Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-16 Letter re MDT Slope Flattening Project MMontana Department of Transportation Michael T. Tooley, Director 2701 Prospect Avenue Steve Bullock, Governor PO Box 201001 Helena MT 59620-1001 March 8, 2016 ------------------------- Robert V. Lashaway, Chair Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee c/o City of Bozeman Department of Community Planning PO Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 Subject: MDT Project SF 129—Slope Flattening Belgrade, STPP-HSIP 205-1(46)23, UPN 8031000 Dear Mr. Lashaway: We received your February 5th letter informing MDT of the Bozeman TCC's passage of the following motion regarding the subject project: "To maximize safety for non-motorized users of the Old US 10 running west from Bozeman, a ten- foot wide paved separated shared-use path should be an integral part of any construction or reconstruction project in that roadway right-of-way. An effort should be made to extend this path as far as possible and to make it part of a connected system. Such a path should be incorporated into the design of the current slope flattening project reportedly under design east of Belgrade." MDT is supportive of providing facilities that accommodate all modes of travel, and we have shown ourselves to be strong supporters of similar projects across the state, when they provide logical and necessary connections, are coordinated with local government agencies and plans, and are fiscally feasible. After extensive analysis and discussions with project and department staff, the decision has been made to not include a shared-use path in the subject project, primarily for reasons of funding and schedule. We felt it would be helpful to provide you with information about the subject project, our reasons for not including a path in this project, and suggestions to facilitate the future development of a separated Belgrade-Bozeman path. How did "SF 129-Slope Flattening Belgrade"come to be a project? • A crash trend of roadway departure/overturning accidents was identified by Traffic and Safety Bureau on P-205 between RP 23.0 and 24.6. These crashes were considered to be addressable by flattening the slopes, and the anticipated cost of the slope flattening met the applicable benefit/cost criteria, so a slope flattening project was programmed. • During preliminary project review, it was suggested that the need for left turn lanes into the subdivision to the north of P-205 within the project limits be evaluated, as it would be wasteful to perform slope flattening only to have to reconstruct the area in the near future. An Equal Opportunity Employer • It was determined that left turn lanes into Coulee Dr., Arete Dr., and Sacajawea Peak Dr. were warranted. Additionally, there were some rear-end accidents considered to be addressable by the installation of turn lanes. • The reconstruction required to install the turn lanes was too expensive (relative to the number of correctable crashes)to be funded entirely with safety funds, so the District agreed to provide State Primary (STPP)funds to get the turn lanes built at the same time as the slope flattening. What is the current project scope, schedule, and status? • Reconstruct P-205 between 23.0 and 24.6 (approximately Hyalite Creek to just west of Voegele's Storage)to current standards, including eight-foot-wide shoulders on each side of the roadway, left turn and right slip-style turn lanes into Coulee Dr., Arete Dr., and Sacajawea Peak Dr. replacement of the structure at McDonald Creek, and standard (flatter than existing) slopes. This work is anticipated to be completed within the existing MRL right of way. • The project was not included within the five-year tentative construction program (TCP) during the last TCP preparation cycle (fall) because the project didn't have a completed preliminary field review(PFR) at that time. Now that we have a completed PFR, the intent is to bring the project into the TCP as soon as the project can be ready(anticipated 2018 letting) during the next TCP update this fall. • Project survey and preliminary field review has been completed. A news release was issued in January 2015 and no comments were received in response to that news release. Project plans are near 30% and an Alignment and Grade Review (AGR) is upcoming this spring. What are the reasons that including a separated path in this Slope Flattening Project is not the right project at the right time? • The path was not consistently included nor prioritized in local plans. Belgrade, Bozeman, and Gallatin County need to coordinate to develop a cohesive plan and prioritize it in their plans. • Funding for path design, right of way, utility relocation, and construction has not been identified, nor has a separated path project gone through the required nomination, prioritization and approval processes with our Transportation Commission. These steps would be necessary before any project development could occur. • Even if it was possible to include a separated path within the project limits, doing so in the absence of an overall plan could complicate and constrain options for construction of other segments, as it would be pre-determining adjacent path locations. • Not including the separated path in this project does not preclude or disadvantage future path alignment options. • Even if it was feasible to do so, including a path in the slope flattening project would significantly delay the construction of the planned improvements that will benefit motorist and bicycle safety on this heavily-traveled corridor. Every Day Counts when it comes to installing projects that improve safety. What are MDT's suggestions to facilitate a future path? • Bozeman, Belgrade, and Gallatin County need to coordinate with regard to path type, size and location. o Bozeman is currently updating their Transportation Plan and Belgrade is in the planning stages of a transportation plan update, which are both opportunities to document the desired improvement. o MDT will be initiating a corridor study on 205 (from Jackrabbit Lane in Belgrade to the 1-90 WB Exit at 1-90 Mile Marker 306 in Bozeman) in the spring of 2016. This is another opportunity to document and clarify desired improvements to the corridor. • It is unlikely that it will be feasible to fund the path in its entirety, so consideration of segmentation should be included in the development of the path's conceptual layout. • This consistent, cohesive plan needs to be included and prioritized in local transportation plans. • The most appropriate funding source, other than local funds, would come through the Transportation Alternatives program. Projects are selected annually on the basis of a competitive application process. MDT staff is available to provide information and education regarding this program. • Another potential funding source, for segments of the path within urban areas, would be State Urban funds (STPU). These are funds allocated to each urban area annually and which the local agencies are responsible for prioritizing projects and funding. We look forward to continuing to work in cooperation with you and the involved local agency partners and stakeholders. Sincerely, Mike Tooley Director Copies: Dwane Kailey, P.E. Highways & Engineering Division Administrator Jeff Ebert, P.E. Butte District Administrator Jennifer Nelson, P.E. Butte District Preconstructions Engineer Danielle Bolan, P.E. Traffic Operations Engineer