HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-23 Public Comment - M. Brown - PRAT plan comments and deep concernsFrom:Marilee Brown
To:Agenda
Cc:kelly pohl; Bryce Gordon; christine roberts; Courtney Oyler; DeeJay Newall; Paul Reichert; Shannon Mahoney;
Ralph Zimmer; Nicholas Ross; Taylor Lonsdale; Candace Mastel; Cyndy Andrus; Jeff Mihelich
Subject:PRAT plan comments and deep concerns
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 11:30:27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Transportation Board,
General Concern #1 Time to review the next rewrite: The City Commission has ordered acomplete rewrite of the PRAT plan. However, currently you will not be given further
opportunity to review the rewrite prior to the Commission review and acceptance. I suggestyou make a motion or at least a request to be able to review the rewritten plan before it goes to
the Commission.
General Concern #2 : The Boards don’t know what each other is doing or who has authority.There is less than 24 hours prior to tomorrows Urban Parks and Forests Board when they are
expected to approve the plan to move forward to the Commission with their edits (not yours).So far they have only discussed the AT plan for 15 minutes and seem to be under the
impression that you are taking care of this portion. They do not understand that theircomments have to include your comments. Their agenda is just as packed as yours is. It is
unclear if they will be presented with your written comments. I suggest you make it arequirement to at least let them know of your general concerns as to how this process is
working in writing.
General Concern #3 a new AT Plan?: The City Commission on 2/14/23 stated that theywant a separate AT plan from or in addition to the PRAT plan. Hurrah! But how is this going
to work? How are all the plans going to relate to one another?
Items still needing your comments tonight:Connect Chapter 3.8
add future plans and studies (Blvd and MAP study.add a separate Active Transportation Plan as requested by the City Commission on 2/14/23
Design Manual
- Define AT upfront (non-motorized or human powered)
#2 Anchor Routes and Shared Use (are they one in the same?)- Under lighting define the word “proper” and “adequate”. (*see more notes below)
- Geo Textile or weed barrier needs to be added.- Buffer Zones need to be added and defined (vegetation added)
- HAWK lights versus Rapid Flashing Beacons being preferable in high traffic areas- Need for speed limits
- Shared Use paths should also be enjoyable and efficient places you want to travel
#5 Wayfinding- need no outlet warnings for incomplete paths
Thank you for your hard work,Marilee Brown
*Lighting - Lighting should be used conservatively where needed for safety such as atcrossings. Lighting can heavily impact wildlife and our night sky. It’s expensive. Imagine
the path to the M or the Galigator Trail completely lit up. If used on a path next to an unlithighway (such as Frontage Road), it could cause vehicles to leave the road and travel onto the
path when visibility is low.
Marilee Brown, Chair
GAP - Galla10 Alliance for Pathways
2411 Kid Curry Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
406-579-5447
saferbozeman@gmail.com
www.frontagepathway.com