Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-30-25 Public Comment - Rick Nys, Greenlight Engineering - Appeal 25033From:Rick Nys To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL][SENDER UNVERIFIED]Appeal 25033 Date:Sunday, March 30, 2025 11:59:50 AM Attachments:Asset_1@4x_smaller.png Guthrie TIS Review Greenlight 3-30-25.pdf 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. Please include the attached comments in the referenced land use file. Thanks, Rick Nys, P.E. Principal Traffic Engineer Greenlight Engineering 503-317-4559 www.greenlightengineering.com March 30, 2025 Bozeman City Commission 121 N Rouse Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 RE: Appeal of Administrative Approval for Application 24493 – The Guthrie Greenlight Engineering has been asked by Bozeman Home Advocacy Group, LLC to evaluate the transportation related impacts of the proposed “The Guthrie” development in Bozeman, Montana. I have reviewed the September 2024 “The Guthrie Traffic Impact Study” (“TIS”) and the March 26, 2025 staff report I reviewed the transportation impacts of the previous application on this site and provided comments dated July 7, 2024 which are Exhibit 016 of this appeal. Level of Service of 7 th Avenue/Beall Street and 7 th Avenue/Villard Street The City's staff report states: “Level of Service is a qualitative metric used to describe intersection operations as measured by average vehicle delay. This is explicitly and inarguably not a direct measure of safety and does not even attempt to evaluate modes of transportation such as bicycles and pedestrians. Further, there is no explicit industry standard that can be applied to “prove” an intersection will operate safely nor any objective definition of “safety”as a measurable metric. Adequate safety is presumed to derive from an intersection meeting standards for appropriate geometry and traffic control, which both intersections of Villard and Beall with North 7th Avenue comply in the existing and design year. Staff notes that higher level of service may in fact require design features that allow for increased throughput and therefore reduced vehicle delay. Such features include wider multi-lane intersections that increase pedestrian crossing distances and conflicts with vehicles, prohibition of protected pedestrian phasing at signalized intersections, and permissive left turn phasing instead of protected left turn phasing. Modern engineering practice has thoroughly concluded such design features correlate with reduced, not improved, multimodal safety.” The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) provides a methodology for measuring the level of service (LOS) for pedestrians. While there is no indisputable correlation between LOS and safety, the City of Bozeman’s adoption of a whole-intersection LOS approach for a two-way stop-controlled intersection is unprecedented, a construct of the City without any definition, and not industry standard. The City's whole intersection methodology has been applied inconsistently across different applications over the years. Notably, the City does not use this whole- intersection approach when planning its own projects, instead adhering to HCM methodology in the Bozeman Transportation Plan. Under the City’s whole intersection methodology, increasing traffic volumes on 7th Avenue would lead to increasing delays for traffic on Beall Street and Villard Street, yet paradoxically, the reported LOS for the intersection would often improve due the averaging of delays. Large volume 7th Street traffic essentially experiences no delay while lower volume side street traffic experiences high delays. This counter intuitive result raises potential safety concerns, as drivers attempting to enter 7th Avenue would face increasing delays and be forced to accept smaller gaps in traffic. The HCM, which defines LOS, explicitly states that there is no 13554 Rogers Road ● Lake Oswego, OR 97035 www.greenlightengineering.com ● 503.317.4559 methodology for evaluating two-way stop-controlled intersections as a whole, yet the City attempts to rely on a non-existent methodology. The staff report states: “The Highway Capacity Manual states that failure of individual legs of a two-way stop controlled intersection should not be the sole basis for selection of appropriate traffic control, which in this case would be the required mitigation element. For this reason, and based on the requirement in 38.220.060.A.11.g.(2).(d). (“For two-way stop controlled intersections, analysis of whether the intersection would satisfy signalization warrants if the two-way stop control was removed.”), staff required a signal warrant study to determine the appropriateness of traffic control. The Developer complied with this requirement as demonstrated by the Traffic Signal Warrant analysis dated October 11, 2024. The warrant studies determined signalization is not warranted and therefore, that form of mitigation of the individual leg LOS failures through signalization was not required.” While the most recent TIS studied the need for traffic signals at the 7th Avenue/Beall Street and 7th Avenue/Villard Street intersections and found that traffic signal warrants are not met, that does not absolve the application from also complying with the requirement of BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) which states: “The city determines level of service (LOS) values by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The review authority may approve a development only if the LOS requirements are met in the design year, which must be a minimum of 15 years following the development application review or construction of mitigation measures if mitigation measures are required to maintain LOS. Intersections must have a minimum acceptable LOS of "C" for the intersection as a whole.” In this particular application, the City attempts to rely upon a non-existent and undefined whole intersection methodology while also dictating compliance with the Highway Capacity Manual. An applicant cannot meet both requirements because those requirements directly conflict with each other. Meanwhile, the City utilizes the actual HCM methodology as part of the Bozeman Transportation Plan. Presumably, the City is attempting to rely upon the LOS C delay thresholds of the HCM for two-way stop controlled intersections even though the HCM provides no definition of how to analyze an intersection in such a way nor does it present a way to measure the performance of an intersection in that way because the LOS thresholds are based on those movements that experience delay. The methodology, still undefined, appears to be an invention of the City and surely not compliant with the HCM. The staff report notes: “Staff considered other potential mitigation solutions for individual leg LOS failures that would generally restrict crossing and left turning movements from the local streets, Villard and Beall, onto North 7th Avenue. Staff ultimately did not recommend mitigation for three reasons. First, the practical impact of the reduction in minor leg LOS in the design year (2038) is 1 to 3 vehicles queued in the 95th percentile scenario in the peak hour. The existing peak hour 95th percentile queue is 1. Therefore, the increase in queued vehicles is small and occurs only during short durations of the day, which suggests the mitigation measure would be of minimal benefit. Second, staff cannot find any evidence of public complaint or dissatisfaction at these intersections that would indicate queuing of this nature is unacceptable. Finally, the additional queuing and delay is almost entirely due to projected background growth in traffic volume and not that which is induced by The Guthrie development itself. As a means of comparison, a traffic study of the previous use of the site as an assisted living facility of lesser intensity in the design year (2038) would have a high probability of showing a similar increase in queuing and decrease in minor leg LOS.” While staff presents this analysis, staff does not provide reference to any applicable code that indicates that this analysis is relevant to the approval criteria. Approval of the application must be based on the approval criteria. City staff notes: “Appellant also finds fault with the City’s analysis of the LOS of intersections near The Guthrie because the analysis was different from and inconsistent with an unrelated zone map amendment application for a different location that was denied in 2022. The two applications are entirely distinguishable and denial of the zone map amendment application near the intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street has no bearing or relation to staff’s analysis of The Guthrie site plan application. One critical distinction is that the intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street was evaluated in the 2017 Transportation Master Plan and found to fail LOS while meeting conditions that warrant a signalized intersection. One critical distinction is that the intersection of Haggerty Lane and East Main Street was evaluated in the 2017Transportation Master Plan and found to fail LOS while meeting conditions that warrant a signalized intersection. In contrast, the intersections of Villard and Beall with North 7th Avenue do not meet signal warrants...2024 Montana Department of Transportation traffic volume data indicates that traffic on Haggerty Lane approaching East Main Street has an average annual daily traffic count of 2,986, which is more than triple the traffic volume found on Beall and Villard. The combination of these factors indicates a substantial difference in the conditions and analysis applied between the two projects. Appellant’s proffered example is inapposite to the application at issue in this appeal.” It is unclear how the applications are entirely distinguishable. The Haggerty application and City's decision relied upon the applicant's HCM based methodology and not on the undefined, intersection as a whole methodology that is not based on the HCM. The City, without explanation, has apparently taken opposite approaches in interpretation of their standards with the Haggerty application and this application. This would seemingly present a significant concern to City decision makers. It is certainly possible that when making opposite interpretations of the same standard that opposite results such as approval or denial may occur. At the very least, this example highlights the disparity in application of analysis methodologies and the lack of compliance with the City's own Transportation Plan methodology. Whether a traffic signal is warranted or not or how much side street volume is present is completely irrelevant to the approval criteria. If the approval criteria is not met, then the application cannot be approved. In my July 7, 2024 report, I noted: “BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) states that 'The city determines level of service (LOS) values by using the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.' The Highway Capacity Manual states: 'LOS for a [two-way stop controlled] intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay. For motor vehicles, LOS is determined for each minor-street movement (or shared movement), as well as the major-street left turns, by using the criteria given in Exhibit 20-2. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole (emphasis added) or for major-street approaches for three primary reasons: (a) major-street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay; (b) the disproportionate number of major-street through vehicles at a typical TWSC intersection skews the weighted average of all movements, resulting in a very low overall average delay for all vehicles; and (c) the resulting low delay can mask LOS deficiencies for minor movements...Unsignalized intersections are also associated with more uncertainty for users, as delays are less predictable than they are at signals.' The Highway Capacity Manual provides no methodology for analyzing level of service as a whole for two way stop controlled intersections like N 7th Avenue/W Villard Street and N 7th Avenue/W Beall Street and then explains why no such methodology exists. The N 7th Avenue northbound and southbound through traffic have no delay as there is no traffic control (stop signs or signalization) to cause delay. With increasing traffic on N 7th Avenue, the intersection, if considered as a whole, could theoretically improve operations while in reality, side street traffic could be experiencing very long delays and difficulty turning onto the N 7th Avenue. It doesn't make sense to analyze two way stop controlled intersections as a whole as it may for an all-way stop controlled intersection or a signalized intersection. Indeed, the city's adopted methodology clearly does not allow for analyzing an intersection in the way the city is attempting to analyze intersections.” BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) requires the use of “the methods defined by the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.” If an analysis is not conducted using HCM methodology, then compliance with BMC Section 38.400.060(B)(4) is not possible. In my 25 years of preparing and reviewing traffic impact studies, I have never encountered any other agency that assesses LOS for a two-way stop-controlled intersection based on delay for the entire intersection. However, it is commonplace for agencies to adopt and apply standards based on the HCM, which the City has simultaneously done and also currently employs as part of their Transportation Plan. The HCM defines LOS for two-way stop-controlled intersections based on delay per vehicle for individual movements or approaches that experience delay (not major street through movements), not for the intersection as a whole. The HCM explicitly states “The LOS criteria apply to each lane on a given approach and to each approach on the minor street. LOS is not calculated for major-street approaches or for the intersection as a whole”. In applying HCM methodology and the BMC’s requirement to analyze intersections using the HCM, along with the results of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), both of the N 7th Avenue/Villard Street and N 7th Avenue/Beall Street intersections are projected to operate at LOS F. As previously established, no methodology exists within the HCM to evaluate two-way stop-controlled intersections as a whole. There is no technical definition for such a method, nor is there any adopted means of measuring or calculating it. This methodology is not supported by any commercially available traffic engineering software. The applicant’s TIS provides no evidence that illustrates how it was concluded that the N 7th Avenue/Villard Street and N 7th Avenue/Beall Street intersections operate at LOS A. There is no HCM-based methodology that could produce this conclusion, nor does the TIS include any supporting calculations that support a finding of LOS A. The TIS states that the projected average delay at the N 7th Avenue/Villard Street and N 7th Avenue/Beall Street intersections is 3 and 2.5 seconds per vehicle, respectively. Meanwhile, the side street LOS (per HCM methodology) is nearly 96 seconds at both intersections with individual movements experiencing a delay of up to 175 seconds per vehicle. Although the HCM does not define LOS for a two-way stop-controlled intersection as a whole, it can be inferred that the City is attempting to apply the HCM’s LOS thresholds based on delay of movements and approaches that experience delay to the entire intersection even though the majority of traffic at the intersections experience no delay. Erroneously using those thresholds, an average delay of more than 25 seconds per vehicle would be required to reach LOS C, or an increased delay of more than ten (10) times of the projected 2.5 seconds per vehicle. However, given that through traffic on N 7th Avenue—comprising the vast majority of vehicles—experiences no delay, the City’s methodology inherently skews the results. This flawed approach would commonly result in traffic analysis that illustrates that as N 7th Avenue traffic volumes increase, the intersection’s overall LOS improves, even as side street delays significantly worsen. By this logic, delays on the side streets would have to vastly exceed 96 seconds per vehicle (likely minutes of delay) to approach LOS C for the intersection as a whole. This methodology is fundamentally unsound, unheard of, and does not align with the HCM, Bozeman's Transportation Plan or standard traffic engineering principles. Excerpt of TIS While city staff have testified that the LOS requirements of the BMC have remained unchanged for many years. The Haggerty application, at minimum, establishes an inconsistent application of the same standard that could result in opposite findings of LOS A vs. LOS F and approval vs. denial. It seems plausible that the City of Bozeman has required improvements or denied projects based on the HCM/Transportation Plan methodology, rather than evaluating projects under the whole intersection methodology. The variation in the city's application of the BMC raises important questions about why opposite interpretations of the same standard have been applied to different cases. Notably, the City of Bozeman’s Transportation Plan is explicitly based on the HCM methodology, which directly contradicts staff’s current interpretation of the BMC. Montana law requires consistency between transportation plans and development codes. Montana Code Annotated § 76-2-304 states: “Zoning regulations must be...made in accordance with a growth policy.” Furthermore, BMC Section 38.100.050 requires that when conflicts arise between regulations, the most restrictive standard must prevail. Additionally, BMC Section 38.110.010 formally adopts by reference the Transportation Plan. Given that the HCM methodology results in a LOS F for this application, whereas the BMC’s whole intersection approach interestingly yields exactly the opposite outcome, or LOS A, the HCM and Transportation Plan methodology is demonstrably more restrictive and should arguably govern. The “Existing and Projected Conditions Technical Memorandum,” an appendix of the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan states: “LOS for two-way stop (TWS) controlled intersections are based on the delay experienced by each movement individually within the intersections, rather than on the average stopped delay per vehicle at the intersection. This difference from the method used for signalized intersections is necessary since the operating characteristics of stop-controlled intersection (sic) are substantially different. Driver expectation and perceptions are entirely different. For two-way stop-controlled intersections, the through traffic on the major (uncontrolled) street experiences no delay at the intersection. Conversely, vehicles turning left from the minor street experience more delay than other movements and at time (sic) experience significant delay. Vehicles on the minor street which are turning right or going across the major street experience less delay than those turning left from the same approach. Due to this situation, the LOS is based on the average delay incurred at the worst performing movement. For all-way stop (AWS) and roundabout controlled intersections, LOS is based on average vehicle delay experienced at the intersection. This methodology is similar to that of signalized intersections...” The planned projects within the Transportation Plan, some of which are no doubt based on LOS standards, are presumably based on the HCM methodology outlined within the plan itself. However, it is unclear whether the City of Bozeman intended to apply one standard for evaluating its own projects and an entirely different standard for assessing development projects. The approach in the Haggerty application vs. this application are certainly inconsistent. Applying the whole intersection methodology would yield significantly different results than using the Transportation Plan/HCM methodology with one resulting in LOS A and the other resulting in opposite results at LOS F. Given the clear discrepancy between these two approaches and the absence of any HCM methodology supporting the BMC standard, it is possible that the BMC contains a significant and consequential error as other intersection types besides two-way stop-controlled intersections include a HCM methodology to analyze an intersection as a whole. Mitigation for Substandard LOS In considering mitigation for the “substandard LOS on the east and west legs” of the 7th Avenue/Villard Street and 7th Avenue/Beall Street intersections, the TIS notes: “The intersections of North 7th Avenue/West Villard Street and North 7th Avenue/West Beall Street are anticipated to operate at substandard LOS on the east and west legs (local streets) during the AM and PM peak hours. The addition of a dedicated left-turn lane on West Villard Street and right and left-turn lanes on West Beall Street are not expected to result in a significant capacity improvement. The installation of a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) on North 7th Avenue would have a larger improvement in delay by permitting two-staged left-turns from the minor legs. This would require major reconstruction to North 7th Avenue and is not an easily feasible solution. It is likely that when volumes are high on North 7th Avenue during the AM and PM peak hours, vehicles attempting to make a left-turn from the minor legs will reroute to a signalized intersection if excessive delay is experienced. Restrictions to West Villard Street and West Beall Street minor legs could also be considered in the future to improve minor leg operations; however, this change would greatly impact the connectivity of the neighborhoods. Minor leg volumes at both deficient intersections are low and would not warrant the installation of a signal unless a safety concern arises in the future...” The BMC states that an exception to the LOS requirement may be granted “If an intersection within the area required to be studied by section 38.220.060.A.12 does not meet LOS 'C' and the intersection has been fully constructed to its maximum lane and turning movement capacity, then an LOS of less than 'C' is acceptable.” However, this is not the case. It is clear based on the TIS that a TWLTL would likely be expensive, but the expense of an improvement doesn't absolve the applicant of complying with the approval criteria. Just to the north of these intersections, 7th Avenue has been constructed with a five lane section, so it is clear that the corridor is not constructed to its maximum capacity. The TIS mentions, but doesn't evaluate any other options that may mitigate this substandard LOS. There is no evidence that other exceptions have been evaluated or granted. Any of these solutions could be implemented and may improve operations, but the TIS has not analyzed any of them. Traffic Calming The staff report notes my July 7, 2024 “analysis finds fault in failure to adequately define the need for traffic calming, which was required by staff through a condition of approval of the site plan. Traffic calming features inherently support safety through reduction of vehicle speed. The independent report’s criticism of the City’s failure to justify need for the traffic calming infrastructure contradicts its own claim that the development will induce unsafe traffic operations.” Staff has incorrectly interpreted my comments. My traffic calming comments also do not pertain to my concerns about the 7th Avenue/Beall and 7th Avenue/Villard intersections. My report notes: “The TIS addendum #2 insinuates that whether a street has a traffic volume over 1,000 vehicles per day is the major determining factor in determining the need for traffic calming and that if a street has a traffic volume under 1,000 ADT, traffic calming measures should not be considered. Rather, the FHWA ePrimer notes that “For example, a jurisdiction could have a minimum daily traffic volume (e.g., 1,000 vehicles per day; 100 vehicles during peak hour in one direction) before consideration is given to implementing traffic calming.” The ePrimer provides an example of a possible threshold, but does not suggest or dictate this threshold....Notably, the TIS, TIS addendum and TIS addendum #2 don't provide any evidence of the traffic counts or traffic speeds collected in reviewing the need for traffic calming in the neighborhood.” The ePrimer referenced by the applicant's TIS refer to numerous other considerations for the need for traffic calming. My comments are not an argument against traffic calming, but questions whether adequate traffic calming has been proposed. The TIS appears to rely solely upon a volume threshold that the City has not adopted, but there is other relevant criteria as to when traffic calming should be considered. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 503-317-4559. Sincerely, Rick Nys, P.E. Principal Traffic Engineer