HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-21-2020 Public Comment - D. Gianetti - Bozeman Draft 2019 Community PlanFrom:Chris Saunders
To:Mike Maas
Subject:FW: Comments for Draft 2019 Community Plan (Dated 11/26/2019)
Date:Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:15:17 PM
Please add to the growth policy public comment folder. Thanks. Chris S
From: Giannetti, Danae <danae.giannetti@montana.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Chris Saunders <csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Gleason, Rebecca <rebecca.gleason1@montana.edu>; Madsen, Matthew
<matthew.madsen@montana.edu>; Kack, David <dkack@montana.edu>
Subject: Comments for Draft 2019 Community Plan (Dated 11/26/2019)
Hi Chris,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Bozeman Draft 2019 Community Plan.
Our Mobility and Public Transportation team here at the Western Transportation Institute reviewed
the plan version dated November 26, 2019. I have compiled our comments which are organized by
page number. Please let me know if I need to forward our comments to anyone else.
Page 6, “Income” Section
With regards to the explanation for median household incomes for homeowners compared to
renters being partially attributed to the impact of MSU students on statistical averages, there is also
a portion of our population that are not students, nor are they able to own a home. Please consider
addressing the number of Bozeman residents that are not able to be home owners due to lower job
wages in Bozeman. This portion of our community’s population could potentially increase as the rate
of home prices outpace the rate of wage increases.
Page 8, Relationship to Other Plans
The last sentence of the paragraph says that there are “seven” themes in the plan; however on page
13, it says that there are “six”. Are these different themes? Subthemes? Please consider different
wording or providing an explanation how the two “sets” of themes relate to one another. Otherwise,
please reconcile the number of themes to be consistent throughout the plan.
Page 9, Table relating themes to themes?
To further elaborate on the comment from page 8, this table does not make sense upon initial
review because it lacks a title and there aren’t any descriptions of the seven “themes” on the left
side or the six “themes” on the top (along with 2 other items that perhaps wouldn’t fit in the same
category). Please consider how to make this table more clear for the average reader that is less
familiar with the information it describes. It seems like the items along the top of the table aren’t
described until Chapter 2. Perhaps that should be indicated on page 8?
Page 10, Current Topic Plans
Please remove the colon after “2017” for the Transportation Master Plan and consider noting or
addressing the fact that the Climate Action Plan will be updated in 2020 if it is finished before or with
the Community Plan.
Page 11, Principles Applied in this Plan (3 comments pertaining to the 4th bullet point regarding
transportation infrastructure)
1) The terminology “transportation infrastructure” could be open to interpretation. Does it
mean just roads? Does it mean roads, bus stops, off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
etc.? Please consider clarifying that transportation infrastructure is more than just roads
(perhaps multimodal transportation infrastructure?).
2) Under this same 4th bullet point, please add “from” as follows: “Future infrastructure should
continue its transition away from automobile centered in favor of interconnected
multimodal transportation networks….”
3) This is a general comment/consideration regarding the reconciliation of planning
documents: From page 8, “The Community Plan is also influenced by, and will influence, a
number of other local plans…” and then goes on to cite that other local plans includes the
Transportation Master Plan (TMP). Although the TMP has language that would support this
principle of moving towards a more multimodal transportation network, there is work left to
be done to revise policies, procedures, and funding allocations to move such a principle into
implementation. Please be aware of ways in which it would not be beneficial for the TMP to
influence the Community Plan. For example, many of the committed and recommended
Major Street Network (MSN) projects in the TMP consist of roadway widening projects to
accommodate existing and/or predicted future vehicular traffic volumes which requires
spending millions of dollars per mile of road (page 72-76 and Appendix H of the TMP).
However, Appendix I goes into detail of how a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program could reduce peak-period traffic congestion while also saving energy, and
improving air quality. In order to implement a robust TDM program, there would need to be
a shift in transportation prioritization such as the “Green Transportation Hierarchy” which
favors more efficient (space, energy, and other costs) modes of transportation. This also
allows a more equitable process for developing our transportation network. Additionally, by
shifting to a multimodal level of service (LOS), elected leadership and staff may begin
evolving from the traditional intersection LOS standards (as described in the TMP Appendix
J) that continues to prioritize projects based primarily on vehicular traffic needs (Examples:
widening of Kagy Blvd to 4 lanes, proposed widening of Fowler Ave to 5 lanes – is this what
the community wants? Or are these projects attempting to address vehicular LOS/traffic
congestion?). Note: information on the Green Transportation Hierarchy:
https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm110.htm and multimodal LOS indicators:
https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm129.htm. We commend the Plan’s reoccurring language
regarding multimodal transportation but want to bring to light the fact that changes to
existing institutional practices (such as revising the Bozeman Code of Ordinance, Chapter 38
– Unified Development Code, Article 24 – Transportation Facilities and Access, Section
38.24.060. – Street Improvement Standards, Subsection 4) must be a part of shifting this
Community Plan into reality. Use caution with potentially allowing the TMP to influence the
Community Plan.
Page 14, Importance
The last paragraph contains the following sentence: “Each of Bozeman’s residential areas reflect the
time they were built and have their own unique characteristics and differing levels of mobility for
different types of users (pedestrians, bikes, and cars); as well as their own architectural, recreational,
and sometimes, commercial features. Please consider revising this sentence to “Each of Bozeman’s
residential areas reflect the time they were built and have their own unique characteristic and
differing levels of mobility for people walking, biking, riding a bus, or driving; as well as their
own….” The purpose of this revision is to humanize roadway users and avoid an “us vs. them”
narrative when describing roadway interactions. Furthermore, cars are not users of roads. People
drive cars and it is the human that is the user of the road. This is a small nuance that matters when
discussing the difference between moving people rather than vehicles on our transportation
network.
Page 16, Goals, Objectives, and Actions for Goal N-1: Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods.
1) General comment: Please consider referring to guidelines for “walkable” neighborhoods
such as resources from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) or
“Walkable City Rules” by Jeff Speck. Such guidelines include grid street patterns, narrower
streets, trees, no cul-de-sacs, removal of parking minimums, and more! Also, please consider
including timelines and performance measures for these goals, objectives, and actions to be
carried through to implementation.
2) Item N-1.7 and N1.9 – these are excellent points but please identify, or call to light the need
for, a funding mechanism and schedule for implementation.
Page 20, Goals, Objectives, and Actions for Goal DCD-1: Ensure multimodal connectivity within the
City; item DCD-1.4
Instead of supporting the implementation of the TMP, could the Community Plan direct it? In other
words, as mentioned above regarding comment 3 for page 11, some TMP implementation
recommendations may not support, or compete, with multimodal connectivity. When a roadway is
widened to address peak-hour congestion without designing for non-vehicular transportation
modes, it can become more difficult and dangerous for people that are not driving to cross it. There
is an on-going balancing act performing by transportation practitioners between mobility and
accessibility. If staff were able to prioritize the movement of people versus the movement of
vehicles, it would free up funding for safer infrastructure that would provide connectivity within the
City.
Page 21, Goal DCD-3.7
Currently, the Streamline routes are under review by a consultant team to update. Please consider
revising this goal to encourage the planning, growth, and funding for the expansion of public transit
routes to, in part, align with the placement of affordable housing development. A frequent and
reliable system needs to be prioritized and funded for this goal to be feasible.
Page 24, Goal EPO-3.1
Please consider updating this goal to include the language of Goal EPO-2.2. Instead of “identify long-
term resources”, please consider revising to “establish long-term, sustainable funding sources for
year-round bike and multi-use path’s maintenance….”
Page 24, Goal EPO-3.2
While this goal highlights a need of our community, please consider revising to state “Support
development of year-round maintenance standards including sidewalk clearing, sidewalk surfaces,
bike lanes, and procedures for consistent implementation.” Winter maintenance continues to be a
challenge for our city staff. It is difficult to encourage multimodal transportation when shared-use
paths are not able to consistently be plowed in the winter or on-street bike lanes are covered in ice
from freeze-thaw cycles. Another issue is snow storage at intersections when snow from along the
corridor is pushed into the curb ramps. Standards that address coordinating plowing of the sidewalk
or path with on-street plowing is needed.
Page 28, Goal M-1.2
Please consider revising the language of this goal to: “Make transportation investment decisions that
prioritize active transportation modes and transit over single-occupancy vehicles.”
Page 28, Goal M-1.3
Please consider clarifying or citing an example of what “service standard levels” means. This
language was not clear to members of our team.
Page 28, M-1.6
Please consider revising language as follows: “Integrate consideration of autonomous vehicles,
transit, rideshare, and other mobility choices into community planning regulations.”
Page 28, M-1.8
Please consider revising language as follows: “Establish standards and procedures for placement of
as well as year-round maintenance of bus shelters in City right-of-way.”
Page 29, Goal M-2.2
Please consider expanding this goal to include language that discusses the need for an enforceable
policy document with well-defined goals, standards, and tools. Please include language that directs
design practitioners and decisionmakers to the industry best practices instead of encouraging
minimum planning or investments in multimodal transportation.
Page 29, Goal M-2.5
Please consider revising this language as follows: “Build streets that prioritize the safety of people
walking, biking, and driving over the speed of vehicular traffic.”
Page 31, Map
This map lacks a title, please consider adding one. Also, there is a heavy-weight dashed line along
north 19th, 7th, Huffine/Main, etc. but there is no description of this line type. Please look into
clarifying this map for the average reader.
Page 36, Goal RC-1.2
Than you for including bus service in this goal. Please continue including public transportation in all
planning and implementation processes.
Page 37, Goal RC-3.6
There appears to be a typo in this goal: “Provide education and information on the value and
benefits of annexation, including existing un-annexed pockets surrounding the ty, to individual
landowners and the community at large.” We believe the bolded letters should be revised to city.
Page 42, Residential Mixed Use, 3rd paragraph
Much like “Community Commercial Mixed Use” category, this land development category should
also have access and be integrated with transit. Please consider updating the 3rd paragraph language
as follows: “Larger areas should have access on collector and arterial streets with integrated transit
service. Any development within this category should have a well-integrated transportation and
open space network that encourages pedestrian activity and provides ready-access within and
adjacent development.” Please think about how transit-oriented development could be applied in
this category of land use.
Page 44, Regional Commercial and Services
Again, the integration of transit could accommodate the workforce of these large facilities.
Encouraging pedestrian activity is appreciated but convenient transit access is also necessary to
accommodate commuting, especially during winter months.
Page 50, Short-term action list (2 comments)
1. Please consider referencing which goal, objective, and action each of the items of this list
pertains to. Ensure short term actions are included for each of the six themes.
2. For item 8 of the list, this language matches that of goal M-1.3 (page 28). Please consider
revising to “Revise current intersection level of service design standards to multimodal level of
service or traffic stress for people walking, biking, and using transit.”
Page 50, Monitoring and updates
Our team applauds the final paragraph of this section relating to the development of targets for
each indicator. Our team is willing to review annual reports on the status of each indicator and
provide accountability as the plan moves into implementation. Please consider adding language to
this paragraph that describes who would be providing the reports as well as who is responsible for
tracking the targets to keep goals in motion through implementation.
Page 51, Commute Mode Share indicator
Please consider revising target to “Increase non-single-occupancy-vehicle modes” as leaving it as
“increase” only is ambiguous.
Page 51, Vehicle Miles Traveled indicator
Please note, the Montana Department of Transportation acronym is MDT not MDOT. Please
consider revising to the Montana Department of Transportation or MDT.
Page 52, Bike accessibility indicator
The Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB) is made up of volunteer citizens on 2-year
appointments by the City Commission that may not have the resources (knowledge, time, etc.) to
provide this indicator data on an annual basis. Furthermore, since the membership of this board is
dynamic, a regular training session would be necessary for the preservation of knowledge. Please
consider coordinating with the City GIS department to either take the lead on providing this data or
partner with BABAB to provide training/necessary data on annual basis.
Page 52, Bike and pedestrian safety indicator
The target of this indicator is “decrease”. Please note, this is misleading because at surface-level it
would read that you want to decrease bike and pedestrian safety. Once the note is read that it refers
to annual fatal and severe injuries, it makes more sense. Perhaps the indicator should be “bicycle
and pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries” so that the target makes more sense. Or, please revise
the target to “increase” and reword the note as increasing bike and pedestrian safety is likely the
intended goal.
Page 52, Traffic safety indicator
Similar to the bike and pedestrian safety, the “decrease” target is misleading. Please consider
revising similarly to the comment made above so that the intent of making our transportation
network safer is more clear.
Page 52, general comment
Please consider adding an indicator to track the percentage of the city’s budget that is dedicated to
walking, biking, (and transit, eventually) as an indicator of how resources are being prioritized to
push the Plan into implementation.
Thank you,
Danae
Danae Giannetti, P.E.Research Engineer I
Western Transportation Institute
Montana State University406-994-7031