way trips) Bobcat All Valley Bridger Ski Greyhound Rimrock/ Transit Gal-A-Van Taxi Bus Bus Trailways More than once a day: 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% Once a day: 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2-4 times a week: 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% Once a week: 0% 00/0 0% 0% 0% 0% 2-4 time a month: 0% 0% 1% 1% 6% 6% Once a month: 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Less than once a month: 1% 0% F 10% 5% 120 4% Never: 57% 59% 50% 54% 50% 59% ❑ Are there locations in the greater Bozeman area where there should be some form of transit service ? 46% Yes - Belgrade 19% Yes —Three Forks 50% Yes—Hospital Area 25010 Yes - Manhattan 24% Yes—Big Sky 39% Yes—Four Corners 23% Yes - Livingston 8% Yes - Other 11% No ❑ If Bozeman had a fixed route transit system, how far would you be willing to walk to the bus stop? 29% 1 - 2 blocks 56% 3 -4 blocks 5olo I would not or could not walk a block to get the bus ❑ What is the most you would be willing to pay for a one-way ride on a scheduled fixed route transit system? Under 15 yrs/60 and over General Public(15-59 yrs) 12% FREE 40% $1.00 per ride Robert Peccia &Associates 7-7 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 31% $0.50 per ride 11% $1.50 per ride 22% $1.00 per ride 6% $2.00 per ride 2% $2.00 per ride 2 % $2.50 per ride ❑ What is your age? 1% under 15 years of age 1% 15 - 19 years of age 24% 20 - 35 years of age 28% 36 -49 years of age 15% 50 - 59 years of age 13% 60 - 69 years of age 10% 70 years of age and over ❑ What is your sex? 36% Male 60% Female ❑ Are you retired? 22% Yes 69% No ❑ Are you a student? 11% Yes 72% No ❑ Are you employed? 68% Yes 20% No ❑ Do you have access to a vehicle? 81% Yes 11% No ❑ Are you disabled? 10% Yes 78% No ❑ Where do you live? 70% Bozeman city limits 15% Gallatin County - outside of any city limits 5010 Belgrade city limits 1010 Livingston 1% Manhattan 0% Big Sky 1% Three Forks 4% Other ❑ If you work, how long does it take you to travel to work? 17% 0 - 5 minutes 21% 6 - 10 minutes 11% 11 - 15 minutes 13% 16 - 20 minutes 9°Io 21 - 30 minutes 4% More than 30 minutes ❑ If you work, how do you travel to work most of the time? 58% Drive alone or with family/friends 2% Bus 4010 Carpool 15% Bike 3% Other 15% Walk Robert Peccia &Associates 7-8 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 7.6 Recommended Transit Goals 7.6.1 Alternatives Considered 1. The first alternative considered keeping the Bobcat Transit and Galavan systems "as is" and creating a new municipal public transit system to serve the general public within the study area. All transit providers would remain individual entities. This would meet all the basic transit needs of the community, but would not take advantage of the Federal funding sources. This arrangement has several system overlaps and would not be the most efficient operation. 2. The second alternative considered developing a municipal service for the general public that included the services provided by Galavan. In this alternative, Bobcat Transit would continue to operate as it does now. This concept provides for all of the community needs and would enable the community to obtain a greater amount of federal financing than in the first alternative. However, this combination of services would create some overlaps in service that are not efficient. 3. A third alternative would be to create a new municipal transit system for the general public, and combine this system with the Bobcat Transit System. Galavan would remain a totally separate operation and continue to provide service to the elderly and disabled. Once again, this combination would meet the needs of the community, but does not optimize the use of Federal transit financing. 4. The last alternative considered, which is the preferred alternative would create a municipal transit authority that works collectively with Galavan and MSU. The Bozeman Area Transit Authority (BATA) would organize and manage a transit system for the general public that would provide all of the services currently provided by Bobcat Transit. MSU could contract all of their transit services through BATA. Galavan would operate as part of BATA and continue to provide service. BATA could also provide transit access to Bridger Bowl and Big Sky ski areas on a contract basis. The distinct advantage of this alternative is that it enables the community to maximize the amount of available Federal assistance available and allows for the most efficient operation. Advertising, financing, management, equipment, and personnel use would become more efficient and cost effective. All Valley Taxi, local charter services, and other specialized transit providers would remain unchanged. 7.6.2 Recommended Form of Transit Service The responses to the public questionnaires have shown there is a need for public transit, and that many people would use the system on a regular basis. A unified transit system that serves the university, seniors, and the general public should be created. This system should be developed and sized to be appropriate for Bozeman and the surrounding area. The recommended phasing of this process is outlined below. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-9 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Phase 1: Create BATA. It is recommended that a Bozeman Area Transit Authority (BATA) be created. The purpose of BATA would be to organize and manage public transit in the greater Bozeman area. It is recommended that the City take the lead role in establishing BATA. Phase 2: Provide Service for Bobcat and Galavan. The next step would be for BATA to become the transit service provider for MSU. Essentially, MSU would contract with BATA to provide the Bobcat Transit service. In turn, BATA would develop a fixed route service and enter into a contract with a local transit provider, such as Karst Stage, to provide the service. BATA would become a broker for this transit service. It is envisioned that the student population of MSU would form the ridership base for BATA. Under the reorganization of Bobcat Transit, MSU students would ride all BATA buses for free by showing their student I.D. card. BATA should work with Galavan to restructure its charter so Galavan becomes part of the transit authority. It may be possible that Galavan could simply provide special door-to-door transit service to the elderly and disabled under contract for BATA. The day-to-day operation and administration of Galavan should remain unchanged. The Galavan riders would not see any change in service. The changes in the structure of the Galavan and Bobcat services have significant financial benefits. According to the federal guidelines on transit assistance, there can only be one recipient of federal transit funds per community. By combining the principal public services under one transit authority, federal funding assistance for purchasing equipment and for operations can flow through the transit authority to both the fixed route operation and the door-to-door service. Phase 3: Modify Fixed Route System. BATA should begin by modifying the fixed route system currently used by Bobcat Transit to better serve the general public. Potential routes serving the high density residential areas and all of the major commercial areas within Bozeman should be examined. The BATA service should also extend outside of the City limits of Bozeman. As part of the contract with MSU, BATA should also serve the areas of Four Corners and Belgrade. BATA should look at other optional routes and services within the valley, including serving the residential areas around Belgrade and the commercial areas within Belgrade. Commuter service to other communities in the valley such as Gallatin Gateway, Manhattan, and Three Forks should also be considered. It would be desirable for BATA to provide transit service to the Bridger Bowl and Big Sky ski areas. The objective would be to operate a public transit system for the general public that would meet the needs of all area residents. It is envisioned that most of the general public would be served by a fixed route bus service. For the sake of efficiency, it would be desirable to provide transit service for the elderly and disabled through a separate operation. The riders using this service require special attention and need a door-to-door type of service. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-10 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update It is recommended that initially BATA take a conservative approach to providing this service. BATA should contract the actual bus operation with a local private transit provider, similar to what MSU is doing with Karst Stage for Bobcat Transit. Using this approach, BATA would not have to own buses or hire bus drivers. This is probably the easiest way to get BATA started. Phase 4: Purchase Rolling Stock. After the system has been established, BATA would likely begin to submit applications for its vehicles through the Federal Transit Administration section 5311 program, which is administered by the Montana Department of Transportation. It is envisioned that BATA would eventually own a fleet of buses. When BATA begins to acquire its own buses, it is recommended that it consider purchasing buses that operate on an alternative fuel. The use of clean burning fuels in a government owned transit system tends to set the proper example for the rest of the community with respect to helping the maintain air quality. At this time, compressed natural gas buses would be the likely choice. Phase 5: Provide Shelters and Transfer Stations. BATA will need to provide bus shelters at all major stops and transfer stations. These are essential to the success of the fixed route service. These shelters would protect riders from the sun, rain, wind and snow. It would be desirable to have the local businesses sponsor these bus shelters with contributions in exchange for advertising rights on the inside of the buses and in the shelters. The transit operation would function every day of the week on a year-round basis. BATA would also provide some form of evening service. BATA would test new routes and services to determine the most efficient and cost-effective combinations. Using both fixed route and door- to-door services, BATA would become the transit provider for the community. Phase 6: Construct a Transit Facility and Internalize the Transit Operation. Once the transit service is in operation and the demand for the service is clearly established, the transit authority should construct a transit facility that includes an administrative office, a bus barn, and a vehicle wash facility. BATA may choose to internalize the transit operation, to some extent, by purchasing buses and operating the system in-house. Another option would be for the transit authority to own the buses and contract the operation of the service with a private transit provider. This would eliminate the need to have bus drivers on the BATA payroll. The bus maintenance could also be performed under a similar contract. 7.6.3 Transit Implementation Checklist The hardest part about starting a new transit operation is beginning the process. A checklist has been provided to assist in this endeavor. The following checklist outlines the initial steps that need be taken in order to create a community transit service. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-11 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update ❑ Assign a City employee the task of being the temporary Transit Coordinator. ❑ Select a Transit Advisory Board. ❑ Work with the City and County Attorneys to review Montana law about the formation of a public transit entity. ❑ Meet with the Public Service Commission and discuss the community's intentions. ❑ Submit all necessary applications to the Public Service Commission. ❑ Create BATA. ❑ The City and County should determine and agree on how they will share the financial responsibilities of funding a full-time Transit Coordinator. ❑ Develop a job description for the full-time Transit Coordinator. ❑ Develop the selection criteria for hiring the Transit Coordinator. ❑ Advertise the Transit Coordinator position. ❑ Receive resumes, interview final candidates and select the most suitable individual for the Transit Coordinator position. ❑ Hire the full-time Transit Coordinator as a City employee funded through a prearranged cost sharing agreement between the City and County. ❑ Meet with Galavan and discuss their transit needs and the possibility of providing their service through BATA. ❑ Enter into a service contract with Galavan so its service is provided under the authority of BATA using the current fleet and drivers. ❑ Meet with representatives of Bobcat Transit Service to discuss its transit needs and the possibility of having BATA provide these services. ❑ Enter into a service agreement with ASMSU to provide its transit services through BATA, using a private transportation provider similar to what is occurring now. ❑ Apply for Federal financial assistance by submitting the appropriate grant applications to MDT. ❑ Develop a BATA logo and have it applied to the exterior of the vehicles used for Galavan and the Bobcat transit service. ❑ Meet with Bozeman business owners that have businesses on or near Main Street between the Mall and Haggerty Lane to develop a means for these businesses to sponsor or subsidize the Main Street Shuttle. ❑ Meet with the administrators of the medical facilities at or near the hospital and request financial assistance to help subsidize the Main Street Shuttle. ❑ Review existing transit needs and modify fixed transit routes to achieve the most cost efficient system. (Refer to Section 8.4 for recommended transit routes) ❑ Enter into an agreement with All Valley Cab to provide subsidized rides to select clients in areas where it is not economical to provide service with the transit buses. ❑ Work with the owners of the Mall to establish a transit station on their property. o Work with the City of acquire property at the east end of Main Street that could be used as a transit station, and ultimately a transit administrative and maintenance facility. The CMP property would be ideal for this purpose. ❑ Submit grant applications for financial assistance in constructing transit stations. ❑ Produce transit route maps. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-12 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update ❑ Advertise the transit services. ❑ Submit grant applications for bus shelters. o Construct bus shelters using grant monies and contributions from local businesses. ❑ Meet with Bridger Bowl and Big Sky Ski Resort to discuss possible transit service contracts. ❑ Develop a transit education program. ❑ Work with community employers to develop transit incentives for employees. ❑ Submit grant applications for rolling stock. ❑ Insert BATA owned vehicles into the fleet to be operated and maintained by the contract service provider. ❑ Submit grant applications for a transit facility. ❑ Construct Transit facility including an administrative office, bus barn, and vehicle wash facility. ❑ Internalize some or all transit operations using BATA owned buses and BATA employed drivers. ❑ Expand transit service area to meet growing demand. 7.6.4 Recommended Transit Routes It is assumed that the Galavan service would not change as a result of the creation of BATA. This door-to-door service would continue to provide for the needs of the elderly and disabled. The fixed route portion of the system would serve all of the routes currently provided by Bobcat Transit, while expanding the service area to include other areas in the community. It would be desirable to establish new routes to serve the residential areas that have the greatest potential for transit ridership. These areas would be the locations with low- to moderate-income housing, and areas with high housing densities. The fixed routes would also serve the commercial retail areas of the community. FIGURE 7-2 shows the general location of these areas. The service area should be expanded as new low- to moderate-income housing developments are created. Conceptual descriptions of several fixed route options are provided in the following section. The general locations of these possible routes are shown in FIGURE 7-2. Obviously, these conceptual routes would have to be fine-tuned once service is established. The routes shown are conceptual only. The current Blue Route and Shuttle Route of Bobcat Transit would be eliminated, with service to those areas provided by the proposed new routes. The Bobcat Gold Route would be retained, with some modifications. The fixed route service would provide for the needs of most riders. The door-to-door service would be used by those who do not feel comfortable riding the fixed route buses and that live too far from the fixed routes. BATA should rely on the All Valley Taxi to provide those rides that are not cost effective, or that occur outside of the normal bus service hours. Two transit transfer locations are also proposed, including one at the Mall and one located on the CMC property on East Main Street. The CMC property is located on the south side of East Main Street near Broadway. The City is in the process of acquiring this 14-acre parcel, which would potentially be the future site of the City Library and a Performing Arts Center. The CMC Robert Peccia &Associates 7-13 �- JT o i � L v> U o �Q '�IpJ{ o \ CL Z `► W i - pM9 P fl'r4h?H Sourdough Rd. 'Jull ITI _ V) kwd N ` ► � CY) ~ �} AoalB a aLi a�O O O C 'an III ''r'N i o o V o5 to S v o U o 7 O PH Aellurgr pa Aapmtq T rl' N u w 3A a (j N co t C E O h.. O Q O Z J1 0 m UNNLNNo c —L y �I yLLCO Y 1ltl S r' cn a> N ? V5 v ? N O lZ' IrC _C O 2)J G) 7 I O O O O LN � k 2Z � CnU` H O � C7 —1 In 7 IN t1�1S 4161S — Z CO 41LZ JO Barron L b SIA L'Q 1!" D C to G a laploj U J 1CCO `L M'A C 1— V/ PH ::.,,:::.,; An I- a, p�i f,lj„�L12pp;i! 0 M Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan rn Year 2001 Update o CO Figure 7-2 a,N I " _ nah0on,llo Proposed Transit Routes Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update property also would be an excellent location for a future transit administrative facility and bus barn. It is recommended that BATA become the central contact point for transit in the Bozeman area. Eventually, all calls for rides on what is now Galavan would be routed through BATA. It would be desirable to eventually combine the administration of Galavan with the BATA operation to create a seamless transit system. ❑ Four Corners-Belgrade Route — This route would be the same MSU commuter route now serving Four Corners and Belgrade, with some minor modifications. The route would begin at the MSU Sub, pass through the campus and stop at the Mall Transfer Station. It would then proceed west towards Four Corners, along its current route. The areas eliminated from the current Gold Route would be served by the new North-side Route. ❑ North-side Route — This new fixed route would include all target residential areas north of Main Street. This route would make a large clockwise loop, with stops at major retail areas along N. 19th and N. 7th, as well as the Mall and several locations along Mendenhall Street. This route would stop at both transfer stations. ❑ South-side Route — This new fixed route includes all target residential areas south of Main Street. This route would make stops on the MSU campus, the Mall, near all the major retail areas on Main between the Mall and 11`h, the high school, and several locations along Babcock. The route would stop at both transfer stations. ❑ Main Street Shuttle — The route would run along Main Street and a portion of Highland Boulevard. It would provide service to the Mall, all the Main Street businesses, and the hospital. The shuttle would stop at numerous locations along Main Street, including both transfer stations. It would be desirable to have the businesses served by this shuttle help subsidize the services so the Main Street Shuttle is free to the public. ❑ Valley Route — This route would begin at the Mall Transfer Station and head west along Huffine Lane to the Four Corners area, then north to Belgrade. The return route could follow the Frontage Road back to N. 19th, and stop at the airport and major residential areas along the route. The bus would return to the Mall Transfer station via N. 191h and West Main Street. The exact route of this service would likely vary at several locations. It would serve all of the low- and moderate-income housing areas in the valley and in the vicinity of Belgrade. This route could also include Gallatin Gateway and recreational destinations such as the Bozeman Hot Springs and the Bozeman Ice Garden. ❑ I-90 Commuter Route—This route would connect Bozeman to the other communities in the valley located along I-90. The route would begin at the Mall Transfer Station and travel along I-90 with stops in Belgrade, Manhattan, and Three Forks. It would likely only provide commuter service mornings and evenings Monday through Friday. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-15 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update o Ski Resort Shuttles—This would be a seasonal service to the Bridger Bowl and Big Sky ski areas. The buses would travel between Bozeman and the ski resorts, stopping at several points along each route based on demand. 7.7 Ridership Estimate The transit systems in several other communities around Montana were analyzed to estimate the potential ridership of the BATA system. The transit experiences in these communities provide a gauge as to the amount of transit demand that could reasonably be expected, as well as the cost of providing the service. The population, type of services offered, annual ridership, and cost-per- ride were analyzed. TABLE 7-1 shows the results of this analysis. Billings and Missoula are much larger communities, with established large fixed-route systems. Helena operates a door-to-door, Dial-a-Ride system with one checkpoint route, while Kalispell operates a combined Dial-a-Ride service with some fixed route service. TABLE 7-1 Montana Mass Transit System Information City Type of Service Population Transit Rides Cost Per Ride Billings Fixed Route 91,750 1,059,000 $3.15 Missoula Fixed Route 52,239 690,000 $2.86 Butte Fixed Route 33,994 100,000 $5.56 Helena Dial-A-Ride 28,306 37.000 $8.78 Kalispell Fixed & Dial-A Ride 16,089 36,000 $5.09 Source: Based on Montana Department of Transportation transit records One example of a Montana community transit service is "The Bus" in Butte. This service has been providing transit services for a number of years. The service includes four fixed routes intended to provide transportation for Montana Tech students and low-income families. The transit system consists of seven buses, operating on fixed schedules Monday through Friday, with a modified fixed route on Saturday. There is no transit service on Sunday. Fares are $0.60 for adults, $0.35 for students, and $0.30 for both seniors and the disabled. Children ride free. Using this information and applying the numbers to the collective population base of 34,954 for Bozeman and Belgrade, it was determined that a transit system in the Bozeman area could expect a possible transit demand for approximately 100,000 rides per year. This all depends greatly on the type and scale of the transit service provided. Based on information provided by other transit services, it is likely that the service would cost between $5 and $6 per ride. 7.8 Transit Funding In order to create BATA, the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County will need to determine the best way to provide the necessary financing. Local funding alone will be insufficient to provide an adequate transit system. The riders will not be willing to pay for a system that will cost $5 Robert Peccia &Associates 7-16 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update per ride. Fortunately, there are several existing federal programs to help fund local transit systems. The current federal transit funding programs began in 1991. These continue to be funded through the current Federal Transportation Bill (TEA-21). Under this bill, several funding programs are available for community transit systems including the 5311, 5310, and 5309 programs. In Montana these programs are administered by MDT. The 5311 Program assists public transit systems by providing 50/50 matching funds for operating assistance, and 80/20 matching funds for the purchase of transit vehicles. Montana currently receives about $1 million per year through this program. This money is distributed to public transit providers throughout the state. The TEA-21 bill also includes the 5310 Program, providing funds for transit systems devoted to the elderly and disabled. This program also provides a 50150 matching funds for operating assistance, and 80/20 matching funds for purchasing vehicles. If BATA assumed the Bobcat Transit and Galavan systems to provide a public transit system, it would be eligible for federal funding under both the 5311 and 5310 Programs. Funding for transit buildings, such as transit storage and maintenance facility, administrative offices, and bus shelters may also be available under the 5309 Program, but would require federal legislation. The 5309 funds are not as readily available as the other two funding sources, and would require a longer time frame to receive the funding. There is a limited amount of Federal funding available for operating costs and capital purchases. Any application would be competitive. There is no guarantee of funding. 7.9 Roles and Responsibilities The City of Bozeman should take the lead role in establishing BATA. It should have the City Attorney research the legal requirements and create the charter documents for the service. The County Attorney should also be involved in the creation of the transit charter to insure that operation in all areas of the County is allowed. Once BATA has been established, a Transit Advisory Committee needs to be created to oversee the administration of the transit operation. The Board should consist of at least one member from the City Council and a County Commissioner. The Board should also include representatives from the City Planning Office, County Planning Office, Galavan, MSU, ASMSU, and several local business owners. Once the Board is created, it will hire a Transit System Manger to handle the day-to-day business of BATA. The Transit System Manager will be responsible for the actual development of the system. The manager will work with Galavan and Bobcat Transit to insure that existing transit Robert Peccia &Associates 7-17 Transit Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update services become part of BATA. The manager will be responsible for grant writing and fund- raising. The manager will work with the local businesses to determine the best locations for transit stops along the retail corridors. The manager will solicit sponsors willing to help subsidize the Main Street Shuttle service, and the construction of bus shelters and transfer stations. MDT is available to provide funding and technical assistance in the development and operation of public transit systems. The Transit Coordinator should also seek support and technical assistance from MDT. The Board will be responsible for the long-range planning of the transit system. It should work with the City to obtain the space necessary to house the administrative office and the bus barn. It should also work with the City and County planning offices to insure that "transit friendly" developments are created in the future, and that space is designated for future transit locations in all major development proposals. Robert Peccia &Associates 7-18 Chapter 8 Downtown Bozeman Downtown Bozeman Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 8: Downtown Bozeman 8.1 Parking Supply The parking supply and demand in downtown Bozeman was last evaluated in 1992 as part of the 1993 Bozeman Transportation Plan Update. This information was used as baseline data for conducting the downtown parking study for this report. The same methodology used in 1992 to collect and analyze data was used in 2000 so that changes in parking supply and demand could be easily evaluated. In July of 2000, a parking inventory was performed in downtown Bozeman. The downtown study area included the area bounded by Beall Street to the north, Church Avenue to the east, Curtiss Street to the south, and 5th Avenue to the west. The inventory identified all public and private on-street and off-street parking spaces within this area. The current parking supply was then compared to the 1992 baseline data to determine the amount of change that has occurred in parking supply during the past eight years. The inventory showed that currently there are a total of 5,053 parking spaces in the downtown area. This total includes 2,031 on-street and 3,022 off-street spaces. This compares to 2,041on- street and 3,024 off-street spaces recorded in 1992. This means that there are now ten less on street parking spaces, and two less off-street parking spaces than there were eight years ago. Off-street parking for the general public is now available in five City-operated lots. A total of 292 parking spaces are available in these five lots. This is an increase from the 276 public parking spaces that were available in 1992. This increase was produced by the City's acquisition of the parking lot next to the Army National Guard Building. The City does not charge to park in these five lots, but parking is limited to two hours and violators can be ticketed. More than 170 other off-street parking areas exist throughout downtown Bozeman, which is the same number as recorded in 1992. These lots vary greatly in size and are generally provided for use by customers and employees of the local businesses, and apartment tenants. The parking inventory identified 2,730 spaces currently available in these areas as compared to 2,748 spaces in 1992. On-Street parking occurs along most block faces throughout downtown Bozeman. The inventory of parking spaces in the downtown area identified a total of 2,031 on-street parking spaces. Of these spaces, 1,500 had no parking time limits or other restrictions. Two-hour parking restrictions have been placed on 470 spaces. The remaining 61 spaces have various other restrictions, such as loading zones, handicap spaces, and spaces with 15-minute parking limits. TABLE 8-1 summarizes the changes in parking that have occurred since the 1992 parking study. Robert Peccia &Associates 8-1 Downtown Bozeman Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE 8-1 Downtown Parkin Off-Street On-Street City Private Total No Restriction 2 Hour Other Total 1992 276 2,748 3,024 1,510 467 64 2,041 2000 292 2,730 3.022 1,500 470 61 2,031 8.2 Parking Utilization Parking utilization was monitored on two occasions in July, 2000. The methodology used to gather this information was the same used to collect utilization data in 1992. Parking activity was monitored on Thursday, July 27, 2000, and Friday, July 28, 2000, between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., and between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The extent of parking demand in downtown Bozeman can be quantified by comparing the numbers of vehicles parked on-street and off- street, to the number of available parking spaces. This information can also be compared to the 1992 data to determine changes in utilization. The current parking utilization of the various parking areas is shown in FIGURES 8-1 and 8-2. TABLE 8-2 summarizes the use of five City-operated lots during the daytime and evening inventory periods in July of 1992 and 2000. TABLE 8-2 Utilization of city-Operated Lots Average Average Average Average Lot#and Daytime Daytime Evening Evening (Block) Capacity Capacity Use-July Use-July Use-July Use-July 1992 2000 1992 2000 1992 2000 1 Blk 37 88 70 56% 74% 27% 67% 2 Blk 36 98 98 65% 83% 21% 56% 3 Blk 25 48 48 54% 67% 50% 40% 4 Bik 48 42 42 21% 44% 38% 31% 5 Blk 35 NA 34 NA 93% NA 79% Avg. %Use of All Lots 276 292 49% 72% 34% 55% TABLE 8-2 shows that utilization of the City-operated lots has increased by over 20 percent in the past eight years. However, the distribution of lot utilization has remained the same. Lot five had the highest use during the July, 2000 survey. TABLE 8-3 summarizes parking activity for all off-street lots in the downtown area. The overall off-street parking utilization has increased over the past eight years. The average July daytime utilization has increased 11 percent. The average July evening utilization has increased 21 percent. Robert Peccia &Associates 8-2 Parking'!cdr Map Not to Scale I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 Utilization 15 16 17 18 19 - Off-Street 11 12 F'i 3 ( o ) 1 �I 80-100 /o City Lot#3 7 28 L 29 30 60-79% 22 � .,■ 26 � 40-59% 21 23 - ' 0-39% Pnh;ill St o #2 t City Lot a5 39 ` 40 Utilization �-� � ■ 1, 38 < <� � (On-Street) 31 32 35 36 37 80-100% IJHI!3 60-79% Main St. 40-59% F, ■ ® ,i � ■ � 48 it Lot, 49 50 0-39% 41 E42JET] 45 ■ 46 _1 �� -- - NOTE: Figure based on parking surveys t3 conducted between 11:00 a.m.and 3:00 p.m.on 59 July 27 and 28, 2000. 55 56 57 58 51 52 53 54 Olivpqf 70 ai ■ a ■ a 66 Q' 60 a 61 62 63 64 —�" 65 a; a 67 68 a = U E J CD N 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 co Koch St. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update Figure 8-1 Peak Weekday Utilization of Off-Street and On-Street Parking Areas Map Not to Scale n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 16 17 18 1 9 Utilization 15 � L Off-Street 11 12 13 ( o ) Lamma R4 80-100/o 1 City Lot#3 77 !- 28 29 30 60-79% 21 22 26 40-59% 234 0-39% Cit-Lot#2 t 1 City Lot#5L Utilization Nq ❑ ,_ 38 39 40 (On-Street) 31 32 34 35 36 37 80-100/o J33 - - ---- 60-79% Main St. i Lot 40-59% F ❑ - � 48 JP49 50 � 0-39% 41 42 T41 45 L J 46 � _1E 09J NOTE: Figure based on parking surveys conducted B July 28, 2000 from 4:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m. 55 56 57 58 5�3 51 52 53 El 54 70 Q � > > 60 61 a 62 63 ■64 N 65 L..J 66 > a a 67 68 Y L.1 U E c0 N J co m 69 71 72 73 74 75 76 Koch St. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update Figure 8-2 Evening Utilization of Off-Street and On-Street Parking Areas Downtown Bozeman Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update It should be noted that the 10 to 20 percent increase in parking utilization is inconsistent with the increase in traffic volumes in the downtown area. Overall, traffic volumes in downtown Bozeman have increased very little over the past eight years. TABLE 8-3 Summa of Off-Street Parkin Use in Downtown Bozeman Blocks 1-40 Blocks 41 —76 Overall Use of All Parking Inventory (North of Main (South of Main Off-Street Parking Period Street) Street) Areas Average Daytime Use-July 1992 53% 46% 49% Average Daytime Use-July 2000 58% 61% 60% Average Evening Use-July 1992 22% 19% 21 Average Evening Use-July 2000 41% 1 42% 1 420/c TABLE 8-4 shows that the average daytime parking utilization of on-street parking spaces has increased five percent since the 1992 Study. The average evening parking utilization has increased 17 percent. This is consistent with the other parking data for the downtown area. TABLE 8-4 Summar of On-Street Parking Use in Downtown Bozeman Blocks 1-40 Blocks 41 —76 Parking Inventory (North of Main (South of Main Overall Use of All Period Street) Street) On-Street Parkin Average Daytime Use-July 1992 48% 55% 52% Average Daytime Use-July 2000 55% 58% 57% Average Evening Use-July 1992 27% 34% 30% Average Evening Use-July 2000 46% 47% 47% 8.3 Downtown Traffic Circulation For the most part, traffic volumes in the downtown area have not changed significantly over the last 20 years. FIGURE 8-3 shows the traffic volumes in the downtown area since 1980. Over the last 20 years, volumes have fluctuated slightly, but have not shown much growth. This relatively flat growth rate is consistent with a shift in traffic patterns toward the west side of Bozeman. However, the increased use of parking within the downtown area indicates a higher level of utilization of the downtown businesses. It is expected that the development of the area between Kagy Blvd, Highland Blvd, Bozeman Trail, and Haggerty Lane will cause significant Robert Peccia &Associates 8-5 Downtown Bozeman Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Figure 8-3 Historic Downtown Traffic Volumes 198D-1998 Average Daily Traffic Volumes 18000 16000 _ 14000 y 12000 10000 +Mendenhall 8000 --a—Main soon I—A—Babcock 4000 2000 0 O T T T T T T T T r T T T r T T T T T T increases in transportation demand on the east side of Bozeman. The principal accesses to this developing area are Main St. and Kagy Blvd. Although the principal expansion area for the City is likely to remain the northwest quadrant, the redevelopment of the Idaho Pole superfund site and other abandoned or underutilized properties on the east side of town as well as the expected greenfields developments have the potential for substantial impacts on the transportation system. Currently Babcock Street runs one-way eastbound from 8`h to Rouse, and Mendenhall runs one- way westbound from Rouse to 11`h. This one-way street configuration in downtown Bozeman has often been a topic of discussion. Some feel it would be easier to navigate around the downtown area if the one-way couplet were reversed or changed back to two-way roads. These possible traffic pattern alternatives were examined and modeled as part of this planning effort. An analysis was performed using the current traffic patterns to determine if either of these modified traffic patterns have any notable benefits over the current configuration. The analysis of the downtown street configuration was performed by taking the current traffic volumes and turning movements, assuming likely routes that vehicles take through the downtown area, and redistributing the traffic onto a new street configuration. Then the intersections were analyzed to determine how well they functioned with the revised configuration. This was done for both 1999 and 2020 traffic volumes. Four separate configurations were analyzed. The first analysis was done on the existing condition, assuming no street alterations, but with some minor traffic signal timing modifications. The next analysis studied the effect of altering Main Street from the current four- lane configuration to a three-lane facility, with left turn bays and angle parking. The third configuration involved switching the current one-way couplet to flow in the opposite direction. The fourth configuration considered was changing the one-way streets to two-way streets. Robert Peccia &Associates 8-6 Downtown Bozeman Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Current Configuration The analysis of the existing conditions showed that the downtown area is currently functioning well without any notable problems. All intersections are functioning at Level of Service (LOS) C or better. The travel time and delay study, and the analysis of the coordinated signal timing, also indicated that traffic patterns in the downtown are functioning at acceptable levels. By the year 2020, most of the signals will continue to function adequately with some minor timing changes. However, four intersections will drop below LOS C, including Main/11`h (LOS D), Main/7`h (LOS E), Main/Rouse (LOS D), and Mendenhall/Willson (LOS D). The results of this study are presented graphically in FIGURE 8-4. This analysis indicates that the current traffic patterns in the downtown will be able to handle the future traffic demand with only a few problem intersections. Main Street 3-lane Configuration The analysis of the effects of converting Main Street to a three-lane facility had poor results. This configuration would increase parking in the downtown area, and would provide left-turn lane lanes for traffic on Main Street. However, the analysis indicated that most of the signalized intersections along Main Street would fail under these conditions. With this configuration traffic congestion would be a significant problem resulting in a gridlock during peak hours. FIGURE 8-5 shows the likely effects resulting from this configuration. The results of this analysis are clear that a three-lane configuration on Main Street is not a functional alternative. The traffic model was used to test the three-lane concept for Main Street. This concept was used in Test Run # 5 where Main Street was converted to three lanes from Grand to Rouse Avenues. This change reduced traffic volumes on Main by about 1,000 vpd but failed to resolve any of the other traffic problems in the downtown area. This change to the street network increased traffic volumes and congestion problems along Babcock and Mendenhall. Based on the modeling results, this modification is not recommended. Reversed Flow One-way Couplet The effects of reversing the traffic flow directions on Mendenhall and Babcock produced mixed results. Changing the traffic pattern to produce a clockwise circulation pattern would change many left turns into right turns when circulating around the blocks in the downtown area. This is considered desirable. With the revised traffic pattern and current traffic volumes, all of the intersections would likely continue to function at LOS C or better with some signal timing changes. Under 2020 conditions at five of the intersections, conditions would drop to LOS D or below. FIGURE 8-6 shows the results of this analysis. This configuration would also result in an entirely new traffic configuration at the intersection of gch and Babcock. Although the intersection was analyzed as a four-way stop, it is likely that the intersection would have to be signalized and coordinated with the Bch and Main intersection. It should also be noted that Rouse, between Main and Babcock, was converted back to two-way traffic as part of this configuration. This analysis indicated that although there would be turning movement Robert Peccia &Associates 8-7 asnod U_ � U � O � O O uouiazoe Q (1) a ZJ W „ 04 LIW L) 04 I Q J m utt 1 Cy) IAOD,1 a I uosI!M :IOU V �. U :7 I pugig F1I El Pic a� utt r E C } Y o I (4L L w Flo��8 m m m Uk6 it �tt Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan U10 L Year 2001 Update I Figure 8-4 y}<< o Current Lane Configuration 1999 and 2020 Volumes asnod LL --� Lj- (D m � U (n I ° O a LL Q > ca uouaazoe W Z p � n �o LLLL LU V CV I J m �l0018 0) t t � Mobil U IuosIi/N jL U 11 PuoIg L I PI£ I � lit t LL L49 LL. c c � U C C_ O ca `'�� W U I U18 m U m m I L46 [InF )4I �tt Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan ��L Year 2001 Update I - Figure 8-5 U1L L 0 3-Lane Configuration 1999 and 2020 Volumes I esnoa M:W a I °D U a� m N I ° O CL UOWGZO8 Q I a Z J o �� O LV V N a IUOsJIM V IPUOig Q } c Q I � � Pa£ : I E u i Q ic u1s a a N a� L � � (� LV m I I L49 V m V IL46 R 1* I II L40 L 1T Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update i Figure 8-6 U1L L o Reversed Flow One-Way Couplit c. 1999 and 2020 Volumes r asnod _ w U a� m U a� m � U (n 4-- O O 75 Q p > uoWazoe a Z J o o Q LU N AOp,l a m LA F_ UosIiM U m U pUgJg c N ti pad Q 0) c E i= u T Q } C U I U1L LiI L U18 U m � — U Iulb �1 I Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan ulo t Year 2001 Update Figure 8-7 Ult t G Two-Way Configuration 1999 and 2020 Volumes Downtown Bozeman Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update advantages, this configuration does not resolve any of the traffic problems that will likely occur under the current configuration. The reversed one-way traffic flow pattern was tested using the traffic model in Test Run #9. In this test run Mendenhall Street was changed to one-way eastbound from 11`h to Rouse, Babcock was changed to one-way westbound from 8th to Wallace Avenue, and Rouse was changed to one- way southbound from Main Street to Babcock. This test did not indicate that the traffic volumes on either Babcock or Mendenhall would change significantly. Traffic volumes on Main Street did not change. Although the operation of many intersections may be improved by a reduction in the number of left turn maneuvers, it does not appear to correct any major traffic problems in the Downtown area. Based on the modeling results, this modification is not recommended at this time. Two-way Configuration Altering the configuration to include all two-way roads would have numerous effects on the downtown area. The analysis showed that the intersection of Mendenhall and North 7`h would fail under this configuration with the current traffic volumes. Under 2020 conditions, the intersections of Mendenhall/North 71h, and Main/Willson would fail while three other intersections would operate at LOS D. FIGURE 8-7 shows the results of this analysis. This configuration does not resolve any of the traffic problems anticipated with the current traffic patterns. Although no substantial benefits have been identified to the overall traffic volume, some benefits may exist for travel patterns and other issues not related to vehicle volumes. Whether these benefits are sufficient to justify public funding must be decided by the governing body. The alternative was tested using the traffic model in Test Run #8 where Mendenhall was changed to a two-way road from 11`h to Rouse Avenue, Babcock changed to a two-way road from 8`h to Wallace Avenue, and Rouse changed to a two-way road from Main to Babcock. This test indicated that the traffic volumes on Mendenhall would increase by about 2,200 vpd, while traffic volumes on Babcock would decrease by about 3,000 vpd. Traffic volumes on Main Street did not change significantly. This modification does not appear to correct any major traffic problems in the Downtown area, although it does reduce traffic on Babcock. The results of the analysis of alternative traffic circulation patterns in the downtown area indicate that there is no significant advantage to altering the current traffic pattern. Although it is noted that there may be some advantages to reversing the flow of the one-way couplet, the benefits do not appear great enough to mandate any change. The analysis did not show that any of the circulation changes would provide significantly better flow characteristics than what is provided with the current configuration. Based on the model results this modification is not recommended at this time. Robert Peccia &Associates 8-12 Downtown Bozeman Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 8.4 Recommended Actions It is recommended that a more in-depth analysis of the traffic patterns and the streetscape in the downtown be conducted. This study of the downtown should explore ways to balance the two historic uses of Main Street; that of a way to access a destination area of business, government, and cultural activities and as a means of travel to areas outside of downtown. The study should evaluate parking, pedestrian access and circulation, and vehicular circulation and volumes. The streetscape in the downtown area should be examined to determine what changes could be made to beautify the area, and what methods could be applied to help calm the traffic while still providing acceptable traffic flow characteristics. Streetscape modifications that promote and enhance the economic viability of the area should be examined. The goal of the recommended study should be to provide the City and the Downtown Business Association with realistic alternatives that will produce a functional downtown that is also tasteful and attractive. downtown Bozeman is the heart of the community and should reflect the unique lifestyle of the residents. A downtown redevelopment plan, commonly called the Maker's Plan, was previously prepared. Consideration of its recommendations should be included in any more detailed evaluation of transportation in the downtown area, and features which support safe and functional transportation should be advanced. Due to the detailed and complex nature of transportation demand in the downtown area, work beyond computer modeling may be required. Local and state officials should work together to conduct temporary test projects to enable a more detailed evaluation of proposed modifications in the downtown area. It is critical that clear and quantifiable criteria be established in advance to determine if a demonstration project has been successful. Such temporary projects should provide opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proposals without requiring the expenditure of large sums of public or private money. Robert Peccia &Associates 8-13 Chapter 9 Transportation System Management Plan Recommended Transportation System Plan. 2�l�] Undate �luru, c nu nt (7SM) lnt1„ol c nte,tt, Greater Bozeman Area Transportation — Chapter 9: Recommended Transportation System Management (TSM) Improvements 9.1 TSM Projects Transportation System Management (TSM) projects are relatively low cost, "tune-up" type improvements. A total of 74 TSM projects were recommended in the 1993 update of the transportation plan. The status of these projects were reviewed to determine which have been completed, which are no longer valid, and which projects should be included as part of this plan update. Of the 74 projects, 39 were completed, 18 are no longer valid or considered necessary due to changed conditions, and 17 are addressed in this plan update. The 17 past TSM projects addressed in this update are listed in TABLE 9-1. TABLE 9-1 TSM Projects from 1993 Plan included in 2000 Plan update Location of Past Past Recommendation Action Taken72ipn an Update TSM Pro'ect W. Main & 19` Restripe east approach Intersection ms proposed in committed ma C-2 in Chapter 10 S. 19` &Babcock Signing and install raised Intersection mns proposed inmedian committed mt C-2 in Chapter10 S. 3` &Goldenstein Install right turn lane on Included in thas TSM 14 south approach S. 19" &Kagy Signalize when warrants Included in the update as TSM 24 are met S. 11" &College Signalize when warrants Included in the update as TSM 35 are met S. 11 &Main Increase Radius on SW Included in the update as corner TSM 15 Main & S. Willson Restrict parking and Included in the update as restri a north approach TSM 4 E. Main &Wallace Signalize when warrants Included in the update as TSM 32 are met Kagy & Highland Improve sight distance and Improving the sight distance is included in install 3-way stop this update as TSM 10, the 3-way stop is no longer recommended Galligator Corridor Acquire right-of-way for Included in this update as TSM. 16 ed/bike trail s stem Rouse—Mendenhall Add ped/bike facilities Included as part Major improvement# 6 in to Juniper Chapter 10 Robert Peccia &Associates 9-1 Recommended Transportation System Management rnvementc 'raaher 13nrpman Area Trart�p�tatton Plan 2001 [I date Rouse & Peach Signalize when warrants Included in this update as TSM 31 are met Griffin &Rouse Signalize when warrants Included in this update as TSM 29 are met &Durston Widen and restripe west Included as part of committed major approach improvement C-1 in Chapter 10 N. 11` &Durston Restripe south approach Included as part of committed major and add left turn lane on improvement C-1 in Chapter 10 east approach N. 1.5' & Durston Restripe south approach Included as part of committed major and add left turn lane on improvement C-1 in Chapter 10 east approach N. 19" &Baxter Signalize when warrants Included in this update as CTSM-2 are met For the purposes of this Plan an improvement project was classified as a TSM project if the cost of the project was less than $500,000. Usually the TSM type of project would cost much less than $500,000, but in this Plan it is anticipated that there will be a significant number of intersection controls for higher traffic volumes installed during the course of the next 20 years. As a result all of these signalization projects have been classified TSM improvements. The cost estimates included in this section are provided for planning purposes only. It was estimated that most new traffic signal systems would cost between $80,000 and $100,000. Lane modifications were estimated to cost$50,000 per approach. Previous transportation plans have generally considered signalization to be the preferred method to accommodate significant traffic volumes at intersections. An additional option has been developed and has been implemented in some other jurisdictions in the United States Roundabouts provide a means of controlling traffic patterns that relies on fixed physical construction of the intersection to direct drivers rather than a system of signal lights. Roundabouts are circular intersections with specific design and traffic control features. These features include yield control of all entering traffic, channelized approaches, and entry speeds of less than 30 mph. A wide variety of sizes and configurations of roundabouts exist. Like other traffic control features, it is important that a roundabout be individually designed to the intersection where it is located. As with traditional signalization, a specific roundabout design will accommodate a certain traffic pattern and volume, and modifications may be needed as changes occur. The decision to place a roundabout, or any other means of traffic control, at an intersection must be made on a case by case basis and after an engineering analysis based on objective criteria to identify the safest and most effective means of addressing the local needs and circumstances. As with traffic signals, roundabouts are designed to accommodate the peak hour demand on intersecting roadways. Robert Peccia de Associates 9-2 Recommended Transportation System Management(TSM)Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Trancrnortation Plan. 2001 Update Costs for roundabout installation are likely to be comparable to traditional signalization. Although roundabouts require less mechanical hardware, they are likely to occupy additional land at the intersection and require additional grading and concrete work in association with splitter islands and the center island. A better cost evaluation will be possible after greater experience. Depending on the local circumstances of an intersection, a roundabout may be of benefit in allowing continuous traffic movement, accommodating similar levels of traffic flows from multiple streets, for a demarcation between land uses, and providing for aesthetic improvements. 9.2 Committed TSM (CTSM) Improvements The definition of a committed project is one that has been approved by the TCC. Committed TSM projects completed during the preparation of this Update are: CTSM 1 through 3. Committed TSMs yet to be completed are: CTSMs 4 through 6. It also has the project funding available. These include: • CTSM-1. Install new traffic signal at the intersection on Griffin and North 71n Estimated Cost: $ 68,000 • CTSM-2. Install a new traffic signal at Baxter and North 191h Estimated Cost: $462,000 • CTSM-3. Restrict East Bound left turns at the intersection of Baxter and North 7tn Estimated Cost: $2,000 • CTSM-4. Upgrade intersection of Secondary Route 205 and Valley Center,left turn bays Estimated Cost: $200,000 • CTSM-5. Install left turn lane at Secondary Route 205 and the Nelson intersection Estimated Cost: $200,000 • CTSM-6. Install left-turn bays on Jackrabbit Lane at Cameron Bridge Road Estimated Cost: $221,000 9.3 Recommended TSM Improvements Because of the relative low cost of these projects, it is recommended that they be implemented as soon as practical. Due to the nature of the TSM projects, it is not practical to prioritize them. The need for each project may vary depending on development, traffic demand, and meeting warrant requirements. The recommended TSM projects are presented in FIGURE 9-1 and 9-2. The following list of TSM projects are not in any particular order with respect to priority: Robert Peccia &Associates 9-3 Recommended Transportation System un entent( 1►nnrovententc rentprBozvnrnn Aroct Tlantj7ottuttrnt PI to 200J Updatg • TSM-1. North 71h and Oak Street: Modify the traffic signal to include protected left turns for the north-and south approaches. Estimated Cost. $5,000 • TSM-2. 3rd Avenue and Villard Street: Accident records show that twelve accidents have occurred at this intersection in the past three years. Six of these accidents involved injuries. The records show that all accidents that occurred at the intersection were right angle collisions. Eleven accidents involved westbound traffic. A large tree on the southeast corner of the intersection obscures the sight distance for traffic approaching from the east. It is recommended to install stop signs on the north and south approaches to the intersection, and to trim the tree limbs to improve the sight distance. Estimated Cost. $1,000 • TSM-3. 7'h and Mendenhall: The operation of this intersection could be improved by restricing the east approach to include a designated right turn lane. Estimated Cost. $1,500 • TSM-4. Willson, Olive to Main: Remove parking from the east side of the street, and stripe two northbound lanes. Estimated Cost. $2,000 • TSM-5. Main and Rouse: A significant amount of traffic congestion occurs on the south approach to this intersection during peak periods. To help minimize the length of the vehicle queue and improve the operation of the intersection, it is recommended that a designated right turn lane on south approach be added. This can be accomplished by restricting parking along the east side of Rouse within a half block of the intersection. Estimated Cost. $1,000 • TSM-6. Rouse and Babcock: Records show that 20 accidents occurred at this intersection during the study period, one of which caused an injury. Of these accidents, 17 could be directly associated with the double left turn lane from Babcock. Most of the accidents were caused by motorists changing lanes in or near the intersection, or by not complying with the designated lane-use signing. One option, as a short-term measure, would be to install an 8- inch-wide solid white lane line between the two travel lanes. This white line should begin at least 100 feet west of the intersection and continue through the intersection, around the left turn onto Rouse, and continue on Rouse for 100 feet. The preferred solution however, involves installing raised channelization between the two travel lanes instead of the solid painted striping. It is also recommended to bulb-out the curb on the northeast corner to create a single eastbound traffic lane. Estimated Cost. $15,000 Robert Peccia X lissociates 9-4 c cu cu E o o E o O m I I o L J E O far I d E U Z i '� E Eo CD US 65 ) d Eo a0i .L- • • 0 - --------------�---- - -------- - --------- 1 - -------- ----------------------• 1 I a co cu i 1 O >fcn J 1 L16 � -E � R c N rn cu n 1 _ Z CO � a) m i1 - .n > c c �� my E 0 w 1 c NFU m {L 1 04 N co ;� -- - - - ' _ m 1 w 1 __�_ I- - -- , qry ; pw••1 n-.y I Cc) cc (O W i • -0 Z' CZf- 1 1 1 O y o c`Y CD m 0 o a U 1 00 c� c E m o (. mVmm cc i5 Lm ! ; w• wif r.. Ar�� - w.--+o - - 4n.,,,wp wn.••-o I �•. C (E l Q ------- N C C • 1- E o 0 ail ------------------------ ------------ -----------------------------------• o` c o m c) E c N co m J cn r _co w cn CDLI_ CC co ca co co i 1 J i Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan �— —,y � � Year 2001 Update Figure 9-1 TSM Improvements (Study Area) I I U cn cc to � y O En F' ca Y r / 1 �. u: Pt!G11Jy Patine; m Q a cL . o b i'!gip(tJ c h�ghlartd�' j o a m v o m r ot1fL ' yc° n n nj `_ 0 m c I _ cn C(r fncl) - cu _� C m P!f 1N'Jf 6toiS I I i ✓ 1 —(' PMB PrrOl4d?!1 cLi a> °' o g (wD Sourdough Rd 0 w 0 w N E c 3 a> o 0 `, /J.- •sr poi N �[9 �p :1 :1••�., I co U Q _o > N cu OD Cf O C a C C L O) N 'anvasrto�► rro}�N r I—.._..—.. —.. _.._.._.._..I m 6 -a co 0 o co co o cu C 2 iant a sit M N aq r $ I ; o N F+ o o > N 11?j�YsI�ER - I tZ mO mr: u) C ' c` o :W O ag c j- w ca .............. /• .:..—.. a ...i I v CD a> 5 E L u)-c o cco > c L q! N m [n a v -5 .a�i W a> rn o rn E 30 (� 121- M O as .[ I I I c •� -0 N O ..-• O 7 0 N a) L E N L O O U to o a _..—.._. 1 �..—..I CDt o c c covo °> � CD a- fnE c O � i� o o c N a[ ,ate o rn _.._.._. _.. c Z y m w m rn -o iL 'o a? E-in � c�_i a`�-- `c I 41S1 N ti x I a aoi m c> o `� c m 3 a> m _ I V Cffil C N N C .L-. O - fD N N E - L m fn E 9 -2 = C = (n O- 7 Cz1 -2 I I ry d w a w O O E y_ 'O U W >. tOi> coocc N X C ... O O pr O N O E �_ _m > O dCD a E .o C Ca "' LL N L N o rn rn y 7 0 m 1116J N r J6l 11161,S c - E N - % -_ w (1) t fn p •- N c E W `> -c L o o a E = E E c Lo Q N o CL IE ca N L'`° o c m m m U °> o,z - 5 9 o . co.> °> r -2 Za coo o c c c o 4lLZ ` ( c m v a m m > om (DrLLU) ajQfw = oZU [o m --o C � c > rn� o rn-n C7 o v _.._..� -J _.._..—.._.._.._.._.._..— ca C c E a cm tm Y o o �> cn C� ••, — Z f0 . _..� r_._.._.. .— Z C m.._.. .� E N M E O - N m 4 u r+ E E G _..—..—..J._. �Q ta7le/{ [. .-•—•• CD > > E 2 Vcu co ca co N th IT T [o °>o ao of srnea 2 2 v> — 1- F- H CA Cn CA CN co Cn U) c>w w w N N w w w w N •� - > E E o N U U UU FF- FHFFH ccF• F- FFHHFF- FF _xl o (.._.._..—.. o n iv E m E Cn U cn J O CO a) CDN U Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan I I rpH uosn6aa� E E w c I` E o o i Year 2001 Update 0 Df W _ � ' ' Figure 9-2 PH xallm uamm4 j—••— o' • • O TSM Improvements V I PH )°Ul - (Bozeman Areal PH Pooauollo") PN pooNuolloo I Recommended Transportation System Management(TSM)Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update • TSM-7. Grand Avenue and Koch Street: Fourteen accidents occurred at this intersection during the study period, with one injury reported. All but one of these accidents were right angle collisions. It is recommended to install stop signs on the north and south approaches. Estimated Cost: $ 500 • TSM -8. Kagy and Fairway: Improve the sight distance at this intersection by removing the vegetation on the northeast and southwest corners. The vegetation currently blocks the drivers' view when accessing from the side street. Estimated Cost: $ 500 • TSM -9. Kagy and Sourdough: Improve the sight distance at this intersection by removing the vegetation along Kagy. This vegetation currently blocks the view of approaching traffic when attempting to access from the side street. Estimated Cost. $ 500 • TSM-10. Kagy Boulevard and Highland Boulevard: Drivers attempting to enter or cross Kagy from the south approach can not see approaching traffic due to vegetation growing on the south side of Kagy adjacent to the intersection. This vegetation should be removed. Estimated Cost: $ 500 • TSM-11. Frontage Road, Bozeman to Belgrade: Conduct a speed limit study and modify the speed limit accordingly. The local residents have indicated that the current 65-MPH speed limit is unsafe. They have requested a 45-MPH speed limit. Estimated Cost: $3,000 • TSM-12. Frontage Road, Bozeman to Belgrade: Eliminate the passing zones on the Frontage Road that are in the vicinity of driveways and all intersections. Estimated Cost: $2,000 • TSM-13. Jackrabbit Lane: Conduct a speed study and modify the speed limit accordingly. Estimated Cost: $3,000 • TSM-14. S. 3rd & Goldenstein: Install right turn lane or ramp on south approach. Estimated Cost: $50,000 • TSM-15. Main & 1lth: Increase the radius on the southwest corner to improve intersection geometrics. Estimated Cost: $5,000 • TSM-16. Galligator Corridor: Acquire this old railroad bed on the southeast side of town for use as a portion of the ped/bike trail system. Estimated Cost: Unknown Robert Peccia &Associates 9-7 Recommended Transportation System Management(TSM)Imnrovementr Greater Bozeman Ara Tran U rtation Plan 2001 Qgdate 9.3.1 Intersection Modifications and Traffic Control Installations All of the following TSM recommendations are similar. In all cases, it is recommended to add left turn lanes to the intersection as necessitated by the growing traffic demand. When warrants are met, it is recommended to install a traffic signal, roundabout, or other adequate traffic control at each of the intersections. • TSM-17. North 19th and Springhill Estimated Cost. $100,000 • TSM-18. North 191h and Deadmans Estimated Cost: $200,000 • TSM-19. North 19`h and Tschache Estimated Cost. $200,000 • TSM-20. North 191h and Beall Estimated Cost: $200,000 • TSM-21. South 19`h and Koch Estimated Cost. $200,000 • TSM-22. South 19`h and Kagy Estimated Cost. $150,000 • TSM-23. South 19`h and Stucky Estimated Cost: $180,000 • TSM-24. Highway 191 and Cottonwood Estimated Cost. $200,000 • TSM-25. Highway 191 and Fowler Estimated Cost: $200,000 • TSM-26. Rouse and Griffin Estimated Cost: $100,000 • TSM-27. Rouse and Oak Estimated Cost: $100,000 • TSM-28. Rouse and Peach Estimated Cost. $280,000 • TSM-29. East Main and Wallace Estimated Cost: $200,000 • TSM-30. East Main and Haggerty Estimated Cost. $150,000 • TSM-31. College and 23rd Estimated Cost: $230,000 • TSM-32. College and South I Vh Estimated Cost: $280,000 • TSM-33. College and Willson Estimated Cost: $280,000 • TSM-34. Willson and Garfield Estimated Cost. $ 80,000 • TSM-35. Kagy and South 1 lth Estimated Cost. $180,000 Robert Peccia &Associates 9-8 Recommended Transportation System Management(TSM)Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan., 2001 I.Ipdate_ • TSM-36. Kagy and Sourdough Estimated Cost: $180,000 • TSM-37. Kagy and Highland Estimated Cost: $230,000 • TSM-38. Oak and Ferguson Estimated Cost: $280,000 • TSM-39. Oak and Cottonwood Estimated Cost: $280,000 • TSM-40. Baxter and Ferguson Estimated Cost: $280,000 • TSM-41. Baxter and Cottonwood Estimated Cost: $280,000 • TSM-42. 271h and Valley Center Estimated Cost: $230,000 • TSM-43. Durston and 27`h Estimated Cost: $280,000 • TSM-44. Hulbert and Valley Center Estimated Cost: $230,000 • TSM-45. N. 19`h and I-90 South Ramps Estimated Cost: $100,000 • TSM-46. N. 19,h and I-90 North Ramps Estimated Cost: $100,000 • TSM-47. Nelson and Frontage Road Estimated Cost: $300,000 • TSM-48. Sacajawea Peak and Frontage Road Estimated Cost: $300,000 • TSM-49. Gallatin Field and Frontage Road Estimated Cost: $300,000 Total Estimated Cost of Recommended TSM Improvements: $6,970.500 Robert,veccia &Associates 9-9 Chapter 10 Recommended Programs and Major Improvement Projects Recommended Major Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 10: Recommended Programs and Major Improvement Projects This Plan includes a variety of recommended programs and improvement projects. These projects are needed to meet the anticipated traffic demands of the year 2020. This chapter summarizes the recommended programs and projects. 10.1 Recommended Programs The recommended programs are listed below. They are listed in no order of priority. These programs should be implemented as soon as it is practical. 1. Adopt the Recommended Major Street Network shown in FIGURES 11-1 and 11-2. Estimated Cost: Unknown 2. Adopt the Recommended Street Standards contained in Chapter 11. Estimated Cost: Unknown 3. Adopt the Recommended Bike Route System shown in FIGURE 6-3. Estimated Cost: Unknown 4. Adopt the Recommended Trails Network shown in FIGURE 6-4. Estimated Cost: Unknown 5. Adopt Traffic Calming Program Estimated Cost: Unknown 6. Adopt Transportation Demand Management Program Estimated Cost: Unknown 7. Major Sidewalk Network Improvements: includes completing sidewalk system and repairing portions in poor condition, and upgrading all intersections on the major street network to include handicap access on all corners. Estimated Cost: $2,298,000 8. Municipal Transit System: recommend combining Bobcat Transit and Gal-a-Van services into a single municipal system, and seek federal transit funding for rolling stock, facilities, and operating assistance; expand fixed route service area; expand service times to include nights and weekends; continue to serve Four Corners and Belgrade; and include fixed route along Main Street from the Mall to Haggerty Lane. Estimated Cost: Unknown Robert Peccia &Associates 10-1 Recommended Maior lmprovements Greater Ro enzan Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update 9. Downtown Bozeman: Since there is interest in improving the operation and appearance of the-downtown area,-it is recommended to-conduct an in-depth study of the downtown area including the adjacent streets. The study should include street network options; potential parking modifications; traffic patterns; traffic control; pedestrian and bicycle amenities; safety; streetscape appearance; and how any modifications will change the economics of the downtown businesses. The study should be completed as soon as possible, preferably before the planning of the next major paving project in the downtown area. Estimated Cost: $30,000 10. Area-Wide Street Name Program: There are many inconsistent street names within the study area. These include street name changes along a corridor that make driving and locating addresses confusing. The street name system should be revised to eliminate inconsistencies. As part of this program it is recommended that large street name signs be used throughout the community. Clearly visible street name signs tend to reduce driver confusion and improve traffic flow. Estimated Cost: Unknown 11. Right-of-way Acquisition Program: There are roads that have been used for years without easements or other legal grants of right-of-way to the public for use. These roads pose problems when traffic demand requires improvements to the existing surfaces. The City, County, and State should consistently work to acquire needed public right-of-way for future and existing streets. Estimated Cost: Unknown 12. Right-of-way Management Program: There are many elements which can affect the carrying capacity and long term maintenance of roads. The management of access points, occupancy of rights-of-way by utilities, and other activities must be coordinated and controlled in order to preserve the functionality and value represented by the street system. Estimated Cost: Unknown 10.2 Committed Major Improvement Projects A committed major improvement project is defined as any transportation project that has an identified funding source, and has been approved and committed to by the Bozeman TCC. A brief description of each of these committed projects is presented below. The committed projects are not listed in any particular order. These committed projects will be implemented as soon as practical and completed before the year 2003. The cost estimates shown are based on MDT estimates for each project. • C-1 Reconstruct Durston as a three-lane road from North 7`h to North 19t}' Estimated Cost: $1,600,000 Robert Peccia &Associates ' 10-2 Recommended Major Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Uvdate • C-2 Upgrade traffic signal and make geometric improvements at Main and North 19th including: widen south approach; add double left on west approach; extend left turn lane on north approach; and modify the South 19th and Babcock intersection to restrict some movements. Estimated Cost: $ 700,000 • C-3 Reconstruct Valley Center Drive from Jackrabbit Lane to the I-90 underpass east of Hidden Valley Road. Estimated Cost: $3,400,000 • C-4 Reconstruct Bridger Creek Bridge on Bridger Canyon Drive. Estimated Cost: $1,000,005 • C-5 Upgrade older traffic signals and coordinate entire signal system. Estimated Cost: $1,500,000 10.3 Recommended Major Improvement Projects The 1993 update of the transportation plan included 19 recommended major projects. Of these projects, nine were completed, seven are no longer considered valid due to changed conditions, and three projects have been included in this update of the plan. The three projects from the 1993 plan that are included in this update are listed in TABLE 10-1. TABLE 10-1 Major Projects From the 1993 Plan Included in the 2001 Plan Update Location Recommendation in 1993 Plan Action taken in 2000 Plan S. 19t", College to Kagy Widen to 4-lanes Modified and included in this plan as major project # 3 — widen to 5-lanes Rouse, Juniper to Griffin Construct 4-foot wide paved Modified and included in this shoulders for ped/bike use plan as part of major project #6, widen to three-lane arterial W. College, Main to 19t" Widen to 4-lanes Modified and included in this plan as major project # 7 - widen to 5-lanes A major improvement project is any road improvement project that requires substantial financing, and significant planning and design efforts. The recommended major improvement projects are show in an unprioritized list below. Estimated costs for each improvement have been provided for planning purposes, and are based on the street standards contained in Chapter 11. Each project includes some basic storm drainage improvements. The cost estimates do not include any right-of-way costs but do include design costs. All costs are in year 2000 dollars. The location of each recommended major improvement project is shown in FIGURES 10-1 and 10-2 on the preceding pages. Robert Peccia &Associates 10-3 •— .................... _.._.._.._.._..�\_ . �..�..�..—.._.._..�.._.._..—i � � � I Z Eo o 'o` m M ! , I E 0) Off CEL E 0 Cc Cu U 1 cu 1 Y Z � >o o a �J I v v L- o c6 I CDv C a> a> rn I I W - — E E E 3 o w m _.._..............--.—..—.-_.._.._........_. _.. —....._f I d 0 0 o o m 0 iv c U 5 O m cc 0 W�. L.. I v E w = V U U cc .n ! N t C f` L I .. �� /1 (� N 2 N - M -0 O cc to m CON v a� a> CD WW O N c C N M CDI r, N > 11 E o cu CL w w w w« i M c U. a E _ cCD �° .� w �•- Opp J > - ii 3 o $ U m1 f — IQ E Z wa...nwa wY-r� wr.w wi..++o I ate` E N cU m cD C 0 E aa)i Q) I O .O a) O O �n O >_ • - - - H O C O N U V C O �• Q� I O = o Y L ti E co o75 16 o u3 ci� � min= � c � o E v, U N cu j E �n 2 c a = _ wYl.v.oN w w.•n' I C I 0 ¢ w L an� am as U o > = w n c O OO -c m -0 m 1 _ I W L- O 3 N 0 C'C y C V • V O O M N N -0 CV m e9 2 M as M'r M U ww! ww. i d i F= i Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update Figure 10-1 ` > M Recommended 1 1 q Improvements (Study Area) ._.._.._.. .._.._.._.. .._.._.............._.._.._.._.._.._........_"_.._.._........ _.._.._.._.._.._.._-.; .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. -0 E Z O Q) • I O c N Q' C a) y a) C a) M Q) fU U C C N - 2 O ccCo cc :EZ d Fn 07 N O a) C 12 O j = a) as L U P'J SIMPaluled ` c a a2i 3 a o > m e 0 IA � > m m Z C fp C T 2- I ` Cu N m - O c N 9 �' Z O` 3 m `7 Ilh'cf O c o m v . °� 0 ill R� I 2 Hill ul _� oo _ c o r O c "3 CO a N � c 5 O` c o o v I �, Ego a� w = 8o CL 8 crf;; -��._..I E 5 t' I PM 1 c 2.2 _ �2 v oo c °? U a) Y m E i i /. \ I I SoUrdou h Rd. a c c O c "fa a aci 0 � L.-• E t m nt rbi tD ( _ o m — mom O � oNU c O a3 Cu in O > N N f \ o(+I .2 o rn Z p c c 0 o O In c ca o m i ny;�ell 4 >.m o�:Z � L o o Q0 a O � .�Cc in .L naei o F4 0) �.. Sh•. •.--._------. I :—..—.._..—..._..—..—.._.._ � Y�r � p ' ' a) � �� .f6 di � � 0 O L. � ✓ / :� �^ j f I Y �.._..—.._..i'' I c� � u m E J J � cn 'On c v 3 co � v w' coi M U c c X X rn— f= rnL o a.� c O a o —..— I._..a (n ai 2i lL (n.— Co Co 2 C7 U li 2 > E i 'an rr JSJ .n o 'a trIos1!h S •t v 6(c e- ao of � o "i � ti o0 of o <a O � N � a�a'i �� T n U Vl �• 'o r• I I a NNN N N N as M M M (O M M M Y U V U U w • b cc 4J NLo�!+a J8 S f d - - — `o m PrE, m aa) cg co ;aal I I I `�° S � 0 00 °' m a�0i c e m = c a� %� U m n c 2 cg Co I L.._...i is -2 = � c c $ $ -e o o A a� _.._..—.._.. 'b _ ! I f6 (° °c' a`� = ccfO = c 00 $ c = m +c r N -Fa c° N cc z c c c cal o m m m C', N c. o c m c' IDO r a c c i 2 2 c - = m c 0 L v c i�� m � � a c a> -e 2 o c fn M cc v a) c� cc 3 R. c o N _.._ Y _ = co�° m = c U -o c o cD c m (° 4.) = o m 1 4JGl N - - — CD - - c o r m ,?, o oo oo 8 c > T L L c — bJ S I {JGl S O o o f° m a> o o Co a`� o 3 coi o r _..—.I » O- m Ow o o `3 .0 o m U c o 3 c 3 3 a`�i c o w 3 3 �_ 0=t a—Ti m(j 3 v c c cg �?U t a> �• '� r v Z E 0 c M 3 3 c U ai U 0 o c� i� i� c 0 c c rn V:IG I - o rn 3 > $ o U o o coi coi a� o a>i m aS c — z� � $ U a- - - 0 m c _.. E E C ai fn 3 0 �°° 0Y oz` oo� mm °° > - C > > d (n o o rn 0 0 (n = a> L r' o o U 0 0 0 g c c 2 2 I` o a> o o Y .c cu' (j a>w 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 J _ _ _ O N N E E O .0.. N T`- O a7 m .�— le p OG1` LA L" E Y Y ....... I > > v O IbUY � mw � tn oo� c 9Z � MYp � � roi o U O o 0 0 Cu t' (n C7 a> a� 3 E o z �_ t t m m r _ —• I r' a CL fY rY a) 1771Tc � � a` � � - � T MM TE /n a) O 3 — f0 IT Ca fC N JQ'-,d"A E. — a E E O rn M = o = a; Co m = as III I:•i.'.:.. 7 O O •� a7 0 0 0 0 l.L 2 Q Y O (.7 fA Z Z Z Y ._ v lC Z (/) U) cc 1' 000 v v - - - - - - - - -- - ��i ai _ N M 1tl fD 1� a0 Of — N N N N !— —.._..—. E E _ _ � E O O 4 N N 0 0 ew J U fY � U U 1 O O Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update I i Figure 10-2 PH farJen wvwi{ Recommended Improvements Y I Pal')W� i papooMuoJJ°D PHPoorAuollo9 (Bozeman Areal I 1 - Recommended Major Improvements _ Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 10.3.1 Recommended Major Improvement Projects The following projects are not listed in any order of priority. The possible funding sources are defined in Chapter 13. 1. North 19`h—Baxter to Springhill: Problem: Limited capacity Recommendation: Widen to 5-lane urban arterial (includes widening overpass) Estimated Cost: $7,365,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, STPU, CTEP, CMAQ 2. South 19'h — College to West Main: Problem: Limited capacity Recommendation: Widen to 5- lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $2,018,000 Possible Funding Source: STPU, CTEP, CMAQ 3. South 19`h—Kagy to College: Problem: Limited capacity Recommendation: Widen to 5- lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $3,725,000 Possible Funding Source: STPU, CTEP, CMAQ 4. Kagy—South 19`h to Willson: Problem: Limited capacity Recommendation: Widen to 3- lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $3,678,000 Possible Funding Source: STPU, CTEP, CMAQ 5. South 3rd—Graf to Kagy: Problem: Limited capacity Recommendation: Widen to 3-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $2,568,000 Possible Funding Source: STPU, CTEP, CMAQ, Private 6. Rouse—East Main to Story Mill: Problem: Limited capacity, poor condition Recommendation: Widen to 3- lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $7,356,000 Possible Funding Source: STPP, CTEP, City, Fuel Tax Funds Robert Peccia &Associates 10-6 Recommended Maior Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update 7. College—West Main to South 19`h• Problem:_Limited_capacity Recommendation: Widen to 5- lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $2,871,000 Possible Funding Source: STPU, CTEP, CMAQ, Private 8. College—South 19`h to South 801: Problem: Limited capacity Recommendation: Widen to 3- lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $2,915,000 Possible Funding Source: STPU, CTEP, CMAQ 9. Cottonwood— Stucky to Valli Center: Problem: Need to create a new north/south arterial as area develops Recommendation: Construct 3-lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $17,417,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 10.Fowler/Davis—Stucky to Valley Center: Problem: Need a new north/south arterial due to new development Recommendation: Construct 2-lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $16,572,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 11. Hulbert—Valley Center to Cottonwood: Problem: Need to create a new east/west collector route as area develops Recommendation: Construct 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $4,563,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 12. Deadmans Gulch—North 19`h to Cottonwood: Problem: Need to create a new east/west collector route as area develops Recommendation: Construct 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $4,817,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 13. Kai /Stucky—South 19th to Cottonwood: Problem: Need to create a new east/west arterial corridor as area develops Recommendation: Construct 2-lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $5,554,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP Robert Peccia &Associates 10-7 Recommended Major Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update 14. Durston —North 19`h to Cottonwood: Problem: Need to upgrade Durston to arterial standards due to new development Recommendation: Widen to 3-lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $7,356,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 15. Oak—North 19th to Cottonwood: Problem: Need an east/west arterial due to new development Recommendation: Construct 3-lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $7,356,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 16. Graf—South 3rd to South 19`h: Problem: Need to create a new east/west collector as area develops Recommendation: Connect with paved 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $2,687,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 17. South 1 lth—Kagy to Graf: Problem: Need to create a north/south collector as area develops Recommendation: Connect with 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $1,876,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 18. North 11 th—Durston to Baxter: Problem: Need to create a new north/south collector as area develops Recommendation: Connect with a 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $2,129,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 19. North 15th—Durston to Baxter: Problem: Need to create a new north/south collector as area develops Recommendation: Connect with a 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $2,687,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 20. Nortli 27"' — Durston to Valley Center: Problem: Need a north/south collector due to new development Recommendation: Connect with 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $6,439,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP Robert Peccia &Associates 10-8 Recommended Maior Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update 21. KaRy/Bozeman Trail—Highland to I-90: Problem: Need to upgrade-corridor-to-arterial standards Recommendation: Upgrade to 2-lane rural arterial and realign Estimated Cost: $4,281,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP 22. West Babcock-West Main to Ferguson: Problem: Limited capacity Recommendation: Widen to 3-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $1,800,000 Possible Funding Source: City,Private, CTEP, CMAQ,Fuel Tax Funds 23. West Babcock - 11`h to 19`h: Problem: Need to upgrade corridor to meet urban collector standards Recommendation: Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $1,659,000 Possible Funding Source: City, CTEP, Fuel Tax Funds 24. Lincoln - South 1 lch to South 19`h: Problem: Need to upgrade road to meet urban collector standards Recommendation: Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $1,659,000 Possible Funding Source: City, CTEP, Fuel Tax Funds, Private 25. Sourdough—Kagy to Goldenstein Problem: Needs to be a rural collector Recommendation: Upgrade to a 2-lane rural collector Estimated Cost: $ 1,800,000 Possible Funding Source: Private 26. South Church: Problem: Need to upgrade to meet urban collector standards Recommendation: Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $5,742,000 Possible Funding Source: STPU, CTEP, City 27. West Main - 7`h to 19`h: Problem: Traffic congestion and safety issues related to mid-block left turns Recommend: Install raised median, landscape median where possible Estimated Cost: $1,037,000 Possible Funding Source: STPP, CTEP, CMAQ Robert Peccia&Associates 10-9 Recommended Maior Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. 2001 Update 28. Frontage Road—North 7ch to Belgrade: Problem: Safety issues related to turning vehicles Recommendation: Widen to 3-lane rural arterial, with right-turn lanes at major intersections Estimated Cost: $11,021,000 Possible Funding Source: STPS, STPHS, CTEP, Private 29. Springhill Road—Frontage Road to Sypes Canyon Road: Problem: Limited capacity Recommendation: Widen to 3-lane rural arterial Estimated Cost: $2,378,000 Possible Funding Source: STPS, CTEP, Private 30. Baxter Lane-North llth to 19`h: Problem: Need to upgrade to meet urban collector standards Recommendation: Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $6,189,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP, City, Fuel Tax Funds 31. Baxter Lane- North 19th to Cottonwood: Problem: Need to upgrade route to arterial standards due to new development Recommendation: upgrade to 2-lane urban arterial Estimated Cost: $1,900,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP,Fuel Tax Funds, County 32. Haggerty Lane-East Main to Kagy: Problem: Need to upgrade this route to meet urban collector standards Recommendation: Upgrade to 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $6,189,000 Possible Funding Source: City, Private, CTEP, Fuel Tax Funds 33. Airport Interchange: Problem: There is a need for a direct access route to the airport Recommendation: Create a new interstate interchange to serve the airport and connect the interchange to the Frontage Road with 2-lane rural arterial. Final siting of interchange has not been completed. When final location has been determined connection to streets south of I-90 will need to be provided. Estimated Cost: $7,500,000 Possible Funding Source: NHS Robert Peccia &Associates 10-10 Recommended MaLor Improvements Greater Bo eman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update 34. Jackrabbit Lane - Gallatin Gateway to Four Corners: Problem: limited capacity and safety issues related to left turning vehicles Recommendation: Widen to 3-lane rural arterial Estimated Cost: $14,839,000 Possible Funding Source: NHS, STPHS, CTEP 35. Jackrabbit Lane—Four Corners to I-90: Problem: Limited Capacity and safety issues related to left turning vehicles Recommendation: Widen to 3-lane rural arterial with right turn lanes at the major intersections Estimated Cost: $10,806,000 Possible Funding Source: NHS, STPHS, CTEP 36. 1-90 Underpass—US 10 to Valley Center: Problem: This underpass is narrow and needs to be improved. Recommendation: Upgrade underpass to rural collector standard Estimated cost: $750,000 Possible Funding Source: STPS, Private 37. Griffin Drive Railroad Underpass: Problem: Railroad separates northeast portion of city and creates a problem for emergency vehicle access and traffic congestion when the train blocks at- grade crossings Recommendation: Construct a railroad underpass Estimated Cost: $4,000,000 Possible Funding Source: STPRR, STPHS, Private 38. Cedar Street: Problem: Need for access to the northeast industrial area of Bozeman Recommendation: Upgrade Cedar Street to a two-lane urban collector standard and connect to Rouse Estimated Cost: $2,677,000 Possible Funding Source: Private, CTEP, City, Fuel Tax Funds 39. Ferguson Avenue—Main to Valley Center: Problem: Needs to be an urban collector Recommendation: Connect with a 2-lane urban collector Estimated Cost: $ 12,900,000 Possible Funding Source: Private Robert Peccia &Associates 10-11 Recommended Major Improvements Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 40. Highland Trail Improvements—Kagy south Problem: There is a need for a trail connection from Highland at Kagy that leads to the south. Recommendation: Construct a trail that leads south from Kagy along the Highland Ridge and connects to Goldenstein Estimated Cost: Unknown Possible Funding Source: Private Total Estimated Cost for All Recommended Major Projects: $211,076,000 Robert Peccia &Associates 10-12 i Chapter 11 � Recommended Major Street Network � and Street Standards 1 J l J J J J ', J Recommended Major Street Network and street Standard, Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 update Chapter 11 : Recommended Major Street Network and Street Standards 11.1 Functional Highway Systems in Urbanized Areas The roadways that make up the street network within a community can be subdivided into categories based upon the function of the road. Roadway functional classifications include interstate highways; principal arterials; minor arterials; collector routes; and local streets. The rural areas of Gallatin County are also served by a similar hierarchy of streets. However, due to their rural nature the volumes on these streets are generally smaller than in urban areas. FIGURE 11.5 shows rural standards. Although volumes may differ on urban and rural sections of a street it is important to maintain coordinated right-of-way standards. A description of these classifications is provided in the following text. 11.1.1 Interstate Highways The sole purpose of the interstate is to provide for regional and interstate travel. Interstate highways are access-controlled facilities with access provided only at a limited number of interchanges. The interstate system has been designed as a high-speed facility with all road intersections being grade separated. Interstate 90, which traverses the study area, is a four-lane divided highway with a posted speed limit of 75 miles per hour (mph) for automobiles, and 65 mph for trucks. 11.1.2 Principal Arterial System 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 urbanized area. This group of roads carries a high proportion of the total traffic within the urban area. Most of the vehicles entering and leaving the urban area, as well as most of the through traffic bypassing the central business district, utilize principal arterials. Significant intra-area travel, such as between central business districts and outlying residential areas, and between major suburban centers, are served by principal arterials. The spacing between principal arterials may vary from less than one mile in highly developed areas (e.g., the central business district), to five miles or more on the urban fringes. Principal arterials connect only to other principal arterials or to the interstate system. The major purpose of the principal arterial is to provide for the expedient movement of traffic. Service to abutting land is a secondary concern. It is desirable to restrict on-street parking along principal arterial corridors. The speed limit on a principal arterial could range from 25 to 70 mph depending on the area setting. Principal arterials typically carry Robert Peccia &Associates 11-1 Recommended Major Street Network and Street Standards Gr at r Bozeman Area Tran Ortation Plan. 2001 U adate between 10,000 and 35,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in urban areas. Please see Section 4.1 for discussion of factors influencing road capacity. 11.1.3 Minor Arterial Street System The minor arterial street system interconnects with and augments the urban principal ar et vial system: It accommodates trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility than principal arterials, and it distributes travel to smaller geographic areas. With an emphasis on traffic mobility, this street network includes all arterials not classified as principal arterials while providing access to adjacent lands. The spacing of minor arterial streets may vary from several blocks to a half-mile in the highly developed areas of town, to several miles in the suburban fringes. They are not normally spaced more than one mile apart in fully developed areas. On-street parking may be allowed on minor arterials if space is available. In many areas on-street parking along minor arterials is prohibited during peak travel periods. Posted speed limits on minor arterials would typically range between 25 and 55 mph, depending on the setting. Minor arterials typically carry between 5,000 and 15,000 vpd in urban areas. Please see Section 4.1 for discussion of factors influencing road capacity. 11.1.4 Collector Street System The urban collector street network serves a joint purpose. It provides equal priority to the movement of traffic, and to the access of residential, business, and industrial areas. This type of roadway differs from those of the arterial system in that the facilities on the collector system may traverse residential neighborhoods. The system distributes trips from the arterials to ultimate destinations. The collector streets also collect traffic from local streets in the residential neighborhoods, channeling it into the arterial system. On- street parking is usually allowed on most collector streets if space is available. Posted speed limits on collectors typically range between 25 and 45 mph. Collector streets typically carry between 2,000 and 10,000 vpd in urban areas. Please see Section 4.1 for discussion of factors influencing road capacity. The rural collector street network serves the same access and movement functions as the urban collector street network— a link between the arterial system and local access roads. Collectors penetrate but should not have continuity through residential neighborhoods. Some potential collector locations have been shown in the fringe area. The actual location of collectors should be flexible to best serve developing areas and the public. Several design guidelines should be kept in mind as new subdivisions are designed and reviewed. The most important concept is that long segments of continuous collector streets are not compatible with a good functional classification of streets. Long, continuous collectors will encourage through traffic, essentially turning them into arterials. This, in turn, results in the undesirable interface of local streets with arterials, causing safety problems and increased costs of construction and maintenance. The Robert Peccia &Asso res 11-2 Recommended Major Street Network and Street Standards Greater Bozeman Argo Transportation Plan, 200/ Illylate collector street system should intersect arterial streets at a uniform spacing of one-half to one-quarter mile in order to maintain good progression on the arterial network. Ideally, collectors should be no longer than one to two miles without discontinuities. Opportunities need to be identified through good design and review of subdivisions to create appropriate collector streets in developing areas. 11.1.5 Urban Local Street System The local street network comprises all facilities not included in the higher systems. Its primary purpose is to permit direct access to abutting lands and connections to higher systems. Usually service to through-traffic movements are intentionally discouraged. On-street parking is usually allowed on the local street system. The speed limit on local streets is usually 25 mph. Local streets typically carry between 1,000 and 3,000 vpd in urban areas. Please see Section 4.1 for discussion of factors influencing road capacity. 11.2 Facility Size Versus Traffic Volume The size of a roadway is based upon the anticipated traffic demand. It is desirable to size the arterial network to comfortably accommodate the traffic demand that is anticipated to occur 20 years from the time it is constructed. The selection of a 20-year design period represents a desire to receive the most benefit from an individual construction project's service life within reasonable planning limits. The design, bidding, mobilization, and repair to affected adjacent properties can consume a significant portion of an individual project's budget. Frequent projects to make minor adjustments to a roadway can therefore be prohibitively expensive. As roadway capacity generally is provided in large increments, a long term horizon is necessary. The collector and local street network are often sized to meet the local needs of the adjacent properties. There are two measurements of a street's capacity, Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and Peak Hour. AADT measures the average number of vehicles a given street carries over a 24- hour period. Since traffic does not usually flow continuously at the maximum rate, AADT is not a statement of maximum capacity. Peak Hour measures the number of vehicles that a street can physically accommodate during the busiest hour of the day. It is therefore more of a maximum traffic flow rate measurement than AADT. When the Peak Hour is exceeded, the traveling public will often perceive the street as "broken" even though the street's AADT is within the expected volume. Therefore, it is important to consider both elements during design of corridors and intersections. Street size of the roadway and the required right-of-way is a function of the land use that will occur along the street corridor. These uses will dictate the vehicular traffic characteristics, travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and need for on-street parking. The right-of-way required should always be based upon the ultimate facility size. Robert Feccta &Associates 11-3 Recommended Major Street Network and Street Standards Greater RnzPmmi Arne Tra portation Plan, inn► ►I nrn The actual amount of traffic that can be handled by a roadway is dependant upon the presence of parking, number of _driveways and _intersections, intersection traffic control, and roadway alignment. The data presented in TABLES 2-1 and 4-1 indicates the approximate volumes that can be accommodated by a particular roadway. As indicated in the differences between the two tables, the actual traffic that a road can handle will vary based upon a variety of elements including: road grade; alignment; pavement condition; number of intersections and driveways; the amount of turning movements; and the vehicle fleet mix. 11.3 Recommended Street Standards It is important to have established standards that identify the overall character of various roads within a community. These standards should identify the anticipated amount of right-of-way necessary at full build-out. They should also include all of the design elements necessary such as sidewalks, bicycle facilities, landscaping, and space for utilities and snow storage. The standards should reflect the uses for each type of road, and the applicable traffic volumes anticipated. There should be standards for both urban and rural street designs. Standards have been developed for all of the categories of roads that are found within the Bozeman area including local and collector roads, as well as minor and principal arterials. A variety of lane widths have been included in the suggested road standards. Lane widths vary based on the scale and expected type of traffic on each street. Generally, streets which will carry larger numbers of vehicles and vehicles of larger sizes have been given wider travel lanes. Please see FIGURES 11-1 through 11-5 Note that landscaped boulevards and sidewalks are required on both sides of all roads. Boulevards are necessary throughout the community to provide space for snow storage and separation of pedestrians and vehicles. The boulevards also provide space for trees and other forms of corridor landscaping, which are considered an essential ingredient to producing a livable community. Bicycle facilities are required in all but the local road standards. It was asserted that bicycle facilities are not necessary on local streets due to the relatively low traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds. In all other cases, five-foot-wide bicycle lanes are required on both sides of the street. A ten-foot-wide combined ped/bike trail option is allowed if the necessary right-of-way is available or provided. The use of bicycle facilities that are not in the roadway are a safety concern at cross-street intersections. Therefore, this option may be proposed only in cases where there are few minor intersections along the corridor. This plan has taken a multi-modal approach to the provision of transportation services. Therefore, it is important that the pedestrian and bicycle facilities depicted on the street standards illustrated in this chapter be constructed as a basic component of the initial facility rather than being considered an optional add-on. Both flush and raised center medians are included in various road standards. The use of raised versus flush medians will be determined on a case by case basis and depend on the number of driveways. The recommended road standards are presented graphically in FIGURE 11-1 through 11-5. Robert Peccia &Associates 11-4 a� 2 N D N �� O f/l N (n �' L l(n O O r7+ ca OZCDL C J m I ' "O Y N O7 LL C N N - CO (B E '� Y C ` ' d (Q = J a) O 4 O -0 Y O Y O (U Za o CDER Y Y Y O Ca cc d L O C � � C MNefA fn >,•— O 'CD C _ N c .gin CO CO O N42 +. o cc C cc 11 J O 11 O N rn U m U m N U CO y ? N i t/l as d sm > o mZO m ,6 c N t M m C�� I cc m C�� -2 CO N 2 � m ca J J L J L p CO Y YCr rncc Cr U o ccA -1 m i`p d rn m G1 O c N °° lie (D bo o _ 3 E p ° COrn -- - p N cn 3 C° m rn w a HI C 'c '� ZZ MILN Ca a c o — CO = COCa — ZO CO CO d (n to Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update Figure 11-1 Suggested Local Street Standards 3 M COcn V) Y LO in in io can CnZa (n (n �� III III III ` JmmmL ;" _ III Y III III I II LL Cn 0° a III — — e ' III = m III III III � o � � � �L III o — — c � � Y o C � III m - H I? m m d _ m III III LO m III ' • = in I(I - f l l IIIbo m C C L fn J E a> a> '� C o Y Y U (6 0 bo d rn m m c N c YCU � in iA L CD Ne C13 3 U L uoo N N N T 'COL) y Q N : O C C N 3 T C n J �4 2 aE c N Y I J C O co CO N > m H C C .>_ H p c c 0 0 �? in N Y 0 d U L t6 tm L lC O N w CO ILO 1� a 40 � N 'C 0 E; •fn J '8 CO C O Z Z J O 0 -0 `n m 13 12 M <v ayi ai -2 II Z CT U C) ai 00 c) a 0 y 1 1 1 O J•ffi Oa� —�>ae O_ t o- Ot -€a� O a�me� CO C0 .2 _m C)rO J U Om m m 2 .2 g ' - ----- N - -------------- ' � N as m 'O U !_ U O E U O m 'a c� m •- > > m o O a m o J p) o� o J d �� o J �� o O C1 •� y... Y J Y Y d Y Y m p> m N •y m M O M O 'n m Y d m m m m m m m -19 o a Y Y � a E o CDY m �i m E .� •x 3 C c D � N J _4 d Y N qr CO -� CO C I o c � c m a0 J N N Y Y C m I m io .YIII'. ZO bo III o _ in -2 III D to 111 a Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan III m III Year 2001 Update b .; rJ- . M Ile - III = LO III I11 Figure 11 -2 ICI ul m I'I Recommended Collector __ — III ,I''i III II ' III � I I I _ — — Street Standards m Y — a `O 3 3 a I. v v • Y 75 3 — 3 3 Tl- 75 °> 0 H p v a) -2 -2 o inOwl zn ` c -D cu m (!1 Cn CL III o � > w ncu0CaCO III - Uo � o � Jmmao � III III it ;o II cLo U- 9' - a) co -2m E '> m co f° rn a) III LO m ui III III �, cn 3 III E o � = YL - °° III a) ° ) � F- cn CO Ca CL � III III 'Q_o o �— _ N Q O m � m g L 3 III c m to — m m .� v7 ICI a — a) w c c Cu-) o • m a) J a) V) L ca E C j O -TT- m a) a) U > - 4) O) Y Y a) L L Y o 3 a) v (ca I- D w N L N O clj CD a 7 a) L a0 - - * C O 01 N .3c:r -D O a) co _ W u7 d J m a3 C y O y Ncu a) J J Y (6 O m _c m C m U `O L a7 d c a w 0 a J Z - J Z C— 0 -D a`-i b Ln 2 0 a) O - O - LO . y Z a .w U C7 c c co e °�' C UU 11 1 1 1 15 rn 15 SiU U U C 'O U O a) > o C > o C y o CO o .. U O d c + a) c V L_ a) c V O co ca m 2 O v m O D m d 0 J@ m -6 (n o m o m v)a) o CO m �i o ---------------- - ------ c - ------------- a _ r.�_ - -- o cc CD A5 CD cc J Y J C cu �c J C Lo d' 7 �c <C m Q Cm m `�)• m O O S 1i'I m m m CO m Y o ! a a ti E Y Y E m 3 3 E Y E " LCSL/ CD m d m m p •M Y a) J ' � ca Y I L rn C - Y ELY_ CD a) Ea m J � � J C O) � C - - 7 — Y III a _ . III bo III Lo m m io I I I �' III III _ III ICI Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Ili m III III _ — Year 2001 Update va III III � III .�-�- Figure 11-3 Y _ = Y__ = Recommended Minor Arterial o o Street Standards to w m 0 Y Minimum Features: -Two Driving Lanes 10'Emer enc 36'Turn' g Lane/ 10'Emer enc 5'Sidewalk 8'Boulevard g y 12'Drivin Lane RaisedrMedian 12'Driving Lane g y Sidewalks Both Sides Parking/Bike Lane g g Parking/Bike Lane � 8'Boulevard i 5'Sidewalk -Bike Lanes-Both Sides 1' 5' 0 rz .5' S Boulevards-Both Sides Parking-Both Sides (Where Parking is Provided) rr �Z-4 lll�llJl� ter- - III-III-III-11 NOTES: 82'Back of Curb to Back of Curb ,I —Pedestrian crossing safety enhancement is required for roads wider than 2-lanes. 2 Lane Option Sidewalks/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides-No Parking —Corridor lighting is required wherever raised medians are used. —Grade separated ped/bike facilities should be considered at major ped/bike crossings. 8'Emergency 18'Tu.ning Lane/ 8'Emergency 5'Sidewalk 8'Boulevard ParkinglBike Lan 12'Driving Lane _I 11'Driving Lane Raised Median 11'Driving Lane 12'Driving Lane ParkinglBike Lane 8'Boulevard 5'S cfe,vaik 1' S' .5' AMOL III-III-111- 82'Back of Curb to Back of Curb J I I Maximum Roadway Section -5 lanes Sidewalks/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides-No Parking RM Requirements = 110' Not To Scale 8'BW 8'Emergency 18'Tum Dg Lane/ 8'Emergency 10'Ped/Bike Trail farking/Bike Lane 12'Driving Lane 11'Driving Lane Raised Median 1 11'Driving Lane 12'Driving Lane Parking/Bike Lane 'Boulevard 10'Ped/Bike Trail lamii�4 1 III=III=1 i 82'Back of Curb to Back of Curb 1�- Maximum Roadway Section- 5 lanes Sidewalks/Bike/Boulevard Both Sides-No Parking Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan RIW Requirements = 120' Year2001 Update Figure 11 -4 Not To Scale Recommended Principal Arterial Street Standards NOTES: —Pedestrian crossing safety enhancement is required for roads wider than 2-lanes. RM Requirements = 90' May Be More If Terrain Requires —Corridor lighting is required wherever 1'Centerline Stripe raised medians are used. Varies Varies 5 Bike Lane 11'Driving Lane 11'Driving Lane 5'Bike Lane Varies Varies —Grade separated ped/bike facilities should be considered at major ped/bike crossings. 5. IE 5' P s.� Rural Collector-2 Lanes RM Requirements = 100' May Be More If Terrain Requires 1'Centerline Stripe Varies Varies Varies 8'Shoulder 11'Driving Lane I 11'Driving Lane 8'Shoulder Varies Varies Varies F 5' 5' I Rural Minor Arterial -2 Lanes 6'1 RM Requirements = 110' May Be More If Terrain Requires 10'Emergency Parking 18'Raised Median With 10'Emergency Parking Varies Varies Varies 12'Driving Lane Double Left Turnip Lane 12'Driving Lane Varies Varies Varies (Bike Lane 9 � 18ike Lane � � f—5' S' j .5' 5' A11111111111111111&, i Rural Principal Arterial -3 Lanes 6' Not To Scale Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Year 2001 Update Figure 11-5 Recommended Rural Street Standards Recommended Major Street Network and Street Standards Greater Qozentan Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update The principal focus of this plan is the arterial and collector street network. A wide variety of acceptable local street alternatives exist and may integrate well with the larger scale street depicted in this Plan. For full information on local streets, interested parties are referred to the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County subdivision regulations. 11.4 Right-of-Way Requirements The recommended road standards identify the amount of right-of-way that is necessary to accommodate the full build-out of each type of facility. The desired right-of-way for principal arterials is 110 feet, 100 feet for minor arterials, 90 feet for collectors, and 60 feet for local roads. Many existing roads within the community do not have the necessary right-of-way based on these standards. Apparently there are also public roads within the study area that traverse parcels of private property without any right-of-way easements. It is recommended that both the city and county establish a policy to review all existing roadways and identify roads that are located within right-of-way corridors that are less than the desirable width. Additional right-of-way should be acquired in these areas where possible. The city and county should attempt to acquire the right-of-way for both existing and future roads where the opportunity exists. It is recommended that the right-of-way necessary for all future road segments be acquired through the development process as undeveloped areas develop. Even though the initial road will only be a two-lane or three-lane facility, providing the full amount of right-of-way will enable the corridor to be expanded at a later date while avoiding an expensive and disruptive land acquisition process at some time in the future. 11.5 Recommended Major Street Network The major street network consists of all interstate, principal arterial, minor arterial, and collector routes. Local streets are not included on the major street network. The major street network recommended in the 1993 Transportation Plan was used as a basis, or starting point, in developing the major street network for this update. Establishing a plan of a community's future streets' layout is essential to proper land development and community planning. It is important that planners, landowners, and developers know where the future road network needs to be located. With an approved major street network, everyone will know where the future arterials need to be located. This will assist everyone involved in anticipating right-of-way needs, and appropriate land-uses. The study area was examined to determine the most appropriate placement for the future arterial network. The principal arterials were set in place first with a two-mile spacing. The minor arterials were then 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. Robert Peecia &Associates 11-10 Recommended Major Street Network and Street Standards Greater Bozeman Area Tran portatto„Plan. 2001 U pdaze The recommended existing and future major street networks are shown in FIGURES 11-6 and 11-7. The future route locations shown are conceptual in nature and may vary based on topography, wetlands, land ownership, and other unforeseen factors. The purpose of these figures is to illustrate the anticipated network at full build-out. It is likely that many of the route corridors shown will not be developed into roads for many decades to come. On the other hand, if development is proposed in a particular area, the recommended major street network will insure that-the arterial-corridors will be established in a fashion that produces an efficient and logical future road network. It is important to note that presenting the major street network at this time is not intended to control or influence development. It is presented in an effort to help plan for the future development of the road system in the community. The acquisition of right-of-ways for these future road corridors should be one of the community's highest priorities. It is essential that these corridors be dedicated for roadway use before an area develops. This action will insure that the roadway corridors remain clear and available for use when the future need arises. The recommended truck routes are identified in FIGURE 11-8. a Robert eceta Associates 11-11 ._. _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. _.._.._.._.._.._.._.. :2 _.._.._i __ > 0 I U 3 ld N N L C lee U) cn tm ! I CD cv aim � � Ec YE 0 " c Q a� Q m co 2 a) � c � � co ca N 15 x cB -b'r'm-------f $ � N (0 c O c cn c � � I ! r I C cu al a Q ° 0 2 o a � 1° CL W cu w o 1 d V L. L- V J r o 0 7 0 O E N d m I ♦ ; I N C C c C _0 O O N m CL C p ch p in a � o � ! - i i �^'� j J -E IZ a 2 U U =-3 � ai `mom � > L)i a.o� Q I 1 i\ -, �N � -O cn t c cn -0 pm ' -----------y �. I 1 1 1 'N.X m +� W O a Z � o� i 1 s. 1 1 1 9 O d ° O c a) 1 i -a = O c i�i � a3i cn 1 ! 1 1 1 � � � N O m ''' N O H �v_.� ! ! i OSgN w cN .-. o d I 1 1 1 z� o ` yj O O O O i.-_: O cc d (a N L Z U a -------------b -.r..r--------- -1'---«----- ' 1 i--- , -i -- - -----------�---� �i a (n O _.._.._.._.._.._. _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. �._.._.._. I I 1 cM (C I _ r .J0 o),_ m ° 3 ° c lea L. ` _ 0 i I " ca -- - �I �1 '• ; -hw I _ 1 jr �� I - a �j 1� �ii �.1 j_. -^) �I� O i 1 / I L ` M (A p U f _ cn — �c _ -� ° mac° ycm`� 3cac° a� - I 1 l_ 1 _ � f i 1di ! 1 �' . cn Cc C 0 p m V E 2 N o 1 1 1 1 c w c � O N 1 •a+R, 1 1 1 1 1 1 O L H ; 3 - co 1 , 1 _1 , , c -0 c ' d t O c L �r----•-1 -r--- - -- ----�- J...... �• - C 10 7 GI - -�- , s---- --tee.-- r ( °° E cv E > ca y v ac°i ° c°� m M + 4) c (DcnC mQ) � v • > m ! - -i----- --i--- - j a� cn m E c ° m cn m 0 of: -------- - " E ° °� L a> I ---------- ----r----- ----...---- ----------- ------------ -------- i ca ° m cc a r 1 I � � 0 yE '� a c°� cc � m � L E p 7 .0 � U c >. 1 =. _ ` 1 w vi d m y N N I , ♦ --- ------- ---t--- - ° m t c w c -o • I I r o .0 rn " fi ♦ r , 1 ------------ cc Q O a`i � H c m t U) co •0 , ao E � ai 0 5 m 0 of cCD CL 0 -0 r r ♦ .'r 1 1 oiL � H « E � 22alop = 0 I ".." ------- ---- • 1 1 I — Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Vear 2001 Update --r"-----" ! Figure 11-6 • � - 1 1 • I I Existing Major Street Network and Future Right-Of-Way ch 1 t7 O0 E 1 !- ' Corridor Needs - ' _.._.._.._.._.-.._.._.._.._.._..1.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.. a�.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.........................._.._.._.._.._.._.. (Study Area) i / ./ 1 1 1 T N p 0 I 1 O O C - 1 O ,a I ' coO.r ��+ � 0 0 8 IV I - 1 < O Q O o co 8 _ _ _ O f0 I �.._.._.._.._.. C / I �, 1 (U Q >< Co Q cam, a / �, )>N 5t!!H Pa7u!ed�- 1 a 6-CO) L V L ._:L L V ca z tmX � I I �� 0 0 3 V 0 0 J tv tC •�.-• 1 1 W �..i L O L O U c O rn .I c hlapd , c Y_ o P?l77!W IUo73 I t P^f8 t>« Rd �'Pf�IH 1 1 1 c 5ourdouyh . lii � S2 CO j , nog _.._`I �•\� I _ 1 1 1 I zH li m `m i .�• � -� 1, .nlr 3elf4„I IGpur Apt. �• •,1 ...... �. J ` U) M_ = Co3 L cl)cl) 03 _0 my 0 m � v ova) - c Oc) - ,,, ------------- 3 a) U) U a d O 7 cc .N W cn cn an n 8 N r o a, ._..0 c 0 C pl L L. V a)I I 0O� O a rr9N c mtcc e E -4. CL I £ . p .. O a) rn ` m c c �.• — e Zr. Ij Nrnc coM w c 'NCO EO iA U) c 6 q mowcs ji.__ar+rrrsra�a�____L�_____ia__-_.�_a_______. a3 O a M +L+ O V N ;� = O L C I I 1 l0 N c 1p d N c Y3 '� d +• cn O U O V Eo 1�'e 3 — o E aa) Cc >, la c o i�c 41SL N f'r " 1 I I L (6 .a O d a C1 E c O C 7 O - _-- ---- -____ss�wa 11 _ +_•-- 1 1 N N O N 'a C O O N O C O a U c0 > a) M ` � E ` 30E � cuoi 12 � w 416d N " 46L S 1 S 1 O N c c E V (n C C C to w N N ao V a) c '� lC O O t : ,� C a) ? O O l..` 1 c _ a) c o _ I _.._.. a) o v)_o y vi ` d y a) '� . c a c r ics�v,Ilc.fir �e �._..� 1 _ i ; , 1 N N > E d Ia +`+ 7 v N v TE O •-- 1 1 - _ _ + 0 1 1 _.._��.._..._.._. 1 1 - 1 V) d 1 � 1-- C 3 N lC w V A 1 �+• C � O N a) � � a) a_______ O. v) > (0 cu O 1 •�, a) O V A� E d (p > 4? a 1 1 10 a C O w 2 t = C rL+ a) -a 0 -0 n. C N J 1 I 1 j O N C C V O O a) O cc U) C C +•' Cl t l0 a.•. O 7 •` a .cn O N i i 1 0 un C. —:Ea) caW r �00. 9) 0Ea N � a 0 -0 Aa 11 _.._.. a 1 C L-- C 7 d 1 1 — H .- aa._ Ho1003 � rr � � a3 � - T .� 1 - 1 1_- u 1 'u7f rMoj I m 1 1 1 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan CJ; x : Year 2001 Update j -------- - 1 ------ 1 -------- -- ' ------ 11-7 PHuosnh/aj - __ _ Figure � 1 Existing Major Street Network PahrrUn++aPP!H ; '• ; �' and Future Right-Of-Way 1 __-_____ 1 Corridor Needs ________ PH Pooi^uogaJ 1 I PH PooNiuoljo,: 1 (Bozeman Area) •— .................................... O I ✓.mil j � I � O � CU cc L) CU a ! j Z H c o W FU _ O z � ''" W U 'X a)c� J JWW I � _.._ .............. I - j I I d «� 104 I i f i � � S j I I w m Z Z3CO . .w■ 65 wwn Q • , j c� j 5 1t I I ♦ wwo I _ � Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan — — —• Year 2001 Update Figure 11 -8 q Recommended Truck Routes - _ — ' Stud Area ._.._.._:=T.._.. .._.._.._.. — ......................... ........_.._.._.._.._.._.._..~:�`i.!............... !' Y Chapter 12 Traffic Calming Traffic Calming Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update Chapter 12: Traffic Calming 12.1 Purpose of Traffic Calming The Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE) defines traffic calming as a "combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-motorized street users." In simple terms, traffic- calming techniques are typically aimed at lowering vehicle speeds, decreasing truck volumes, and/or reducing the amount of cut-through traffic in a given area. If applied properly, these techniques result in a more pleasant environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Some of the most universal goals of traffic calming are as follows: • Reducing the frequency and severity of accidents. • Improving the quality of life in residential areas. • Reducing negative environmental impacts of traffic such as air and noise pollution. • Promoting walking and bicycling. Traffic calming measures can also have the following beneficial side effects: • Reduced need for police enforcement. • Improved street environment (street scaping). • Improved water infiltration into the ground. There are two forms of traffic calming, active and passive. Active measures are described in some detail in Section 12-5 and are usually applied after a street has been constructed to correct a perceived problem with driver behavior. Passive measures are more likely to be included during the initial design of a roadway and include such things as the placement of street trees, medians, narrower lane widths, intersection design, pedestrian bulbs and other safety features, and similar design elements. Generally, active measures are not appropriate for the arterial network as they interfere with the purpose of arterials to move larger volumes of vehicles. However, appropriate use of passive measures may accomplish the purpose of encouraging safer driver, cyclist, or pedestrian behavior without restricting traffic flow. Arterials should be considered in any active traffic calming plan since speeding and cut-through traffic on local streets can be an indicator that the arterial network is not functioning properly. Therefore, improvements to the arterial network may be a more effective solution than active traffic calming on smaller streets. Section 12-5 discusses this in more detail. 12.2 History of Traffic Calming Traffic calming originated in Europe in the 1960's, specifically with the "pedestrianization" of downtown shopping areas in Germany. In the 1970's, the Dutch expanded the concept to include residential streets when they integrated motorized and non-motorized traffic. On the residential blocks, the street served as an extension of the residents' yards, and pedestrians were given Robert Peccia &Associates 12-1 Traffic Calming Greater Bozeman Area Trag-Wortation Plan 20001/pdate priority over automobiles. Obstacles, bends, and bottlenecks were placed at regular intervals to restrict vehicle speeds to a walking pace. Finally, the German philosophy of area-wide traffic calming emerged, which considers the entire road system in order to avoid merely shifting a problem to another location. Over the past thirty years, a variety of traffic calming techniques have been applied in numerous European countries. More recently, these strategies have been adopted in Japan, Australia, and North America. In the United States, traffic-calming efforts have occurred throughout the country. In the northwest region, several municipalities have actively pioneered traffic calming, including the communities of Seattle and Bellevue, Washington and Eugene, Oregon. As was the case in Europe, emphasis has shifted from alleviating problems at specific locations to improving neighborhood street systems as a whole. Consequently, traffic-calming programs in the U.S. are sometimes known as Local Area Traffic Management Programs, Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs, or Neighborhood Traffic Control Programs. 12.3 Types of Traffic Calming Measures Traffic calming measures typically fit into one of six categories: 1) passive measures; 2) education and enforcement; 2) signage and pavement markings; 3) vertical deflection; 4) horizontal deflection; and 5) obstruction. Many of the specific techniques within these categories are described below. Passive Measures There are several passive techniques that produce a calming affect on traffic. These measures are usually built into the design of the street. Examples of passive forms of traffic calming include tree-lined streets, streets with boulevards separating the sidewalks, streets with raised center medians, on-street parking, highly visible pedestrian crossings, and relatively short building set- back distances. Each of these elements has the tendency to slow vehicle speeds without actually restricting or interfering with the flow of traffic. The best results are usually obtained when two or more of these techniques are used in combination. Education and Enforcement The following techniques are designed to raise public awareness of a traffic problem, and change the behaviors that contribute to that problem: • Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaign - An educational program consisting of meetings, newsletters, etc., with the purpose of informing residents of the neighborhoods'Oparticular traffic issues and outlining safety recommendations. (This technique is not effective for traffic generated outside the neighborhood.) • Radar Speed Monitoring Trailer - A portable trailer equipped to measure and digitally displays vehicle speeds. Robert Peccia &Associates 12-2 Trg ffic Calming Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. 2000 Update • Neighborhood Speed Watch Program - A speed-monitoring program in which residents of a neighborhood measure vehicle speeds with a radar unit and record license plate numbers of those exceeding the speed limit. The registered owners are sent letters explaining the safety concerns in the neighborhood and asking them to reduce their speeds. • Target Enforcement - Increased police enforcement of traffic regulations within a designated area. Siknake and Pavement Markinjs The installation of traffic control signs and placement of pavement markings constitute the most passive category of traffic calming. Signs indicating speed limits, school crossings, and dead ends can be used where appropriate to slow traffic. Pavement markings used to calm traffic include school crossings and speed limits or other legends. Some specific traffic calming techniques include: • Truck Route Signing - Signs placed along streets at appropriate intervals to designate truck routes or restrict truck traffic. • Basket Weave Stop Sign Pattern - Stop signs placed at every other intersection in a residential neighborhood. (Local streets only, disregards MUTCD warrants.) • Edge Lines - Lines painted along the side of the road to narrow traffic lanes and/or provide shoulder space for bicycles. Vertical deflection, Horizontal deflection, and Obstruction Descriptions of a wide variety of physical traffic calming measures, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each are presented in the tables on the following pages. A general magnitude cost range is shown for a basic installation of each measure. These costs can increase significantly with the addition of irrigation systems and street lighting, or the acquisition of right- of-way. Beautification amenities, such as brick pavers or extensive landscaping, can also dramatically impact project costs. When implementing these types of physical traffic calming measures, several guidelines should be taken into consideration: 1) attempt less restrictive measures before resorting to road closures and other route modifications; 2) space devices 300 to 500 feet apart in order to contain speeds to a 20 to 25 mile per hour range; and 3) make the appropriate accommodations for drainage and snow removal, as well as considering the needs of emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Road closure or obstruction, for example, can often be achieved through the use of traversable barriers that allow for the passage of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles. Robert Peccia &Associates 12-3 ra tc Calming Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Platt 2000 Update 12.4 Incorporating Traffic Calming in New Street Designs , Roadway designs for new development should be appropriate for the intended function of each street or street segment. Those designed to function as part of the major street system (major collectors and arterials), should be designed primarily to move traffic in as efficient, convenient, and safe a manner as possible. Local streets and residential collectors, on the other hand, should be designed to provide access to properties while discouraging through-traffic and higher travel speeds that often accompany it. As a result, new developments should include traffic calming strategies to reinforce the appropriate functions of local streets. These would include layout and connectivity of street systems and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, intersection treatments, and basic design standards for width, curvature, parking, and landscaping. Specific traffic calming features which are easily incorporated into the design phase include: entrance treatments; narrow streets; short block lengths; small corner radii; surface valley gutters; "T" intersections; roundabouts; and landscaping to create a "closed-in" environment. In order to achieve these types of goals for new construction, the City should incorporate and/or adopt traffic calming improvements into their standard street design recommendations. The traffic calming recommendations should include standard treatments with discussions of where and when they can be appropriately used. The traffic calming recommendations should also provide basic design details to ensure that the improvements will effectively and safely achieve the desired results. Traffic calming design characteristics should also be incorporated into the City's development review and annexation review processes. Proposed developments or requests to annex would be reviewed by staff to determine whether or not traffic-calming improvements are appropriate for any given location, what strategies are best suited, and what design details are appropriate. The process should be designed to pro-actively assist developers in utilizing traffic strategies to improve quality of life in their developments, while minimizing or eliminating costs for retrofit efforts. Because of the long-term effects of original roadway layout and construction, the City may wish to coordinate with the County to incorporate traffic calming into its development review process. The cost of traffic calming implementation for original construction should be incorporated into the development and annexation process. In addition, traffic impact studies should be conducted for all new developments. Development fees should be collected to finance improvements to existing streets that will be required to carry more traffic. Multi-Jurisdictional Cooperation In some cases, traffic problems may be located near a City/County line, or may be caused by conditions outside the City limits, such as on the State highway system or at the State complex. For these reasons, it is desirable for the City to have cooperative agreements with the County, as well as the State government. Cooperative agreements would enable this process to cross jurisdictional boundaries. Other agencies would take an active role in the traffic calming process and participate in financing permanent solutions when deemed appropriate. Robert Peccia &Associates 12-4 C II II II II ( 0 i a, 0 CIS Cd cd cd Cd N O N O >, O O O >, O O >, 0 0 >, � O O N U � a� U � U U ' U aD a) a; 'o o ° ao ° ao o w cd oD .� on cd °D �; •� C% 3 � o t~ cd 3 ao i 0o i • c moo a •3 oon o � o ';� ao O o o W A v� v� W W A v� .� s 40. b G o 0 0 0 a d oon �° o >� >� a Cd ° N aj N - N U cd O •� O0 3 G O P. q •.• q w a> O o o. a > o cd >, oD.oEn cn Fi L) b C ky cd > >, q Q U `.y o En bD v GEi Cd U U >> v� N F. 0 w .o Sq � 0q q � oA o x � Z 1.. Q n oZ 0 i a. oo m 0 d ti Cd ti � ti a� .0 °O a o ° w° y .o a� a� •o > w a> ... o > _ a� c > > y o .> on m o qo � w � •�=y C ; M bD N N a N N y .0 W cdr� P4 ►T. W bQ dP: P4 •� U W cdv� fs! b V`C G o � �bD p y Q r ,�, .0 .� •y p O � 3 •� N bD U cd U O U U U o b o 'r cd 0 CA b co 0 o L) o U o b 0 q a o U 06 0 Cd b o 0 a0 L) ° .d .d .0 0 .0C UN q O 0 cn -0 e w a. o i o. o y > ° a L) > a via a� a a A a U 0 GL • a s Ca a 'O • C .l ebell ; -Y4 '8 CIS 44 w LIZ -T7 U C U Cd Cd N b0 O N ��.' t4 N .O. b0 w+ U t ~.U. V •� y G�'-, O y N E bA G; O y El bp fx O CD • •� U cd Cd iOv Oi •� � o �� o Ta Ni � `o�nr: cd C U V0 u bA O w c bQ O S U ic r. 0O 6°cdR?Wcq 64 . . . .bo Wds oc ai c Y o w o0 00 .� � a, •o ° c 'y O c .UCd U O. y cd .b fn O p �"�• . o U U cr 5 C cd p N Cd ❑ Q U O In CA O ww„ N C U �., bA O W A .In El "'O C. w>°., .•G, CUU.' N In Fr �GJ y cd y U 0 C cd G. cd .Ur N C1 ° i v a~i A. a aci to c U cd r. N cd ;b N U V rn clj R� bQ cu :> bo ° bcd d' 3a > f o ooa'oca o � ° cz O oA4 O cn •o � wO ' v w Cd ° w r- o °° p o cd a o o � M o _ 3 U cd Nc/I ' Lg O w 7 c` O c ° ) a ° o o I1 0 aci cd Nrn3 I cd C cd cd rs! x O c W � y II ro aoi II y II y ao Cd oo E on P4 0 o o o .� > o •o .o 0 ,. � oo >1 tv m o o w o0 a c aoCdo i c ;oauvo�o � abz c� � o c bo o o w o ow° 11, � 00 -11" ° � 00 cn000 oa . . . .to U n � .�. P. 'b � N N to O to N U U P+ C .+ � L' y0 En N U S N ° OV 3 a .� a) .0 .> v O CZ > G t)oO b0 ° bi)'7 N '>. p 0 C O .� by C '� V V U �. 0cd cqj a1 w3 �N y O eke b w aoi r. C/I :3 � a? O a .> yo > ;� o w a ❑ c> >~ a cz o ° U v, o o U oEn A w.. C l: b N bA cz > N O N N to c �a G c� ao-C 0 3 y ° A.a 0 o. a b rA o. � ° � w 'A w cd Q v U in t7 V N ,. N y t7 U 1 En N Cd .b -o rs: o o4 P. r4 f') P. 0 Ln 42 04 � W N cn d a U. b o O N w •� O c o \ o r. a �; cd ° "0O r o a) o .. ° ., cd a) c� �- C �. N N O. G o W y G W 72 '> Cd � H 44 r. via a� cd o a cd a x4 H Of) a Ha° Cd u ao c to � to � ao Cd c cqj a c o o W, on o cd on o on G� o cd o o •c a o -0 o b .� o m C p O p a 0 O , cn Uis Ca on � U bD �n p `cn3 ° Us U G G U U on pCD o ° b Ca p0o o "0 O ` d cd ❑ 0 o= o o 0oo 4 0 o on o on ,0 in w wo v� Wds Wv3 W � WsN�s � T ,��, o Cd ❑ �, o c ❑ T ° >' cd ° .� 3 � a � a ° c cvi T o ' aai ,� > CD o o ai api a30 A cn a� c -Cd ou prAcd N " q In a� bcz bD O �� ❑ w cd a N EA N •O .ro a N O O ;b o •� C 'd —,,, t .� p., u�U � pd � F. -- p4 v U � � ¢ .-.� ,� b R' v A~ �., r3: •� N Q d d cd Q p 0 p o : cd ,� o cd.. a� w. r �. !.� V ° � cd aS cd aJ u N .° cd w '~J o G ar .b U o 00 N rE :.o U U 'i. •o cd •o .ti U N '� A d � b a° a o ? > Ana°. rn w ❑ o 0 L I q x 3 0 c y pq r.• r b x UU CO) .U. cd O cd G O U C O cd y bq Pi O cl bA 0.M� O O 0 O C N •E >> cd O cd O U O G bs IDS to a a� o 00 tw to to 0 0 �onao•°�°4y Eloo � ocn °�°4:., � o � o �. o. Wave ° '4= o C3 b •�~. C UU. 'b N �-. N OO 3 ° 4..' cacn d ^C WO O OU bUA cd cd .0 A+ u w'. > > cd �.. ❑ y O ❑ C U c� O N w ' cd ;b� bq•s: O U D O cd " .. .� .O O A O p y o a 3 40, 0, `d y 3 p c`d a�o N `'O b0 'd h N :D O .D Cd , t �.. �Ud � f. w N U bp O O p" � c� ti �4~• ,� E a � N ° a � � > U0U a � a � � � � a � o�n b U b U p, -o � " - o -o o w o 1) -o A" 0 o b (UCd a O w a� a ❑ > a°�i a� R v .�' cr r. O 3 to A "' R. 'b N N En U V U '� cn OCd O cd w Zz U Cd � 2 • • ��A E . 6 '5, E� •� • • .b � t x U U U cd Cdd cmd w+ to bo V c� C cd >~ O cd C Ocz cd y d R O R to ctO O CO) cn cd cd O 0 cd US O cd U o C U U 3 C U U C U 4" cd .j m0 to bO o cd o ^O iC t~ bo cd O r~ bA cd O !~ r~ bo'" cd O •V bo bo•-' w O by bA•^� w + O o0 00••• w v� W ss W ds W ss a> O U i abo y am 0 to U U cd a V! tU .> N US+ •N 'i > Y cd t++ 4) U •, r„ a) cd •L7 cd U �. to �O cd U U •^" cd O � r 0 '� +�•' .0�. N U ego p w„ aCi a �0 2y .0 a�i L) adi >, o i >, .o b >, a� > A cn f�•. �b0 U cad �U+ Cdd aU+ � a cF'i w U U C .� F+ �." U >, cl tU U U U cd .O O a oUo �� ci W bL, cUi y ro a b 3 i b •o 3 o°�n b U C, � v�) 4� CudW b o Q . b o y u o to 0id •� O 0 N .� 44-4 .. y b °0 O .y U O >,0 U GL r . .�. U cd + o U d U o •o o. cd o o w 3 g 3 UO .d 0 d ° w v U y °�' y cd O o 3 0 - N ° .n O °t.' U U U b bUo o N o o lcO U a. .. o o > o o W 4, a Cd u ° J Lj : � a xo try y > bb 0 T9 r� •I cqj 0 Cd 0 n 0 n u u CD N ON 'onO N ooc ' o0 cn cq o o `d � O U U U U `q r NO 'b OO N tb 3 a� � ❑ one cdo a� a one � o a cdo q 'cd, o v on oA•., o Elou oA•.• ,_ o ou o op o � o En o v� Ws9 . . . . Wtfi W46S Wss o o y o tz � o inn to on y C� N U w y 'A y qCd qaaU�i UUOy UcUd �N' •U.f".i U.r.'i i•+ �U VN UU wN .cc.h •w�" -F. � Ua .� .w.. wyw .'�.Ar .c�h 'bM >c, cd 0 y U m d N cd cdy � N cd M y - o N y c In o N o :a> ° •zz ` I. b M 'Ac� W cdJ � � N � � cd cd.YC � N � � cd cad '� cad N cd cd,y .'''i 'F. •' k cd cd .�,, .''' •� + � w > > a: CL- ° U > O � bQ OS bQ Q U U o c>i 0 m a�i ° a cd ton o o b a o y cd w N N N y N ° � N Q 0 U. N O eqe Co. a� c ci a a� o ci q o 'c� c°�i 0 cxi D G O U o U C cd U N y cd U > Q b W InA, m W p, cd A cd > Ubb �". cd > � o 0 3 0 q �; c.2 o C o S 0 w 'C 0 � � 1.. cj p 'ZZ cn C N 0 O 'p fU. 0 cO E •U a) p O p rn 41 N 64 � '. N - t. i ago.? a i s i U 'b o o , Ow 04 00I— �� Q i b3 ate, TraMc Calming Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2000 Update 12.5 Traffic Calming Program Summary The Traffic Calming Program for the greater Bozeman area should provide a regular and ongoing opportunity for neighborhoods to nominate, test, and implement improvements to address problems with the local street network. The process should be standardized to minimize administrative effort and cost, while ensuring that improvements are necessary, effective and safe. The process should be repeated as necessary to ensure that resident concerns are addressed with reasonable timeliness, and that projects are advanced in an orderly and efficient manner. Sample forms necessary throughout this procedure are included in the Appendix for easy access by the public. Traffic calming is a physical construction designed to reinforce the perceived need for caution by the user of the transportation system. The primary responsibility for safe use of the streets lies with the individual driver, cyclist, or pedestrian. The need for physical traffic calming devices indicates a consistent occurrence of failure by the transportation user to appropriately interact with their surroundings. It is likely that the large majority of traffic calming issues will focus on traffic problems that occur within the city limits. Therefore, this program has been developed with the City in mind. It is also very possible that similar problems will arise within the County jurisdiction. In those cases the same program should be implemented with the County, assuming the same role applies as that described for the city. Traffic calming projects depend on the strong support by residents in the immediate area. Traffic calming methods should also be used only to address real, rather than perceived, problems. For these and other related reasons, traffic calming projects should meet several criteria before being considered for implementation. These criteria are outlined in Chapter 14, "Implementation Strategy," later in this report. The Traffic Calming Program is a three-phase process consisting of 12 individual steps. The main activities of each of the phases are as follows: Phase I) identification and verification of a traffic problem; Phase II) selection and implementation of educational activities and enforcement techniques; and Phase III) selection and implementation of physical traffic calming measures. Each phase requires the participation of the neighborhood residents, the City, and the City Engineering Department. In the first phase, the residents are responsible for contacting the City, identifying their concerns, and submitting a project application. At this point the City Engineer will make initial contacts with the residents, and conduct informal meetings to better understand the nature of the problem. The City Engineer will then perform preliminary studies to validate the perceived problem, and determine whether or not the process should advance. During Phase II, the City Engineer will facilitate a neighborhood meeting at which the City will present a range of appropriate educational activities and enforcement alternatives. The City Engineer will work with the neighborhood residents to identify a preferred solution. The Robert Peccia &Associates 12-12 TraMc Calming Greater Bo eniati Area Transportation Plan 2000 Update residents will then be responsible for circulating a petition and fostering support for the identified solution. Phase III responsibilities will be divided similarly to those in Phase II, although the solutions being discussed at this point will be applicable physical devices. When a permanent solution is selected, the City Engineer will determine the appropriate funding sources based on the nature of the problem. Traffic calming projects will be financed on a case-by-case basis. Residents should expect to pay some portion of the cost of installing permanent traffic calming devices in their neighborhood. 12.6 Traffic Calming Program for Existing Streets The following is a recommended three-phase procedure for implementing traffic calming measures on existing facilities. In order to accommodate seasonal changes, special events or any other irregular circumstances, the process may be altered or accelerated at the discretion of the City Engineer. Phase I Step 1: A Citizen contacts the City Engineering Department about a traffic problem. The City Engineer responds by sending the Citizen information about the Traffic Calming Program and an Investigation Request Form. Step 2: The Citizen completes the "Investigation Request Form" and returns it to the City Engineer. The form should include a description of the problem and location, as well as the signatures of 10 other neighborhood residents who agree that the problem exists. A Neighborhood Contact is also identified on the form. After receipt of the form, the City Engineer contacts neighborhood residents to discuss the nature of the perceived problem. The information gathered in this step helps determine the types of studies needed to be performed in Step 3. Step 3: The City Engineer conducts a field review of the location, and collects the appropriate data in order to determine whether or not the perceived problem actually exists. In most cases, accident records should be reviewed, and traffic volumes measured. Depending upon the nature of the complaint, a speed study, truck count, or cut- through study may also be appropriate. In order to be considered for a traffic calming project, the location must have traffic volumes of at least 300 vehicles per day. It must meet at least one of the following criteria: three or more accidents in a 12-month period; an 85th percentile speed that is at least five (5) miles per hour over the posted speed limit; truck volumes exceeding 10 percent of the total traffic volume; or greater than 50 percent cut-through traffic during any single hour of the day. After the field data is collected and reviewed, the City Engineer informs the Neighborhood Contact of the results. If the location does not meet the above criteria, the City Engineer meets with neighborhood residents to review the study results and discuss other options. At this point, Robert Peccia &Associates 12-13 Traffic Calming Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2000 Update the Traffic Calming Program is concluded. If the problem location meets the required criteria, the City Engineer reviews the Phase II process with the Neighborhood Contact. Phase II Step 4: The City Engineer determines the boundaries of the affected neighborhood. Neighborhood boundaries will typically follow arterial streets or other natural breaks. The City Engineer schedules a neighborhood meeting to discuss possible Phase II solutions to the problem. The City Engineer gives the Neighborhood Contact a map of the designated boundaries so he/she can inform area residents of the meeting. At the meeting, the City Engineer presents a range of appropriate measures. Potential Phase II measures will emphasize the least intrusive measures, consisting of enforcement, educational activities, and/or minor physical changes (brush trimming, and sign or pavement marking installation). Step 5: The Neighborhood Contact circulates a Phase II Petition within the defined boundaries. The petition identifies the proposed education and enforcement techniques, and asks residents to indicate their approval. If the petition is not signed by 40 percent of the property owners within the defined neighborhood, the process is terminated. If the petition is signed by at least 40 percent of the property owners, the City and/or Neighborhood will then implement the Phase II measures. Step 6: Approximately 90 days after implementation of the Phase lI measures, the City repeats the data collection efforts. (This 90-day period may be modified by the City to accommodate seasonal conditions and other factors.) If the problem has been resolved, the education and enforcement activities can be tapered off and the process concluded. If the situation arises again at a later date, as confirmed by data, the process can begin again at Step 6. Phase III Step 7: If the traffic problem has not been resolved by the Phase II measures, the City Engineer conducts an engineering study to determine a range of appropriate physical improvements to the location. Initially, less restrictive measures such as vertical or horizontal deflection of the roadway are preferable to roadway obstruction techniques. Step 8: The City Engineer schedules a neighborhood meeting to review the Phase III improvement options. The Neighborhood Contact is responsible for notifying area residents about the meeting. The City Engineer facilitates the neighborhood meeting. Based on resident input, a preferred solution is selected from the range of possible solutions. If a temporary version of this traffic-calming device is not practical, proceed to Step 11. Step 9: If a temporary traffic-calming device is suitable, the Neighborhood Contact circulates a Phase III Petition for Temporary Measures. The process ends if the petition is not Robert Peccia &Associates 12-14 Traffic Calmirap Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2000 Update signed by 50 percent of the property owners within the defined boundaries. If at least 50 percent of the property owners sign the petition, the City constructs a temporary version of the preferred traffic-calming device. Step 10: After one year, the City repeats the data collection process to determine whether or not the temporary device is effective. If it is found to not be effective, the City Engineer notifies the Neighborhood Contact, and the device is removed. The process can then be repeated from Step 7. Step 11: If the temporary device is effective, the City Engineer develops a preliminary design and cost estimate for a permanent traffic calming device(s), and determines who will finance the permanent solution. The City then provides Neighborhood Contact with this information and indicates that the area property owners are receptive to a Petition for Permanent Measures. Step 12: The Neighborhood Contact circulates a Phase III Petition for Permanent Measures, which includes a copy of the preliminary design and cost estimate, as well as an explanation of financial responsibility. If the petition is not signed by 70 percent of the area property owners, the process is terminated and any temporary devices removed. If at least 70 percent of the property owners sign the petition, the City Engineer performs a final design, and constructs a permanent traffic-calming device. There are numerous points at which the traffic calming implementation process can be terminated due to lack of neighborhood support. Should neighborhood sentiment change at a later date, the process may be resumed at the same step where it left off. Protect Costs Traffic problems on existing streets are usually caused by one of the following situations: poor initial street design; inadequacy of the major street network; or commercial and/or residential development adjacent to the neighborhood. The cost of financing traffic calming projects to resolve such problems should be distributed accordingly. As part of the initial investigation, the nature and cause of the traffic problem will be identified. The City will use this information to determine the appropriate division of project costs and identify who (the City, neighborhood residents, developers, other parties), should be involved in paying for the traffic calming measures. In general, the costs of Steps 1 through 11 will be borne by the City. Permanent Phase III construction (Step 12) will typically be financed by some combination of neighborhood contributions, development fees, City funds (possibly CTEP monies), and funds from other sources. The proportion of City funds versus other monies will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Robert Peccia &Associates 12-15 Traffic Calming Greater Syu'nrcui Area Transportation Plan, 2000 Update Removal of Permanent Traffic Calming Devices In order to remove a permanent traffic calming device, the Neighborhood Contact must submit a Petition for Removal of Traffic Calming Measures that has been signed by 90 percent of property owners within the affected neighborhood. The neighborhood residents will be responsible for paying the cost of removing traffic calming devices. Robert Peccia &Associates 12-16 Chapter 13 ' Financial Analysis i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 13: Financial Analysis ' 13.1 Background The previous chapters of this Plan identify problems with the transportation system and ' recommended appropriate corrective measures. This chapter focuses on the financial mechanisms that are traditionally used to finance transportation improvements. 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 anticipated road development needs of the community, it is apparent that a greater amount of the 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 Urban Planning Section of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). The intent is to identify the traditional federal, state and local sources of ' funds available for funding 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 the use of the funds. ' 13.2 Funding Sources The following list includes federal and state funding sources developed for the distribution of Federal and State transportation funding. This includes Federal funds the State receives under ' the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21). 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. A narrative description of each source is provided in the following ' sections of this chapter. 13.2.1 Federal Funding Sources 1 � IM - Interstate Maintenance NHS -National Highway System ' STPP - Surface Transportation Program -Primary I STPS —Surface Transportation Program-Secondary STPU- Surface Transportation Program-Urban ' STPHS - Surface Transportation Program -Hazard Elimination STPRP—Rail/Highway Crossing Protective Devices Program STPRR—Rail/Highway Crossing Elimination of Hazard Program ' CTEP—Community Transportation Enhancement Program Robert Peccia &Associates ' 13-1 1 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update , CMAQ—Congestion Mitigation &Air Quality Improvement Program A) Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MAGI) - Discretionary Program B) MDT - Discretionary Air Quality Program ' HBRRP—Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program A) On-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program B) Off-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program ' 13.2.2 State Funding Sources SFC — State Funded Construction Funds , State Fuel Tax Funds - City and County 13.2.3 Local Funding Sources , City Funds , County Road Funds Private Funds 1 13.3 Federal Aid Funding Programs The Federal-Aid System identifies which routes are eligible for the various federal highway ' funding assistance programs. The following federally funded transportation programs are available for possible use in financing the recommended improvements included in this Plan. IM - Interstate Maintenance ' The Interstate Maintenance (IM) program is designed for projects on the Interstate System involving resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating existing roadway. The federal share for any , eligible IM project is 91.24 percent; the state's responsibility is for the remaining 8.76 percent. The state's percentage is funded through the state Special Revenue Account. In addition to resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating existing roads, reconstruction or , rehabilitation of bridges, existing interchanges, and over-crossings also qualify as eligible activities. Construction of new travel lanes other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or ' new interchanges are not eligible for funding under the IM program. Preventive maintenance activities are eligible when a state can demonstrate, through its pavement management system, that such activities are a cost-effective means of extending interstate pavement life. ' The Montana Transportation Commission approves the fund apportionment to the statewide Interstate Maintenance program. The IM funds are distributed throughout the financial districts ' based solely on need. However, consideration is given to balancing needs against existing and future construction manpower when distributing the funds. The only highway eligible for use of the IM funds in the Bozeman area is Interstate 90. ' Robert Peccia &Associates 13-2 ' Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. 2001 Update NHS - National Highway System 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 requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel. The National Highway System is composed of all interstate routes, a large percentage of urban g Y Y P g P g and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and strategic highway connectors. The federal share for any eligible NHS project is 86.58 percent; the state is responsible for the remaining share of 13.42 percent. The state share is funded through the state ' Special Revenue account. Activities eligible for NHS funding include construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of segments of 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: research; planning; carpool projects; bikeways; and pedestrian walkways. The Montana Transportation Commission approves the fund apportionment to the National ' Highway System projects. The NHS funds are distributed throughout the financial districts based solely on need. However, consideration is given to balancing needs against existing and future construction manpower when distributing the funds. The eligible National Highway Routes in the Bozeman area are: ' Interstate 90, P-50/US 191 —Four Corners—South, and P-85/MT 85 —Four Corners to Belgrade. STPP- Surface Transportation Program - Primary 1 The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance specific transportation projects on the state designated Primary Highway System. Of the total funds received, 86.58 percent is federal. The balance, 13.42 percent, is state funds disbursed from the ' state's Special Revenue account. Primary funds are distributed statewide to each of five financial districts. Prior to the beginning of each biennium, the Montana Transportation Commission designates levels of sufficiency; one of which it considers adequate, and another it considers critical. The MDT then computes the ratio between the Primary System mileage rated below adequate sufficiency within each ' financial district, and the total Primary System mileage rated below the adequate level statewide. Another ratio is computed of the Primary System mileage rated at-or-below critical in each district to total Primary System mileage rated at-or-below critical statewide. The MDT ' distributes three-fourths of the total Primary System funds among the five financial districts Robert Peccia &Associates 13-3 1 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan,2001 Update based on the adequate sufficiency ratio, and one-fourth based on the "at or below" critical sufficiency ratio. No financial district can receive more than one-third of the total Primary System funds. In the event that a district would receive more than one-third of the available primary system funds based on the adequate and critical ratios, the funds in excess of one-third are redistributed among the remaining districts. The Transportation Commission establishes priorities for the use of Primary funds. Eligible activities include but are not limited to construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration and operational improvements on the state's designated Primary Highway System. Primary routes near Bozeman and in Gallatin County include: P-501US 191 —Four Corners to Bozeman, P-86/MT 86—Bozeman to Wilsall, and P-84/MT 84—Four Corners to Gallatin County line (towards Norris). STPS - Surface Transportation Program - Secondary The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance specific transportation projects on the state designated Secondary Highway System. Of the total received, 86.58 percent is federal, and 13.42 percent is state funds that come from the state Special Revenue Account. The Transportation Commission distributes Secondary funds each fiscal year to the five financial districts. Distribution is based on the following: 1) 30 percent in the ratio of land area in each district to the total land area in the state. 2) 35 percent in the ratio of the rural population in each district to the total rural population in the state. 3) 30 percent in the ratio of rural road mileage in each district to the total rural road mileage in the state. 4) 5 percent in the ratio of the rural bridge square footage in each district to the total rural bridge square footage in the state. The Montana Department of Transportation, in cooperation with county commissioners from the affected district, will determine priorities within each district. Eligible activities for the use of secondary funds will fall under three major types of improvements: Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Pavement Preservation. The Reconstruction and Rehabilitation categories will be allocated at least 65 percent of the program funds, with the remaining 35 percent dedicated to Pavement Preservation. Secondary Highway System routes within Gallatin County eligible for the use of these funds include: Robert Peccia &Associates 13-4 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update S-205 - Frontage Road; S-411 —Springhill Road; S-412 —North 19"; S-345 —South 19`h; and S-235 —Valley Center. STPU - Surface Transportation Program -Urban The Montana Department of Transportation distributes STPU funds to 14 urban areas; the amount each area receives is based upon population data. Of the total received, 86.58 percent is federal, and 13.42 percent is a state match. The state match portion comes from the Special Revenue Account that is funded principally by fuel taxes and GVW fees. The STPU funds are used primarily for major street construction, reconstruction and traffic operation projects on the State-designated Urban Highway System. Priorities for the use of STPU funds are established at the local level through established planning processes. In Bozeman, the Transportation Coordinating Committee provides final approval of the priorities. The balance of the Bozeman STPU program at the end of FFY 2000 was $878,836. The annual allocation of Urban funds for Bozeman projects is $555,994 (total dollars, Federal plus State match), through FFY 2003 when the current transportation bill (TEA-21) expires. We assume this allocation will remain constant through the life of this plan. There is a need to update the Federal-Aid System for the Bozeman area with respect to the Federal-Aid Urban routes. According to MDT, it is Manning to review and update the urban limits of Bozeman some time during 2001. The city limits have changed during the past decade, which creates the need to update the urban limits boundary. It is recommended that, at a minimum, all principal and minor arterial routes located within the revised urban limits boundary be placed on the Federal-Aid Urban (FAU) system. STPHS - Surface Transportation Program - Hazard Elimination The purpose of the Federal Hazard Elimination Program is to identify hazardous locations throughout the states' highway system, assign benefit-to-cost ratio priorities for the correction of these hazards, and implement a schedule of projects for their improvements. Hazard elimination projects are funded with 90 percent federal funds, and 10 percent state funds. Projects eligible for funding under the hazard elimination program include any safety improvement project on any public road; any public surface transportation facility or any publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail; or any traffic calming measure. The MDT Safety Bureau selects the projects by identifying high hazard sites through the analysis of law enforcement,accident reports. Sites with a cluster of accidents over time are field reviewed, with an ensuing determination of an appropriate type of corrective action. The cost of the proposed hazard elimination project is compared with the potential benefit of the action. Once the benefit- to-cost ratio is calculated for all high hazard sites statewide, the projects are prioritized from highest to lowest need. The projects are then funded in order of priority until the yearly funds are exhausted. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-5 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update STPRP- Rail/Highway Crossing Protective Devices Program The purpose of the federal Rail/Highway Crossing — Protective Devices Program is to identify high hazard rail crossing sites and install new rail crossing signals. The MDT's Rail/Highway Safety Manager is responsible for surveying, identifying and prioritizing those railroad crossings that require new protective devices, or upgrading of existing devices. The funds are distributed on a statewide basis determined by a priority list ranked by a hazard index. The federal/state ratio is 90 percent federal and 10 percent state. STPRR - Rail/Hij!hway Crossing Elimination of Hazard Program The purpose of the federal Rail/Highway Crossing—Elimination of Hazard Program is to identify high hazard rail crossing sites, and to construct new rail/highway grade crossings. The Program also utilizes funds to rehabilitate existing grade separations. Possible expenditures include the separation or protection at grade crossings, reconstruction of existing crossings, and relocation of highways to eliminate crossings. Projects for this program are selected by identifying those sites where only a grade separation will eliminate an identified hazard, or where an existing grade separation exists but needs rehabilitation or replacement. Since funding for this program is limited, STPRR funds are often used in combination with other federal funding sources (i.e., NHS, STPP, etc.), in order to accomplish costly grade separation projects. Grade separation projects are funded with 90 percent federal funds and 10 percent state funds. HBRRP - Highway Brid�*e Replacement and Rehabilitation Program This program provides funding for the rehabilitation and replacement of deficient bridges. The funding, eligibility requirements, and project selection for this program are divided into two categories, depending upon whether the bridge is located "on-system" or "off-system". The On-System Bridge program receives funding through the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The On-System Bridge program receives 65 percent of the HBRRP funds. The remaining 35 percent is allocated to the Off-System Bridge program. In general, On-System Bridge projects are funded with 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent state funds. Projects eligible for funding under the On-System Bridge program include all highway bridges on the state system. The bridges are eligible for rehabilitation or replacement. In addition, painting and seismic retrofitting are also eligible under this program. A structurally deficient bridge is eligible for rehabilitating or replacement; a functionally obsolete bridge is eligible only for rehabilitation; and a bridge rated as sufficient is not eligible for funding under this program. The MDT's Bridge Bureau assigns a priority for replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete structures based upon sufficiency ratings assigned to each bridge. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-6 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan,2001 Update The Off-System Bridge program receives funding through the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. As stated above, the On-System Bridge program receives 65 percent of the HBRRP funds. The remaining 35 percent is allocated to the Off- System Bridge program. Off-System Bridge projects are funded with 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent state funds. Projects eligible for funding under the Off-System Bridge program include all bridges not "on- system," at least 20 feet in length, and have a sufficiency rating of less than 80. The procedures for selecting bridges for inclusion in this program are based upon a ranking system that weighs various elements of a structure's condition. County priorities are also considered. The MDT Bridge Bureau personnel conduct a field inventory of off-system bridges on a two-year cycle. The field inventory provides information used to calculate the Sufficiency Rating. CTEP - Community Transportation Enhancement Program The Federal Funds available under this Montana program are used to finance transportation projects that enhance the present surface transportation system. Projects must be located on public property or on property to be procured for public use. Eligible activities, or categories, are: • Pedestrian and Bicycle facilities; • Acquisition of scenic easements and historic or scenic sites; • Scenic or historic highway programs; • Landscaping and other scenic beautification; • Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including railroads); • Historic preservation; • Archaeological planning and research; • Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff; • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use for pedestrian or bicycle trails); and • Control and removal of outdoor advertising. Newly eligible activities/categories with the passage of TEA-21 include: • Safety education activities for pedestrians and bicyclists; • Establishment of transportation museums; and • Projects that reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality. The Federal share for CTEP projects and activities is 86.58 percent, with a required local match of 13.42 percent. Under CTEP (TEA-21), Gallatin County is allocated $152,147 annually (total dollars, federal plus local match). The City of Bozeman is allocated $148,343 annually (total dollars, federal plus local match). The Bozeman Area currently has a balance of $64,243 (City of Bozeman), and $155,839 (Gallatin County) for this program. The balances represent funds not obligated towards a selected project. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-7 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update CMAO— Congestion Mitigation & Air Ouality Improvement Program The federal funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Eligible activities include transit improvements; traffic signal synchronization; bike/pedestrian projects; intersection improvements; travel demand management strategies; traffic flow improvements; and public fleet conversions to cleaner fuels. At the project level, the use of CMAQ Funds is not constrained to a particular roadway system (i.e., State Primary, State Urban, and NHS). Of the total received, 86.58 percent is federal and 13.42 percent is non-Federal match. A requirement for the use of these funds is the estimation of the reduction in pollutants resulting from implementing the program or project. These estimates are documented on an annual report submitted to the FHWA. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century provided for significantly more flexibility in the use of CMAQ funds. Prior to TEA-21, almost all CMAQ funds had to be used in Missoula. The MDT has directed approximately 90 percent of Montana's CMAQ apportionment to three state programs. Bozeman is considered an eligible area under two of the state programs: A) Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI)—Discretionary Program Bozeman has been identified as "high risk" for becoming non-attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in size (PM-10) for Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) adquality. As such, Bozeman is eligible to participate in the MACI Discretionary Program based on its "high risk" designation. Projects using MACI Discretionary Funds are selected through a proposal process administered by MDT's Transportation Planning Division. Projects will be prioritized and selected amongst all eligible areas based on air quality benefits. B) MDT Discretionary Air Quality Program The MDT Discretionary Air Quality Program provides funding for projects that are on State-maintained highways (statewide) that are designated non-attainment, or recognized as being "high-risk" for becoming non-attainment. Projects using MDT Discretionary Air Quality Funds are nominated by the MDT District Administrators, and are prioritized and selected based upon a number of factors. 13.4 State Funding Programs There are two principal state funding programs available to potentially finance some of the improvements recommended in this Plan. These programs are described below. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-8 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update SFC —State Funded Construction Funds The Pavement Preservation Program, funded totally with state fuel tax dollars, provides funding for state construction projects. Projects that are ineligible for federal funding participation are funded with these dollars. The program funds projects on the Primary and Secondary highway systems to preserve the condition, and to extend the service life of the pavement. The type of work consists entirely of overlays and/or seal and covers. Eligibility requirements include that the highway be maintained by the State. The Transportation Commission establishes the priorities for the program. This state-funded program requires no match. The MDT staff selects the projects based on pavement preservation needs. State Fuel Tax The State of Montana assesses a tax of $0.27 per gallon on gasoline and diesel fuel used for transportation purposes. According to state law, each incorporated city and town within the state receives an allocation of the total tax funds 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.) '�i State law also establishes that each county be allocated a percentage of the total tax funds 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 2001, the City of Bozeman will receive $501,025, and Gallatin County will receive $235,900 in state fuel tax funds. The amount varies annually, but the current level provides a reasonable base for projection throughout the planning period. 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. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-9 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 13.5 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 relate to transportation financing through the city and county. 13.5.1 City of Bozeman General Fund This fund provides revenue for most major city functions like the administration of local government, and the departments of public services, including police, fire, and parks. Revenues for the fund are generated through the general fund mill levy on real and personal property and motor vehicles; licenses and permits; state and federal intergovernmental revenues; intergovernmental fund transfers; and charges for services. Several transportation-related services are supported by this fund including public services (engineering and streets) and the City` of Bozeman Police Department. The street department is responsible for maintaining the city streets and alleys including: pavement repair, street cleaning, striping and signing, lighting and traffic signal maintenance, and plowing and sanding during the winter. In addition to revenue from the General Fund, some revenue used to operate the street department is generated from gas tax funds and street maintenance district funds. The police department is obviously responsible for enforcing traffic laws on the street system. Although most of the highway-designated monies are oriented toward maintenance activities, some new construction and street-widening projects may be financed through the General Fund. This revenue source has been used in conjunction with other resources to finance local street and highway projects. The city is currently using the General Fund to provide some transit financing assistance to Gal-A-Van. There is a dedicated mill levy for this purpose generating about $15,000 annually. 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. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-10 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. 2001 Update 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. Gas Tax Apportionment Revenues are generated through State gasoline taxes apportioned from the State of Montana. Transfers are made from this fund to the General Fund to reimburse expenditures for construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of streets. Half of the City's allocation is based upon population, and half is based on the miles of streets and alleys in the City. The City Gas Tax Fund received an allocation of approximately $500,000 for FY 2000. Development Impact Fees These fees are paid by developers to help finance improvements to the Major Street Network. The fee structure is based upon the number of residential units or gross square footage of commercial buildings being constructed. Developer Exactions Road construction or roadway improvements are performed by developers as a condition of approval for their development project. Improvements are typically limited to the local roads within, and the road system adjacent to, the proposed development. Bozeman Parking Commission Monthly lease rental payments and meter collections fund this program. Revenues are used to fund parking improvements in the downtown area. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Downtown Bozeman is a current TIF-funded improvement district. The funds generated from the TIF could be used to finance projects including street and parking improvements; tree planting; installation of new bike racks; trash containers and benches; and other streetscape beautification projects within the downtown area. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-11 Financial Analvsis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 13.5.2 Gallatin County Road Fund The County Road Fund provides for the construction, maintenance, and repair of all county roads outside the corporate limits of cities and towns in Gallatin County. Revenue for this fund comes from intergovernmental transfers (i.e., State gas tax apportionment and motor vehicle taxes), and a mill levy assessed against county residents living outside cities and towns. The county mill levy has a ceiling limit of 15 mills. Gallatin County's FY 2000 state gas tax apportionment added approximately $235,000 to the Road Fund. County Road Fund monies are primarily used for maintenance with little allocated for new road construction. It should be noted that only a small percentage of the total miles on the county road system are located in the study area. Projects eligible for financing through this fund will be competing for available revenues on a county-wide basis. Bridge Fund The Bridge Fund provides financing for engineering services, capital outlays, and necessary maintenance for bridges on all off-system and Secondary routes within the county. These monies are generated through intergovernmental fund transfers (i.e., vehicle licenses and fees), and a county-wide mill levy. There is a taxable limit of four mills for this fund. Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds may be used by the county to budget and distribute revenues legally restricted to a specific purpose. Several such funds that benefit the transportation system are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Capital Improvements Fund This fund is used to finance major capital improvements to county infrastructure. Revenues are generated by loans from other county funds, and must be repaid within ten years. Major road construction projects are eligible for this type of financing. Rural Special Improvement District(RSID) Revolving Fund This fund is used to administer and distribute monies for specified RSID projects. Revenue for this fund is generated primarily through a mill levy and through motor vehicle taxes and fees. A mill levy is assessed only when delinquent bond payments dictate such an action. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-12 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update Special Bond Funds A fund of this type may be established by the county on an as-needed basis for a particularly expensive project. The voters must approve authorization for a special bond fund. The county is not currently using this mechanism. Specialized Transportation Fund This type of fund may be established to supplement the cost of transit service to disabled or low-income county residents. The county is not currently using this mechanism. 13.5.3 Private Funding Sources and Alternatives Private financing of highway 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 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. Development Financing The developer provides the land for a transportation project and in return, local government provides the capital, construction, and necessary traffic control. Such a financing measure can be made voluntary or mandatory for developers. 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. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-13 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Private Donations The private donation of money, property, or services to mitigate identified development impacts is the most common type of private transportation 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 bonded indebtedness for cities and counties restrict the use of G.O. bonds. Bozeman used G.O. bonds to implement some of the improvements recommended in the 1993 Transportation Plan Update. 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. Development Exactions/Impact Fees As mentioned in the section on city funding sources, exaction of fees or other considerations from developers in return for allowing development to occur can be an excellent mechanism for improving the transportation infrastructure. The County is currently using this funding mechanism. Developer exactions and fees allow growth to pay for itself. The developers of new properties should be required to provide at least a portion of the added transportation system capacity necessitated by their development, or to make some cash contribution to the agency responsible for implementing the needed system improvements. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-14 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update Establishment of an equitable fee structure would be required to assess developers based upon the level of impact to the transportation system expected from each project. Such a fee structure could be based upon the number of additional vehicle trips generated, or upon a fundamental measure such as square footage of floor space. Once the mechanism is in place, all new development would be reviewed by the local government and fees assessed accordingly. 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. 13.6 Summary of Current Financial Status Current financial information was obtained from the MDT 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 13-1. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-15 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update TABLE 13-1 Projected Funding Available for Transportation Projects Current Current Projected Revenue Revenue Funding Source Account Annual Annual Projection Projection Balance Allocation Allocation 2010 2020 STP- Urban $878,836* $555,994 $555,994** $ 6.44 M*** $ 12.0 M*** STP- Primary $ 2.0 M**** $ 4.0 M**** STP-Secondary $ 1.0 M**** $ 2.0 M**** CTEP -City $ 64,243* $ 148,343 $ 148,343** $ 2.12 M*** $ 3.6 M*** CTEP -County $ 155,839* $ 152,147 $ 152,147** $ 1.67 M*** $ 3.2 M*** NHS $ 5.0 M**** $ 10.0 M**** CMAO $ 1.0 M**** $ 2.0 M**** City General Fund $ 1.0 M**** $ 2.0 M**** County Road Fund $ 0.5 M**** $ 1.0 M**** Other( Private, SID, $20.0 M**** $ 40.0 M**** RSID,TIF, etc.) TOTAL $ 40.73M $ 79.8 M Notes: Although TEA-21 only provides for Federal funding through FFY2003, 2010 and 2020 projections are based on continuance of current levels of funding unless otherwise noted. Estimated Federal fund allocations do not incline amounts of any required local matching funds. FTA,Planning, and State Gas Tax funds are not included in this table, but are discussed under the appropriate previous section of this chapter. * Unobligated Carryover Balance(9/2000)per MDT Urban Planning ** Allocations beyond TEA-21 (9/30/2003)are being estimated based on current allocation levels. ***Year 2010 and 2020 estimates are based on the current carryover plus annual allocations equal to the current annual allocations. 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 TEA-21. **** Revenues projections are based on estimates provided by MDT, City, and County staff. It is understood that these estimated funds may not be available for the transportation improvements included in this plan. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-16 Chapter 13 Financial Analysis Financial Analvsis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 13: Financial Analysis 13.1 Background The previous chapters of this Plan identify problems with the transportation system and recommended appropriate corrective measures. This chapter focuses on the financial mechanisms that are traditionally used to finance transportation improvements. 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 anticipated road development needs of the community, it is apparent that a greater amount of the 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 Urban Planning Section of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT). The intent is to identify the traditional federal, state and local sources of funds available for funding 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 the use of the funds. 13.2 Funding Sources The following list includes federal and state funding sources developed for the distribution of Federal and State transportation funding. This includes Federal funds the State receives under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). 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. A narrative description of each source is provided in the following sections of this chapter. 13.2.1 Federal Funding Sources IM - Interstate Maintenance NHS -National Highway System STPP - Surface Transportation Program -Primary STPS —Surface Transportation Program-Secondary STPU - Surface Transportation Program -Urban STPHS - Surface Transportation Program -Hazard Elimination STPRP—Rail/Highway Crossing Protective Devices Program STPRR—Rail/Highway Crossing Elimination of Hazard Program CTEP—Community Transportation Enhancement Program Robert Peccia &Associates 13-1 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update CMAQ—Congestion Mitigation &Air Quality Improvement Program A) Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) - Discretionary Program B) MDT - Discretionary Air Quality Program HBRRP—Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program A) On-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program B) Off-System Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 13.2.2 State Funding Sources SFC—State Funded Construction Funds State Fuel Tax Funds - City and County 13.2.3 Local Funding Sources City Funds County Road Funds Private Funds 13.3 Federal Aid Funding Programs The Federal-Aid System identifies which routes are eligible for the various federal highway funding assistance programs. The following federally funded transportation programs are available for possible use in financing the recommended improvements included in this Plan. IM - Interstate Maintenance The Interstate Maintenance (IM) program is designed for projects on the Interstate System involving resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating existing roadway. The federal share for any eligible IM project is 91.24 percent; the state's responsibility is for the remaining 8.76 percent. The state's percentage is funded through the state Special Revenue Account. In addition to resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating existing roads, reconstruction or rehabilitation of bridges, existing interchanges, and over-crossings also qualify as eligible activities. Construction of new travel lanes other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or new interchanges are not eligible for funding under the IM program. Preventive maintenance activities are eligible when a state can demonstrate, through its pavement management system, that such activities are a cost-effective means of extending interstate pavement life. The Montana Transportation Commission approves the fund apportionment to the statewide Interstate Maintenance program. The IM funds are distributed throughout the financial districts based solely on need. However, consideration is given to balancing needs against existing and future construction manpower when distributing the funds. The only highway eligible for use of the IM funds in the Bozeman area is Interstate 90. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-2 Financial Analvsis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update NHS - National Highway System 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 requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel. The National Highway System is composed of all interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and strategic highway connectors. The federal share for any eligible NHS project is 86.58 percent; the state is responsible for the remaining share of 13.42 percent. The state share is funded through the state Special Revenue account. Activities eligible for NHS funding include construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of segments of 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: research; planning; carpool projects; bikeways; and pedestrian walkways. The Montana Transportation Commission approves the fund apportionment to the National Highway System projects. The NHS funds are distributed throughout the financial districts based solely on need. However, consideration is given to balancing needs against existing and future construction manpower when distributing the funds. The eligible National Highway Routes in the Bozeman area are: Interstate 90, P-50/US 191 —Four Corners—South, and P-85/MT 85 —Four Corners to Belgrade. STPP - Surface Transportation Program - Primary The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance specific transportation projects on the state designated Primary Highway System. Of the total funds received, 86.58 percent is federal. The balance, 13.42 percent, is state funds disbursed from the state's Special Revenue account. Primary funds are distributed statewide to each of five financial districts. Prior to the beginning of each biennium, the Montana Transportation Commission designates levels of sufficiency; one of which it considers adequate, and another it considers critical. The MDT then computes the ratio between the Primary System mileage rated below adequate sufficiency within each financial district, and the total Primary System mileage rated below the adequate level statewide. Another ratio is computed of the Primary System mileage rated at-or-below critical in each district to total Primary System mileage rated at-or-below critical statewide. The MDT distributes three-fourths of the total Primary System funds among the five financial districts Robert Peccia &Associates 13-3 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update based on the adequate sufficiency ratio, and one-fourth based on the "at or below" critical sufficiency ratio. No financial district can_receive more than one-third of the total Primary System funds. In the event that a district would receive more than one-third of the available primary system funds based on the adequate and critical ratios, the funds in excess of one-third are redistributed among the remaining districts. The Transportation Commission establishes priorities for the use of Primary funds. Eligible activities include but are not limited to construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration and operational improvements on the state's designated Primary Highway System. Primary routes near Bozeman and in Gallatin County include: P-50/US 191 —Four Corners to Bozeman, P-86/MT 86—Bozeman to Wilsall, and P-84/MT 84—Four Corners to Gallatin County line (towards Norris). STPS - Surface TranMortation Program - Secondary The Federal and State funds available under this program are used to finance specific transportation projects on the state designated Secondary Highway System. Of the total received, 86.58 percent is federal, and 13.42 percent is state funds that come from the state Special Revenue Account. The Transportation Commission distributes Secondary funds each fiscal year to the five financial districts. Distribution is based on the following: 1) 30 percent in the ratio of land area in each district to the total land area in the state. 2) 35 percent in the ratio of the rural population in each district to the total rural population in the state. 3) 30 percent in the ratio of rural road mileage in each district to the total rural road mileage in the state. 4) 5 percent in the ratio of the rural bridge square footage in each district to the total rural bridge square footage in the state. The Montana Department of Transportation, in cooperation with county commissioners from the affected district, will determine priorities within each district. Eligible activities for the use of secondary funds will fall under three major types of improvements: Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Pavement Preservation. The Reconstruction and Rehabilitation categories will be allocated at least 65 percent of the program funds, with the remaining 35 percent dedicated to Pavement Preservation. Secondary Highway System routes within Gallatin County eligible for the use of these funds include: Robert Peccia &Associates 13-4 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update S-205 -Frontage Road; S-411 —Springhill Road; S-412—North 19th; S-345 —South 19"'; and S-235 —Valley Center. STPU - Surface Transportation Program - Urban The Montana Department of Transportation distributes STPU funds to 14 urban areas; the amount each area receives is based upon population data. Of the total received, 86.58 percent is federal, and 13.42 percent is a state match. The state match portion comes from the Special Revenue Account that is funded principally by fuel taxes and GVW fees. The STPU funds are used primarily for major street construction, reconstruction and traffic operation projects on the State-designated Urban Highway System. Priorities for the use of STPU funds are established at the local level through established planning processes. In Bozeman, the Transportation Coordinating Committee provides final approval of the priorities. The balance of the Bozeman STPU program at the end of FFY 2000 was $878,836. The annual allocation of Urban funds for Bozeman projects is $555,994 (total dollars, Federal plus State match), through FFY 2003 when the current transportation bill (TEA-21) expires. We assume this allocation will remain constant through the life of this plan. There is a need to update the Federal-Aid System for the Bozeman area with respect to the Federal-Aid Urban routes. According to MDT, it is planning to review and update the urban limits of Bozeman some time during 2001. The city limits have changed during the past decade, which creates the need to update the urban limits boundary. It is recommended that, at a minimum, all principal and minor arterial routes located within the revised urban limits boundary be placed on the Federal-Aid Urban (FAU) system. STPHS - Surface Transportation Program - Hazard Elimination The purpose of the Federal Hazard Elimination Program is to identify hazardous locations throughout the states' highway system, assign benefit-to-cost ratio priorities for the correction of these hazards, and implement a schedule of projects for their improvements. Hazard elimination projects are funded with 90 percent federal funds, and 10 percent state funds. Projects eligible for funding under the hazard elimination program include any safety improvement project on any public road; any public surface transportation facility or any publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail; or any traffic calming measure. The MDT Safety Bureau selects the projects by identifying high hazard sites through the analysis of law enforcement,accident reports. Sites with a cluster of accidents over time are field reviewed, with an ensuing determination of an appropriate type of corrective action. The cost of the proposed hazard elimination project is compared with the potential benefit of the action. Once the benefit- to-cost ratio is calculated for all high hazard sites statewide, the projects are prioritized from highest to lowest need. The projects are then funded in order of priority until the yearly funds are exhausted. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-5 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update STPRP - RaiVHighway Crossing Protective Devices Program The purpose of the federal Rail/Highway Crossing — Protective Devices Program is to identify high hazard rail crossing sites and install new rail crossing signals. The MDT's Rail/Highway Safety Manager is responsible for surveying, identifying and prioritizing those railroad crossings that require new protective devices, or upgrading of existing devices. The funds are distributed on a statewide basis determined by a priority list ranked by a hazard index. The federal/state ratio is 90 percent federal and 10 percent state. STPRR - RaWfflghway Crossing Elimination of Hazard Program The purpose of the federal Rail/Highway Crossing—Elimination of Hazard Program is to identify high hazard rail crossing sites, and to construct new rail/highway grade crossings. The Program also utilizes funds to rehabilitate existing grade separations. Possible expenditures include the separation or protection at grade crossings, reconstruction of existing crossings, and relocation of highways to eliminate crossings. Projects for this program are selected by identifying those sites where only a grade separation will eliminate an identified hazard, or where an existing grade separation exists but needs rehabilitation or replacement. Since funding for this program is limited, STPRR funds are often used in combination with other federal funding sources (i.e., NHS, STPP, etc.), in order to accomplish costly grade separation projects. Grade separation projects are funded with 90 percent federal funds and 10 percent state funds. HBRRP- Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program This program provides funding for the rehabilitation and replacement of deficient bridges. The funding, eligibility requirements, and project selection for this program are divided into two categories, depending upon whether the bridge is located "on-system" or "off-system". The On-System Bridge program receives funding through the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The On-System Bridge program receives 65 percent of the HBRRP funds. The remaining 35 percent is allocated to the Off-System Bridge program. In general, On-System Bridge projects are funded with 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent state funds. Projects eligible for funding under the On-System Bridge program include all highway bridges on the state system. The bridges are eligible for rehabilitation or replacement. In addition, painting and seismic retrofitting are also eligible under this program. A structurally deficient bridge is eligible for rehabilitating or replacement; a functionally obsolete bridge is eligible only for rehabilitation; and a bridge rated as sufficient is not eligible for funding under this program. The MDT's Bridge Bureau assigns a priority for replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete structures based upon sufficiency ratings assigned to each bridge. Robert Peccia&Associates 13-6 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update The Off-System Bridge program receives funding through the federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. As stated above, the On-System Bridge program receives 65 percent of the HBRRP funds. The remaining 35 percent is allocated to the Off- System Bridge program. Off-System Bridge projects are funded with 80 percent federal funds and 20 percent state funds. Projects eligible for funding under the Off-System Bridge program include all bridges not "on- system," at least 20 feet in length, and have a sufficiency rating of less than 80. The procedures for selecting bridges for inclusion in this program are based upon a ranking system that weighs various elements of a structure's condition. County priorities are also considered. The MDT Bridge Bureau personnel conduct a field inventory of off-system bridges on a two-year cycle. The field inventory provides information used to calculate the Sufficiency Rating. CTEP - Community Transportation Enhancement Program The Federal Funds available under this Montana program are used to finance transportation projects that enhance the present surface transportation system. Projects must be located on public property or on property to be procured for public use. Eligible activities, or categories, are: • Pedestrian and Bicycle facilities; • Acquisition of scenic easements and historic or scenic sites; • Scenic or historic highway programs; • Landscaping and other scenic beautification; • Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities (including railroads); • Historic preservation; • Archaeological planning and research; • Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff; • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use for pedestrian or bicycle trails); and • Control and removal of outdoor advertising. Newly eligible activities/categories with the passage of TEA-21 include: • Safety education activities for pedestrians and bicyclists; • Establishment of transportation museums; and • Projects that reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality. The Federal share for CTEP projects and activities is 86.58 percent, with a required local match of 13.42 percent. Under CTEP (TEA-21), Gallatin County is allocated $152,147 annually (total dollars, federal plus local match). The City of Bozeman is allocated $148,343 annually (total dollars, federal plus local match). The Bozeman Area currently has a balance of $64,243 (City of Bozeman), and $155,839 (Gallatin County) for this program. The balances represent funds not obligated towards a selected project. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-7 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update CMAO— Congestion Mitigation & Air Ouality Improvement Program The federal funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Eligible activities include transit improvements; traffic signal synchronization; bike/pedestrian projects; intersection improvements; travel demand management strategies; traffic flow improvements; and public fleet conversions to-cleaner fuels. - At--the-project level,-the use of CMAQ Funds is not constrained to a particular roadway system (i.e., State Primary, State Urban, and NHS). Of the total received, 86.58 percent is federal and 13.42 percent is non-Federal match. A requirement for the use of these funds is the estimation of the reduction in pollutants resulting from implementing the program or project. These estimates are documented on an annual report submitted to the FHWA. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century provided for significantly more flexibility in the use of CMAQ funds. Prior to TEA-21, almost all CMAQ funds had to be used in Missoula. The MDT has directed approximately 90 percent of Montana's CMAQ apportionment to three state programs. Bozeman is considered an eligible area under two of the state programs: A) Montana Air& Congestion Initiative (MAGI) —Discretionary Program Bozeman has been identified as "high risk" for becoming non-attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in size (PM-10) for Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) air quality. As such, Bozeman is eligible to participate in the MACI Discretionary Program based on its "high risk" designation. Projects using MACI Discretionary Funds are selected through a proposal process administered by MDT's Transportation Planning Division. Projects will be prioritized and selected amongst all eligible areas based on air quality benefits. B) MDT Discretionary Air Quality Program The MDT Discretionary Air Quality Program provides funding for projects that are on State-maintained highways (statewide) that are designated non-attainment, or recognized as being "high-risk" for becoming non-attainment. Projects using MDT Discretionary Air Quality Funds are nominated by the MDT District Administrators, and are prioritized and selected based upon a number of factors. 13.4 State Funding Programs There are two principal state funding programs available to potentially finance some of the improvements recommended in this Plan. These programs are described below. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-8 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update SFC—State Funded Construction Funds The Pavement Preservation Program, funded totally with state fuel tax dollars, provides funding for state construction projects. Projects that are ineligible for federal funding participation are funded with these dollars. The program funds projects on the Primary and Secondary highway systems to preserve the condition, and to extend the service life of the pavement. The type of work consists entirely of overlays and/or seal and covers. Eligibility requirements include that the highway be maintained by the State. The Transportation Commission establishes the priorities for the program. This state-funded program requires no match. The MDT staff selects the projects based on pavement preservation needs. State Fuel Tax The State of Montana assesses a tax of $0.27 per gallon on gasoline and diesel fuel used for transportation purposes. According to state law, each incorporated city and town within the state receives an allocation of the total tax funds 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 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 2001, the City of Bozeman will receive $501,025, and Gallatin County will receive $235,900 in state fuel tax funds. The amount varies annually, but the current level provides a reasonable base for projection throughout the planning period. 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. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-9 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update 13.5 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 relate to transportation financing through the city and county. 13.5.1 City of Bozeman General Fund This fund provides revenue for most major city functions like the administration of local government, and the departments of public services, including police, fire, and parks. Revenues for the fund are generated through the general fund mill levy on real and personal property and motor vehicles; licenses and permits; state and federal intergovernmental revenues; intergovernmental fund transfers; and charges for services. Several transportation-related services are supported by this fund including public services (engineering and streets) and the City of Bozeman Police Department. The street department is responsible for maintaining the city streets and alleys including: pavement repair, street cleaning, striping and signing, lighting and traffic signal maintenance, and plowing and sanding during the winter. In addition to revenue from the General Fund, some revenue used to operate the street department is generated from gas tax funds and street maintenance district funds. The police department is obviously responsible for enforcing traffic laws on the street system. Although most of the highway-designated monies are oriented toward maintenance activities, some new construction and street-widening projects may be financed through the General Fund. This revenue source has been used in conjunction with other resources to finance local street and highway projects. The city is currently using the General Fund to provide some transit financing assistance to Gal-A-Van. There is a dedicated mill levy for this purpose generating about $15,000 annually. 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. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-10 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan,2001 Update 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. Gas Tax Apportionment Revenues are generated through State gasoline taxes apportioned from the State of Montana. Transfers are made from this fund to the General Fund to reimburse expenditures for construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance of streets. Half of the City's allocation is based upon population, and half is based on the miles of streets and alleys in the City. The City Gas Tax Fund received an allocation of approximately $500,000 for FY 2000. Development Impact Fees These fees are paid by developers to help finance improvements to the Major Street Network. The fee structure is based upon the number of residential units or gross square footage of commercial buildings being constructed. Developer Exactions Road construction or roadway improvements are performed by developers as a condition of approval for their development project. Improvements are typically limited to the local roads within, and the road system adjacent to, the proposed development. Bozeman Parking Commission Monthly lease rental payments and meter collections fund this program. Revenues are used to fund parking improvements in the downtown area. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Downtown Bozeman is a current TIF-funded improvement district. The funds generated from the TIF could be used to finance projects including street and parking improvements; tree planting; installation of new bike racks; trash containers and benches; and other streetscape beautification projects within the downtown area. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-11 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update 13.5.2 Gallatin County Road Fund The County Road Fund provides for the construction, maintenance, and repair of all county roads outside the corporate limits of cities and towns in Gallatin County. Revenue for this fund comes from intergovernmental transfers (i.e., State gas tax apportionment and motor vehicle taxes), and a mill levy assessed against county residents living outside cities and towns. The county mill levy has a ceiling limit of 15 mills. Gallatin County's FY 2000 state gas tax apportionment added approximately $235,000 to the Road Fund. County Road Fund monies are primarily used for maintenance with little allocated for new road construction. It should be noted that only a small percentage of the total miles on the county road system are located in the study area. Projects eligible for financing through this fund will be competing for available revenues on a county-wide basis. Bridge Fund The Bridge Fund provides financing for engineering services, capital outlays, and necessary maintenance for bridges on all off-system and Secondary routes within the county. These monies are generated through intergovernmental fund transfers (i.e., vehicle licenses and fees), and a county-wide mill levy. There is a taxable limit of four mills for this fund. Special Revenue Funds Special revenue funds may be used by the county to budget and distribute revenues legally restricted to a specific purpose. Several such funds that benefit the transportation system are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Capital Improvements Fund This fund is used to finance major capital improvements to county infrastructure. Revenues are generated by loans from other county funds, and must be repaid within ten years. Major road construction projects are eligible for this type of financing. Rural Special Improvement District (RSID) Revolving Fund This fund is used to administer and distribute monies for specified RSID projects. Revenue for this fund is generated primarily through a mill levy and through motor vehicle taxes and fees. A mill levy is assessed only when delinquent bond payments dictate such an action. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-12 Financial Analysis Greater Bo enrun Area Trans ortation Plan 2001 U date Special Bond Funds A fund of this type may be established by the county on an as-needed basis for a Particularly expensive project. The voters must approve authorization for a special bond fund. The county is not currently using this mechanism. Specialized Transportation Fund This type of fund may be established to supplement the cost of transit service to disabled or low-income county residents. The county is not currently using this mechanism. 13.5.3 Private Funding Sources and Alternatives Private financing of highway 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 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. Development Financing The developer provides the land for a transportation project and in return, local government provides the capital, construction, and necessary traffic control. Such a financing measure can be made voluntary or mandatory for developers. Cost SharinLy 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. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-13 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update Private Donations The private donation of money, property, or services to mitigate identified development impacts is the most common type of private transportation 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 bonded indebtedness for cities and counties restrict the use of G.O. bonds. Bozeman used G.O. bonds to implement some of the improvements recommended in the 1993 Transportation Plan Update. 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. Development Exactions/Impact Fees As mentioned in the section on city funding sources, exaction of fees or other considerations from developers in return for allowing development to occur can be an excellent mechanism for improving the transportation infrastructure. The County is currently using this funding mechanism. Developer exactions and fees allow growth to pay for itself. The developers of new properties should be required to provide at least a portion of the added transportation system capacity necessitated by their development, or to make some cash contribution to the agency responsible for implementing the needed system improvements. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-14 Financial Analvsis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update Establishment of an equitable fee structure would be required to assess developers based upon the level of impact to the transportation system expected from each project. Such a fee structure could be based upon the number of additional vehicle trips generated, or upon a fundamental measure such as square footage of floor space. Once the mechanism is in place, all new development would be reviewed by the local government and fees assessed accordingly. 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. 13.6 Summary of Current Financial Status Current financial information was obtained from the MDT 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 13-1. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-15 Financial Analysis Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update TABLE 13-1 Pro ected Funding Available-for Transportation Projects Current Current Projected Revenue Revenue Funding Source Account Annual Annual Projection Projection Balance Allocation Allocation 2010 2020 STP Urban $-878-,836* $355?994 _$555,994" $ 6.44 M*** $ 12.0 M*** STP- Primary $ 2.0 M*'** $ 4.0 M**** STP-Secondary $ 1.0 M***" $ 2.0 M**** CTEP -City $ 64,243* $ 148,343 $ 148,343** $ 2.12 M*** $ 3.6 M*** CTEP -County $ 155,839* $ 152,147 $ 152,147** $ 1.67 M*** $ 3.2 M*** NHS $ 5.0 M**** $ 10.0 M**** CMAQ $ 1.0 M**** $ 2.0 M**** City General Fund $ 1.0 M**** $ 2.0 M**** County Road Fund $ 0.5 M*`** $ 1.0 M**** Other( Private,SID, $20.0 M**** $ 40.0 M**** RSID,TIF, etc.) TOTAL $ 40.73M $ 79.8 M Notes: Although TEA-21 only provides for Federal funding through FFY2003, 2010 and 2020 projections are based on continuance of current levels of funding unless otherwise noted. Estimated Federal fund allocations do not include amounts of any required local matching funds. FTA,Planning, and State Gas Tax funds are not included in this table, but are discussed under the appropriate previous section of this chapter. * Unobligated Carryover Balance(9/2000)per MDT Urban Planning ** Allocations beyond TEA-21 (9/30/2003)are being estimated based on current allocation levels. ***Year 2010 and 2020 estimates are based on the current carryover plus annual allocations equal to the current annual allocations. 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 TEA-21. **** Revenues projections are based on estimates provided by MDT, City, and County staff. It is understood that these estimated funds may not be available for the transportation improvements included in this plan. Robert Peccia &Associates 13-16 Chapter 14 Implementation Strategy Implementation Strategy Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 14: Implementation Strategy 14.1 Initial Considerations The most important first step in planning transportation improvement projects involves acquiring the necessary right-of-ways. This work effort must have the highest priority. Acquiring the correct amount of right-of-way initially can be less expensive in the long run. As a result, it is essential that the future transportation corridors be acquired as the land develops. It is desirable to gain the rights to these corridors whenever the opportunity arises. It is recognized that financing transportation improvement projects and programs is a very large problem for the community. In order to address as many recommendations as possible during the planning period, creative financing will be required for many projects. Traditional sources of funding are inadequate to meet the needs of the community. The identification of alternative sources of financing that are acceptable to the community at-large, along with creative methods of utilizing traditional funds, should be a high priority. Several alternative financing methods should be seriously considered for generating additional funds. One such method is development impact fees for financing new roads and road expansions. These fees are a direct result of new development. The City and County currently have a development impact fee program. Another financing option is the General Obligation (G.O.) Bond. A G.O. Bond should be considered for financing special improvements that have not only community-wide support, but that also benefit the majority of the community. Flexibility will also be necessary to implement these recommendations. The project priorities should be subject to periodic reviews and modification based upon existing financial resources; the availability of supplemental funds; changes in community needs; or other considerations for each improvement. Therefore, an ongoing review of the recommended transportation improvements is essential. 14.2 Development Strategy for Major Network Improvement Projects The committed and recommended improvements to the major street network in the greater Bozeman area are outlined in Chapter 10. Actively pursuing the advance acquisition of right- of-ways needed for projects is essential to the successful implementation of most of these recommended projects. If the property necessary for a low priority improvement becomes available prior to the time local government has scheduled the improvement, consideration should be given to changing the project's priority and acquiring the right-of-way at today's lower costs. The following are additional considerations relating to right-of-way acquisitions: ❑ Focus on key landowners and work to maintain favorable relations with them. In some instances, particularly in situations in which there is a perception that property will be difficult to obtain, local government should attempt to initiate a negotiation process with the landowner as soon as possible. Robert Peccia &Associates 14-1 Implementation Strategy Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update ❑ Do not rule out entering into agreements with landowners that may produce a benefit in the long-term. For instance, the local government may be aware of property it will require for future improvement. At present, local government may not have funds available for acquisition, and the landowner may not wish to sell. Nonetheless, by entering into an agreement for first right of refusal, local government can be in a better position to acquire the property in the future, when it may be in a more favorable financial situation. ❑ Local government can exert considerable influence on the development (or lack thereof), of property which may potentially be required by the community for transportation improvement purposes. Zoning, subdivision, and condemnation powers should not be overlooked particularly in right-of-way matters. Obviously, another major difficulty in completing most of the major improvement projects will be that of securing financing. Project funding from the traditional public sources will likely be unavailable for many recommended improvements. However, in analyzing each improvement, it may be determined that a private party would benefit significantly from the project. In such a case, private dollars should be used as a match to secure public funds, or to fund the entire project. Therefore, in considering the prioritization of improvements, it is essential for local government to remain flexible and take advantage of financing opportunities as they arise. The following recommendations present general guidelines for performing financial planning: ❑ A coherent financial plan is necessary. Both the City and the County should continue to develop Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs). The CIPs are the principal documents that outline the projects to be completed in the immediate future. These plans typically include an analysis of all available sources of financing and link major network improvements to identified sources of financing. ❑ Matching funds can be a tremendous benefit to the local government. A consideration of matching funds should play a significant role in financial planning. Projects that have matching dollars available should be given a high priority. The City and County governments should work to develop new sources of matching funds. ❑ Financial planning should emphasize that in special cases, private dollars might be available to undertake a project. In such a case, the source of funding must be identified as a direct beneficiary of the project. The local government should bear in mind that such funding could provide the match necessary to receive state or federal funds. Finally, in undertaking major network improvements, the local government should be aware of opportunities for constructing projects in separate phases. Often, funding is simply not available to address an improvement in its entirety. In such cases, a great deal can be accomplished by tackling separate components of individual improvements over the long term, such division of Robert Peccia &Associates 14-2 Implementation Strategy Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update effort should not include separating bicycle and pedestrian facilities from initial street construction. Due to funding requirements and jurisdictional boundaries, transportation financing is somewhat compartmentalized. Because of this, it is necessary to evaluate each project, and identify the most likely funding programs to finance each project. Therefore, all of the major improvement projects have been subdivided according to funding source and presented in TABLE 14-1. The projects were then prioritized within each funding category based on need. TABLE 14-1. Recommended Major Improvement Project Priorities N Recommended Major Improvement Projects Cost (Grouped and prioritized by most likely funding source) a� •�, a NHS 1 33 Create an Airport Interchange, connect to Frontage Road with a 2-lane $7,500,000 rural arterial 2 35 Jackrabbit Lane-Four Corners to I-90, widen to 3-lane rural arterial $10,806,000 with right turn lanes at major intersections 3 34 Jackrabbit Lane-Gallatin Gateway to Four Cornyrs, widen to 3-lane $14,8391000 rural arterial $33,145,000 Primary Funds 2 27 West Main-7th to 19th, install raised median,landscape median where $1,037,000 possible 1 1 6 Rouse-East Main to Story Mill, widen to 3-lane urban arterial $7,356,000 $8,393,000 Secondary Funds 1 28 Frontage Road-North 7th to Belgrade, widen to 3-lane rural arterial $11,021,000 with right turn lanes at major intersections 2 36 I-90 Underpass-US 10 to Valley Center,Widen to 2-lane rural $750,000 collector 3 29 Springhill-Frontage Road to Sypes Canyon, widen to 3-lane rural $2,378,000 arterial $14,149,000 Robert Peccia &Associates 14-3 Implementation Strategy Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Urban Funds 1 2 South 19th-West Main to College, widen to 5-lane urban arterial $2,018,000 2 3 South 19th-College to Ka , widen to 5-lane urban arterial $3,725,000 3 7 College-West Main to South 19th, widen to 5-lane urban arterial $2,871,000 4 4 Ka -South 19`h to Willson, widen to 3-lane urban arterial $3,678,000 5 5 South 3`°-Kagy to Graf, widen to 3-lane urban collector $2,568,000 6 8 College-South 19th to South 8th, widen to 3-lane urban arterial $2,915,000 7 26 South Church-upgrade to 2-lane urban collector $5,742,000 $23,517,000 STPRR/STPHS Funds 1 37 Griffin Drive-Railroad Underpass $4,000,000 $4,000,000 City Funds 1 22 West Babcock-West Main to Ferguson, widen to 3-lane urban collector $1,800,000 2 23 West Babcock- 11 th to 19` ,upgrade to 2-lane urban collector $1,659,000 3 32 Haggerty Lane-E.Main to Ka ,upgrade to 2-lane urban collector $6,189,000 4 24 Lincoln-South I lth to 191 ,upgrade to 2-lane urban collector $1,659,000 $11,307,000 Private Funds * 1 North 19th-Baxter to Springhill,widen to 5-lane urban arterial $7,365,000 * 9 Cottonwood-Stucky to Valley Center,construct 3-lade urban arterial $17,417,000 * 10 Fowler/Davis-Stucky to Valley Center,construct 2-lane urban arterial $16,572,000 * 11 Hulbert-Valley Center to Cottonwood, construct 2-lane urban collector $4,563,000 * 12 iDeadmans Gulch-N.19th to Cottonwood,construct 2-lane urban collector $4,817,000 * 13 Ka /Stuck -South 19th to Cottonwood, construct 2-lane urban arterial $5,554,000 * 14 Durston-North 19th to Cottonwood, widen to 3-lane urban arterial $7,356,000 * 15 Oak-North 19 to Cottonwood,construct 3-lane urban arterial $7,356,000 * 16 Graf- South 3`°to South 19th,connect with paved 2-lane urban collector $2,687,000 * 17 South 1 lth-Kagy to Graf,connect with 2-lane urban collector $1,876,000 * 18 North 1 lth-Durston to Baxter, connect with a 2-lane urban collector $2,129,000 * 19 INorth 15th-Durston to Baxter,connect with a 2-lane urban collector $2,687,000 * 20 North 27th-Durston to Valley Center,connect with 2-lane urban collector $6,439,000 * 21 Kagy/Bozeman Trail-Highland to I-90,upgrade to 2-lane rural arterial and $4,281,000 reali * 25 Sourdough-Kagy to Goldenstein,upgrade to a 2-lane rural collector $1,800,000 * 30 1 Baxter Lane- 1Ith to 19",upgrade to 2-lane urban collector $6,189,000 * 31 JBaxter Lane- 19th to Cottonwood,upgrade to 2-lane urban arterial $1,900,000 * 38 Cedar Street—upgrade to 2-lane collector and connect to Rouse $2,677,000 * 39 Ferguson—Main to Valley Center, Connect with 2-lane urban collector 1$12,900.000 * 40 Hi hland Trail Improvement, Construct trail from Kagy to Goldenstein IUnknown $116,565,000 *No priority has been assigned to the privately funded projects.These projects will be accomplished as development occurs in the area. Robert Peccia &Associates 14-4 Implementation Strategy Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update P 8Y P P It is important to clearly identify the projects that are considered to have the highest priority, regardless of funding. Therefore, a list of the ten projects considered to be the highest priority based on need are presented below: Top Ten Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Projects (Listed in order of importance to the community.) 1. South 19`h, West Main to College: Improve to urban arterial standard. 2. Construct Airport Interchange and connect to the Frontage Road. 3. South 19th, College to Kagy: Improve to urban arterial standard. 4. Frontage Road, Bozeman to Belgrade: Improve to rural arterial standard. 5. North 19`h, Springhill to Baxter: Improve to urban arterial standard. 6. Durston, North 191h to Ferguson: Improve to urban arterial standard. 7. West College, Main to South 19`h: Improve to urban arterial standard. 8. Rouse, East Main to Story Mill Road: Improve to urban arterial standard. 9. Kagy Boulevard, South 19th to Willson: Improve to urban arterial standard. 10. West Babcock, Main to Ferguson: Improve to urban collector standard. 14.3 Transportation System Management (TSM) Strategy The recommended TSM improvements are listed in Chapter 9. The TSM projects have not been prioritized, so local government has maximum flexibility in implementing these improvements. Assigning priority for the recommended TSM projects is further complicated by the fact that the state, city, and county all maintain jurisdiction over various portions of the major street network where projects are proposed. Therefore, each of these entities may have separate priorities for implementing TSM projects under their respective jurisdictions. Considerations for setting priorities would include safety, cost of the project, availability of alternate funding, availability of right-of-way, ease of implementation, and community interest. Implementation of the projects, beginning with the projects that have the greatest need and available financing, will continue until all projects are completed. No aspect of addressing TSM improvements will demand more creativity and flexibility than that of project financing. Local governments will be required to be aware of changes in funding Robert Peccia &Associates 14-5 Implementation Strategy Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update sources and of new sources. Local governments should, at all times, be mindful of the following considerations regarding the financing: ❑ Numerous conventional methods of financing improvements are available to local government (bonds and Special Improvement Districts, for example). Such obvious methods should not be overlooked. ❑ Financing for special types of projects sometimes are available. Currently, funding is available for certain kinds of safety projects, and projects for bicycle facilities and walking trails. ❑ Local government should attempt to link private beneficiaries of TSM improvements with private sources of financing. Further, in the event that private individuals come forward with funding, the local government should be prepared to accept it. ❑ Making one person responsible for performing an ongoing review of recommended TSM improvements, and seeking out sources of financing, may be beneficial. Robert Peccia &Associates 14-6 Chapter 15 Administration and Amendments Administration and Amendments Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, 2001 Update Chapter 15: Administration and Amendments 15.1 Administration and Amendements The Plan is a long-term,20 year or more look at transportation. In order to implement the document, 1 a variety of short-term actions will need to take place. Due to its cooperative nature,which includes land in several different political jurisdictions,numerous different entities will be proposing programs, regulations, and other implementing activities. The plan will serve as a coordinating tool among these different tasks and groups. Many of these implementation tools, such as the updating of subdivision regulations, will involve an ' independent public participation process undertaken by a specific TCC member. Others will be daily or annual administrative activities. It is important to provide the flexibility for such daily activities while assuring that substantive modifications to the plan involve opportunities for the public to participate. ' Establishment of priorities, discussion and completion of individual construction projects, and coordination of policy between jurisdictions are examples of daily administrative tasks. Such daily tasks are considered to be in the public interest and are subject to the normal participatory obligations of all government activities. The opportunity for the public to comment on such topics is always open; however, special public hearings or similar activities are not expected to commonly occur under the auspices of the TCC. 1 Substantive modifications or updates to the Plan are potentially significant to the public and formal opportunities for participation need to be provided. As a joint body representing a variety of ' governmental agencies and others, TCC can sponsor public hearings and other means of gathering public input. Such public participation should be supported by notices to the public and opportunity to review suggested modifications and offer comments and alternatives. Substantive modifications to the Plan affect 10 percent or more of the study area defined in FIGURE 1-1. 1 � 1 C 1 'I yr ' Robert Peccia &Associates 15-1