HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-26 - Transportation Coordinating Committee - Agendas & Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 10:30 a.m.
B. Roll Call
C. Approval of Minutes
C.1 Approval of the August 12, 2026 Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization TTAC
Meeting Minutes(Butts)
D. Public Comments
E. New Business
THE GALLATIN VALLEY MPO - TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
TTAC AGENDA
Wednesday, October 14, 2026
General information about the Transportation Technical Advisory Committee can be found in our
Laserfiche repository.
If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to
comments@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day before
the meeting.
Public comments will also be accepted through Video Conference during the appropriate agenda items.
Recordings of the meeting will be available through the Commission's video page.
For more information please contact Jeff Butts, jbutts@bozeman.net
This meeting will be held using an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting:
Via Video Conference:
Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit.
Click Join Now to enter the meeting.
Via Phone: This is for listening only
+1 719 359 4580
Access code: 950 6233 3811
This is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the
Metropolitan Planning Organization. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item
for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the
Committee cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons
addressing the Committee shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the
audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and place of residence in an audible
tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes.
General public comments to the Committee can be found on their Laserfiche repository page.
1
E.1 First Review of the Draft Federal Fiscal Years 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement
Program(Butts)
E.2 First Review of the Draft Long Range Transportation Plan (Butts)
F. General Discussion
G. Adjournment
This Committee generally meets the second Wednesday of every month from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.
All meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance,
please contact our ADA Coordinator at 406.582.3232.
2
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Gallatin Valley MPO - Transportation Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:Jeff Butts - MPO Manager
SUBJECT:Approval of the August 12, 2026 Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization TTAC Meeting Minutes
MEETING DATE:October 14, 2026
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:I move to approve the August 12, 2026 Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization TTAC Meeting Minutes
STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver
information to the community and our partners.
BACKGROUND:Minutes from the August 12, 2026 Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization TTAC Meeting.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the committee.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None
Attachments:
081226 GVMPO TTAC Meeting Minutes
Report compiled on: September 1, 2026
3
Gallatin Valley MPO Meeting Minutes, August 12, 2026
Page 1 of 2
THE GALLATIN VALLEY MPO TTAC MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MINUTES
August 12, 2026
A. 00:02:50 Call to Order -10:30 a.m.
B. 00:03:39 Roll Call Present: Chris Saunders, Nicholas Ross, Katharine King, Sean O'Callaghan, Levi Ewan, Geoff Streeter (Beth
Clarkson - Proxy), Sunshine Ross, Todd Wilson, John How
Absent: Chad Mozol, Brandon Jones
Excused: None
Todd Wilson joined the meeting after the approval of minutes.
Other Present at the meeting; Marcy Yeykal, Dede Frothingham, Richard Wolf, Zachary Zabel, Chris Johnson,
Bethany Rorem, Jolean Hall, The Gallatin Valley Sentinel.
C. 00:04:29 Approval of Minutes
C.1 Approval of the July 8, 2026 Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization TTAC Meeting Minutes
(Butts)
00:04:53 Motion to approve C.1
Approval of the July 8, 2026 Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization TTAC Meeting Minutes (Butts)
Sunshine Ross: Motion
Sean O'Callaghan: 2nd
00:05:33 Vote on the Motion to approve C.1
Approval of the July 8, 2026 Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization TTAC Meeting Minutes (Butts)
The Motion carried 8 - 0.
Approve:
4
Gallatin Valley MPO Meeting Minutes, August 12, 2026
Page 2 of 2
Chris Saunders
Nicholas Ross
Katharine King
Sean O'Callaghan
Levi Ewan
Geoff Streeter (Beth Clarkson - Proxy)
Sunshine Ross
John How
Disapprove:
None
D. 00:06:11 Public Comments
There was no request for public comment.
E. New Business
E.1 00:07:01 Initial Review of the Long-Range Transportation Plan Fiscally Constrained Project List (Butts)
00:08:21 Nelson Nygaard presented the Long-Range Transportation Plan Fiscally constrained project List
to the committee.
00:18:29 Questions of Staff.
00:21:26 Continued Presentation
00:28:00 Questions of Staff.
00:31:41 Open Discussion
00:42:12 Updates to the Modeling Work
00:49:27 Questions of Staff
F. 00:55:04 General Discussion
00:56:11 Public Comment
There was no request for public comment
G. 00:56:41 Adjournment
This Committee generally meets the second Wednesday of every month from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
5
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Gallatin Valley MPO - Transportation Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:Jeff Butts, MPO Manager
Emiliano Esparza, Acting Director of Transportation and Engineering
Department
SUBJECT:First Review of the Draft Federal Fiscal Years 2027-2031 Transportation
Improvement Program
MEETING DATE:October 14, 2026
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Administration
RECOMMENDATION:Review the Draft Federal Fiscal Years 2027-2031 Transportation
Improvement Program and provide feedback.
STRATEGIC PLAN:2.2 Infrastructure Investments: Strategically invest in infrastructure as a
mechanism to encourage economic development.
BACKGROUND:The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies planned federally
funded transportation projects, funding sources, and implementation
schedules for all projects located within the Gallatin Valley Metropolitan
Planning Area. The TIP implements the Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP) through a fiscally constrained program of near-term highway, transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian investments. Projects included in the TIP must be
consistent with the LRTP.
As the Gallatin Valley MPO's first TIP, the draft Federal Fiscal Years 2027–
2031 TIP carries forward projects and funding already programmed in the
Montana Department of Transportation’s Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program. Staff is requesting review to confirm that the draft
reflects expected project funding and schedules.
The Gallatin Valley MPO must have an adopted TIP by December 26, 2026.
Development and review of the TIP are proceeding alongside the region’s
first LRTP to support adoption of both documents before that deadline.
This item provides TTAC with its first opportunity to review and discuss the
draft TIP. No action is requested at this meeting. Staff will refine the draft
TIP based on committee feedback and continued coordination with partner
agencies. The draft TIP will return to TTAC next month for a requested
recommendation of approval to the Transportation Policy Coordinating
Committee.
6
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Committee.
FISCAL EFFECTS:The draft TIP identifies anticipated surface transportation funding and
programmed investments for FFY 2027-2031.
Attachments:
Draft FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
Report compiled on: October 7, 2026
7
Gallatin Valley
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(TIP)
Federal Fiscal Years
2027 – 2031
Prepared by:
Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization in cooperation with
City of Bozeman
City of Belgrade
County of Gallatin
Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District
Montana Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Approved by:
TTAC:
TPCC:
MDT:
8
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
2
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through a grant from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report
do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Table of Contents
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
FAST Act and IIJA ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
About the TIP ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
TIP Process and Development .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
UPDATE, AMENDMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................................ 8
TIP Updates and Major Amendments ............................................................................... 8
Minor Amendments......................................................................................................... 9
Administrative Modifications .......................................................................................... 9
Performance Measures ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Safety Performance ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Pavement and Bridge Condition ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Reliability and System Performance Targets ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Transit Performance Targets .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Anticipated Project Contribution .................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Energy Conservation Considerations in the TIP .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Annual Listing of Obligated Projects ................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Financial Constraint and the Financial Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
Indirect Cost Recovery and the TIP .................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Understanding the TIP Funding Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
Projects List ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
9
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
3
Estimated Revenue ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Projects by Funding Source................................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Projects with Multiple Funding Sources .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Surface Transportation Program Urban (STPU) Bozeman ................................................................................................................................ 24
Surface Transportation Program Urban (STPU) Belgrade ................................................................................................................................ 25
Interstate Maintenance (IM)* ........................................................................................................................................................................... 26
National Highway (NH)* ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Surface Transportation Program Off System (STPX), Secondary (STPS), Primary (STPP), State Funded Construction ....................................... 29
Railroad Crossing (RRS) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Bridge Program (BR) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Urban Pavement Preservation (UPP) ............................................................................................................................................................... 34
Montana Air and Congestion Initiative (MACI) – Discretionary Program ........................................................................................................... 35
Transportation Alternatives - MDT .................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Transportation Alternatives - MPO .................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Carbon Reduction (CR) – 50k – 200k ................................................................................................................................................................ 39
FWP Recreational Trails Program ................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Discretionary Grants ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Federal Transit Administration Section 5307* ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Federal Transit Administration Section 5339 ................................................................................................................................................... 43
Federal Transit Administration Section 5339 Discretionary Funding ................................................................................................................ 44
Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 ................................................................................................................................................... 45
Transade (State Funded) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Public Comment ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Certification ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
10
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
4
Acronyms
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
CN Construction
CR Carbon Reduction
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FWP Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
FY Fiscal Year; runs Jul 1 – Jun 30
FFY Federal Fiscal Year; runs Oct 1 – Sept 30.
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
IC Incidental Construction
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
IM Interstate Maintenance; National Highway Performance Program funded
MACI Montana Air and Congestion Initiative
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
MDT Montana Department of Transportation
MPA Metropolitan Planning Area
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEVI National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
NH National Highway System; National Highway Performance Program funded
PE Preliminary Engineering
11
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
5
PPP Public Participation Plan
ROW Right-of-Way
SFC State Funded Construction
SRTS Safe Routes to School
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
STPP Surface Transportation Program - Primary
STPU Surface Transportation Program – Urban
STPX Surface Transportation Program – Off System
TA Transportation Alternatives Program
TIP Transportation Improvement Program; a multi-year program of priority highway and transit projects that implement the
region’s Long Range Transportation Plan.
TPCC Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee. The policy body for transportation planning within the Gallatin Valley.
TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee. Advises TPCC on transportation planning in the Gallatin Valley and
recommends actions for its review and approval.
UPP Urban Pavement Preservation
12
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
6
Introduction
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) connects the Gallatin Valley MPO’s long range transportation goals with near-term
investments. It identifies planned projects, anticipated funding, and implementation schedules to help the public and partners
understand how regional priorities will move forward.
FAST Act and IIJA
The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), funds
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs and continues metropolitan planning
requirements established under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
About the TIP
The TIP is a staged, prioritized five-year capital improvement plan for implementation of the Gallatin Valley Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP), expenditure of Surface Transportation Federal Aid dollars, and construction of other capital projects
that occur on Gallatin Valley’s Federal-Aid roadways. Developed in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies, the TIP
includes transportation facilities and projects that are the responsibility of the State, County, and Cities.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issues regulations for Transportation Planning, updating them from time to time.
Regulations guiding metropolitan area planning are generally outlined in Title 23 CFR part 450, and Title 49 Section 5303. These
regulations govern the development of the TIP.
As specified in the regulations, this TIP:
• Is a staged, multi-year, intermodal program of transportation projects;
• Is consistent with the transportation plan;
• Is developed and updated by the transportation policy body of the area in cooperation with state and local officials and other
affected transportation and implementing agencies, including affected public transportation providers such as the Gallatin
Valley Urban Transportation District (GVUTD);
• Is updated at least every five years;
13
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
7
• Updated with a frequency and cycle compatible with the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) development and
approval process;
• Covers a period of not less than five years, although additional years are considered informational;
• Includes a priority list of projects to be implemented during the time frame of the program;
• Is fiscally constrained by year and includes a financial plan. All revenue and cost estimates for the TIP use an inflation rate to
reflect “year of expenditure dollars,” based on reasonable financial principles and information, developed cooperatively by the
MPO, State, and public transportation operator (GVUTD); and,
• May be modified at any time.
Additionally, the TIP includes:
• All capital and non-capital surface transportation projects or identified phases of a project within the Gallatin Valley
Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) proposed for funding under Title 23, U.S.C. and Title 49 U.S.C., excluding (at local
discretion): safety projects, emergency relief projects and planning and research activities;
• Only projects that are consistent with the LRTP;
• All regionally significant transportation projects for which an FHWA or FTA approval is required whether or not the projects
are to be funded with Title 23 or 49, U.S.C. and,
• For information purposes and air quality analysis in non-attainment and maintenance areas, all regionally significant
transportation projects proposed to be funded with Federal funds not noted above or to be funded with non-Federal funds.
With respect to each type of project generally described above, the TIP also includes:
• Sufficient descriptive material to identify the project or phase;
• Estimated total cost, reflected in year of expenditure dollars;
• The amount of Federal funds proposed to be obligated during each program year;
• The proposed source of Federal and non-Federal funds;
• Identification of the agencies responsible for carrying out the project;
• In areas with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) required Paratransit Plans, identification of those projects which will
implement the plans.
14
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
8
As a management tool for monitoring progress in implementing the transportation plan, the TIP shall:
• Identify the criteria and process for prioritizing implementation of transportation plan elements for inclusion in the TIP and
any changes in priorities from previous TIPs; and,
• List major projects from the previous TIP that were implemented and identify any significant delays in the planned
implementation of major projects.
TIP Process and Development
The Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization prepares the TIP in cooperation with the City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade,
Gallatin County, Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District, Montana Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and other partners in the Transportation Planning process. To help guide the
preparation and adoption of updates, amendments, and modifications to the TIP, the following procedures are generally followed:
UPDATE, AMENDMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
The TIP is updated at least every five years but may be revised between updates. The adopted Public Participation Plan establishes
the following procedures for TIP adoption, major amendments, minor amendments and administrative approvals.
TIP Updates and Major Amendments
MPO staff coordinate TIP updates with partner agencies, including project nominations, cost and scope updates, funding estimates,
and recommendations on project priorities. Updates may occur sooner when changes in projects, funding, or planning requirements
warrant.
Major amendments include:
• Adding a new capital project involving capacity expansion or right-of-way acquisition.
• Removing a project from the adopted TIP.
• Proposing a new illustrative project for funding, as specified in the PPP.
TIP updates and major amendments require TTAC review and recommendation, a public comment period of at least 14 days, and
TPCC approval. Public notice will be provided through the City of Bozeman’s calendar and MPO electronic channels, including the
15
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
9
MPO website. Meeting agendas and materials will provide opportunities for public review and comment, including comment at TTAC
and TPCC meetings.
Minor Amendments
These include the following:
• Adding projects or programs without capacity expansion or right-of-way acquisition.
• Increasing project or program costs above the administrative approval threshold listed below.
• Converting illustrative projects to funded projects following formal funding awards when TPCC has previously reviewed or
acted on them.
Minor amendments require TPCC approval. Public notice and opportunities for review and comment will follow the PPP. When time
constraints exist, the MPO Manager and TPCC Chair may waive TTAC review and standard notice, consistent with the PPP.
Administrative Modifications
These revisions are eligible for approval by the MPO Manager and TPCC Chair under the PPP. Eligible revisions include:
• Text or graphic changes that do not affect project costs, scopes, or schedules.
• Changes to the proposed year of an existing project phase.
• Project or program cost changes within the thresholds below.
• Inclusion of new capital projects designated as illustrative – unfunded, time-sensitive, or emergency related.
Table 1. Administrative Approval Cost Thresholds
Project Cost Maximum Cost Increase
Under $100,000 30%
$100,000 - $500,000 25%
$500,000 - $1,000,000 20%
$1,000,000 - $2,000,000 15%
Over $2,000,000 10%
16
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
10
MPO staff will email TTAC and TPCC members a “Final Notice” describing the proposed revision, instructions for submitting
objections, and the response deadline. TPCC voting members have five (5) days to object. TTAC members are notified but do not vote.
If no objection is received, the MPO Manager and TPCC Chair may approve the revision administratively. If any TPCC voting member
objects, the revision will follow the minor amendment process at the next TPCC meeting.
Administrative modifications do not require TTAC review or the standard public comment period. All administrative approvals will
be reported at the next TTAC and TPCC meetings.
Performance Measures
Planning “Performance Measures” are a tool by which the effectiveness of the transportation program can be measured and are a
required element for MPO planning. Specifically, the adoption of Performance Measures and Targets is required for MPOs and States,
and they must be included in the MPO’s LRTP and TIP.
The Gallatin Valley MPO has adopted the measures and targets set by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and has
committed to meeting the targets through implementation of its LRTP. The MPO has adopted the State’s measures and targets for
safety, pavement and bridge condition, system performance, freight, air quality and transit assets. The MPO will support GVUTD’s
safety and security targets, as appropriate, and potentially others as they are developed.
To support the targets, the MPO will plan and program projects that contribute toward meeting the targets for each Performance
Measure. In general, since the MPO has opted to support the state targets, reporting on this information is completed at the state
level. More detail and supporting data may be found in the Gallatin Valley LRTP, which is incorporated by reference into this TIP.
The Gallatin Valley MPO continues to support current targets and affirms this commitment through inclusion of this statement of
support in this document. The narratives and associated table that follow outline the currently adopted measures and targets.
Finally, current projects in this TIP that support attainment of specific Performance Measure Targets are identified in the table
“Projects List”, which includes a column titled “Performance Measure & Target”. While the project’s contribution to target
attainment is identified, it is impossible to quantify the contribution; thus, only the measure and target description are listed.
17
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
11
Safety Performance
The Gallatin Valley MPO supports the state’s targets for applicable safety performance measures. The MPO has demonstrated some
progress toward reducing fatalities and serious injuries within the MPO boundary and has consistently met the state’s targets on a
rate basis for the five calendar years prior to this TIP. Specific information on this performance measure can be found in the latest
LRTP. Over time, projects supporting this measure will move from the LRTP into this TIP.
Pavement and Bridge Condition
The Gallatin Valley MPO supports MDT’s targets for NHS pavement and bridge conditions and aims to first understand, then address
pavement conditions within its jurisdiction. For NHS routes, pavement conditions are collected and monitored directly by MDT.
Bridge conditions are tracked and monitored by MDT. According to available bridge condition ratings, of the 55 bridges inspected by
MDT within the region, ten are rated as ‘good’ and 44 ‘fair’. There is one NHS bridges in ‘poor’ condition. The MPO will continue to
evaluate and include in the TIP pavement preservation projects on NHS routes and bridges.
Reliability and System Performance Targets
The Gallatin Valley MPO adopted MDT’s targets for system reliability, congestion, and air quality. Consistent with federal guidance,
the Gallatin Valley MPO was not required to set CO2 emissions reduction targets during the current performance period. Travel time
reliability in the Gallatin Valley MPA over the most recent available period was calculated by the National Performance Management
Research Dataset (NPMRDS), a dataset used by states to report and monitor transportation performance measures. Interstate Travel
Time Reliability within the MPA was unavailable. The MPO is committed to continued coordination with MDT and FHWA to improve
reliability of the Interstate system through the Gallatin Valley MPA and will continue to improve the function and reliability of non-
interstate routes in the area. Expanding mobility choices and network connectivity helps improve network efficiency, accessibility,
and the movement of people and goods; therefore, the MPO will continue to include in the TIP projects that expand mobility choices
and reduce emissions.
Transit Performance Targets
The GVUTD has not developed a Transit Asset Management Plan (TAMP), which includes transit performance measures and targets.
The TAMP is updated annually and performance metrics are reported to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of the
National Transit Database reporting process.
18
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
12
The GVUTD develops safety performance targets related to fixed route and paratransit services. The safety performance targets are
contained in the Agency Safety Plan (ASP), which is reviewed and updated annually. The newest transit performance measures and
targets included in the ASP are incorporated by reference. The Gallatin Valley MPO supports progress towards achieving these
targets and is committed to working with the GVUTD to make transit services accessible, safe, and convenient for residents and
visitors. Transit projects are included in the TIP and typically can be attributed to improving transit performance.
Anticipated Project Contribution
The tables below list the latest MDT and GVUTD Performance Measures and Targets, adopted by reference and supported by the
MPO. The “Projects List” table identifies anticipated project contributions toward these targets.
Table 2. Safety Performance Measures
Performance Measures 2027 Targets*
Number of Fatalities 199.6
Fatality Rate** 1.445
Number of Serious Injuries 750.4
Serious Injury Rate 5.371
Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities & Serious Injuries 64.6
* Based on 2024 Fatality Analysis Reporting System & MDT Serious Injury Crash Data
** per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (MVMT)
Table 3. Infrastructure Condition Performance Measures
Performance Measures 2-Year Target 4-Year Target
Interstate Pavement – Good Condition > 35% > 35%
Interstate Pavement – Poor Condition < 2% < 2%
Non-Interstate NHS Pavement – Good Condition > 30% > 30%
Non-Interstate NHS Pavement – Poor Condition < 3% < 3%
NHS Bridge – Good Condition > 17% > 17%
NHS Bridge – Poor Condition < 8% < 8%
19
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
13
Table 4. Highway Reliability Performance Measures
Performance Measures 2-Year
Target
4-Year
Target
Reliable Person-Miles Classified as in Good Condition >98% >98%
Reliable Person-Miles Traveled on the non-Interstate NHS >80% >80%
Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index <1.35 <1.35
Table 5. Emissions Reductions Performance Measures
Performance Measures 2-Year Target 4-Year Target
CO Emissions > 0 kg/day > 0 kg/day
PM10 Emissions > 0 kg/day > 0 kg/day
PM2.5 Emissions > 0 kg/day > 0 kg/day
Table 6. Transit Asset Performance Measures
Performance Measures 4-Year Target
Revenue Vehicles-% of vehicles that have met or exceeded their
useful life - Bus
-
Revenue Vehicles-% of vehicles that have met or exceeded their
useful life - Van
-
Equipment-% of vehicles that have met or exceeded their useful
life – Other Rubber Tire Vehicles
-
Facilities - % of facilities with a condition rating below 3.0 –
Passenger Facilities
-
Facilities - % of facilities with a condition rating below 3.0 –
Administrative Maintenance Facilities
-
Table 7. Transit Fixed Route Bus Safety Performance Measures
20
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
14
Performance Measures Annual Target
Fatalities (Total) 0
Fatalities (per 100 thousand VRM) 0
Injury (Total) 2
Injuries (per 100 thousand VRM) 0.0
Safety Events (Total) 1
Safety Events (per 100 thousand VRM) 0.0
System Reliability (VRM/failures) 42,800
Table 8. Transit ADA/Paratransit Safety Performance Measures
Performance Measures Annual Target
Fatalities (Total) 0
Fatalities (per 100 thousand VRM) 0
Injury (Total) 1
Injuries (per 100 thousand VRM) 0.0
Safety Events (Total) 1
Safety Events (per 100 thousand (VRM) 0.0
System Reliability (VRM/failures) 32,800
Energy Conservation Considerations in the TIP
Many effective energy conservation techniques include reduction in the dependence upon fossil fuels Projects that encourage
ridesharing, such as transit, and non-motorized projects, such as sidewalks, pathways, and bikeways, are included in both the TIP
and LRTP.
Annual Listing of Obligated Projects
In accordance with 23 CFR §450.334 regarding the development of an annual listing of projects for which Federal funds will be
obligated in the upcoming year, this annual listing is available on the MPO’s webpage, hosted as part of the City of Bozeman’s website
at https://www.bozemanmt.gov/services/gvmpo
21
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
15
Financial Constraint and the Financial Plan
The TIP must be financially constrained and include a financial plan that demonstrates how the projects can be implemented while
the existing transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained. Only projects for which construction and operating
funds can reasonably be expected to be available may be included.
The funding charts on the following pages show funds currently available to finance the projects contained within the TIP and serve
as the TIP’s financial plan. The federal and state revenue projections are based on best estimates provided through the MDT and local
agencies. As shown in the funding charts, the TIP is financially constrained.
Indirect Cost Recovery and the TIP
The Montana Legislature enacted House Bill 21 (Section 17-1-105 MCA) during the 2002 Special Session as a general fund savings
measure. This legislation requires all state agencies, including MDT, to fully recover indirect costs associated with Federal and third
party grants. The purpose of the indirect cost recovery is to maximize the use of Federal funds for all costs associated with delivering
Federal programs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) directed MDT to assess accountability of both direct and indirect
costs at the project level rather than the program level in order to provide full accountability of both direct and indirect costs.
Indirect costs are shared administrative and support expenses that help deliver transportation projects but are not directly
attributable to a single project and are applied at the project level to all applicable Federal funding categories in this TIP. Transfers to
FTA for projects that FTA administers are considered pass through and are not subject to indirect cost recovery (i.e., CMAQ/STPU
transfers eligible to Section 5307). Sections 5310 and 5311 are administered by MDT and are subject to indirect cost recovery.
Understanding the TIP Funding Tables
The TIP project funding tables consist of multiple components, designed to fully represent project information and costs, including
funding sources and project phases. The image below identifies and explains each of the various components of the TIP project
funding tables and can be used as a tool to understand the information being presented within the funding tables.
22
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
16
Figure 1. Components of the TIP Project Funding Tables.
All construction projects included in the TIP will be completed in multiple phases (i.e., PE, RW, IC, and CN). Funding for each
construction project is broken down by the costs of each specific phase. The table below provides a description of construction
project phases and additional project phases the reader can expect to see within the TIP funding tables.
Table 9. Project Phases and Descriptions
Project
Phase
Description
CN Construction – construction and/or reconstruction work performed by the agency or contractor.
IC Incidental Construction – ‘Safety Net’ for unexpected construction expenditures
OT Other – Additional programmatic expenditures including but not limited to costs for education and
outreach.
PE
Preliminary Engineering – Analysis and design work completed prior to project construction (the
abbreviation EIS will be added if the phase includes an environmental impact statement), performed by
a consultant and/or MDT.
Purch. Purchase – Procuring equipment, software, vehicles, or facilities.
23
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
17
Project
Phase
Description
RW Right-of-Way – Tasks associated with acquiring and preparing the right-of-way for a project (e.g.,
property acquisition and utility relocation)
Projects List
PROJECT UPN SCOPE COMMENTS
STPU
Kagy Blvd 8931 Reconstruction, added capacity, added bike/ped facilities
Main Street Belgrade 9926 Reconstruct with added capacity and
upgraded curb, gutter, and sidewalks
IM
MDT-Preventative Maintenance - IM Maintenance - Striping, Durable Pave Marking, Pavement Pres.
Belgrade to Bozeman 10253 Minor rehabilitation, I-90 RP 301 to RP 307
NH
MDT-Preventative Maintenance - IM Maintenance - striping, durable pavement markings, pavement
preservation
Belgrade- Urban 9057 Intersection improvements, signal upgrades
Belgrade Int Improvements 9930 Intersection improvements, signal upgrades
Jackrabbit-Amsterdam Rd Int 9930001 Intersection improvements, signal upgrades
Int Improvements-Four Corners 10771 Rehabilitation project to address substantial rutting issues at the Four Corners Intersection
NHFP
24
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
18
STPX, STPS, SFCN
Belgrade - Urban 9057 Intersection improvements, signal upgrades
Belgrade Int Improvements 9930 Intersection improvements, signal upgrades
South Cottonwood Road - Bozeman 10696 Resurfacing of the existing roadway includes seal and cover Extends beyond the MPA
Int Improvements-Four Corners 10771 Rehabilitation project to address substantial rutting issues at the Four Corners Intersection
Belgrade Southeast 10856 Pavement Preservation, mill & fill
RRS
HSIP
Safety Projects Various locations Placeholder to allow project nominations
SF179 Durston Rd Curves 9604 Reconstruct curves to address road crashes, Ajaker Creek L-16-178 RP 2.7-2.9
Signal Kagy Sourdough 9644 Install traffic signal at intersection of Kagy and Sourdough
SF 198 Amsterdam Rd Intx Imprv 9718 Intersection improvements include turn lanes and traffic signals
BR
LMC Supply Ditch Structure 10273 Bridge replacement with added capacity, N-50 RP 81.2-81.8
Gallatin River - 3M SW Belgrade 10364 Bridge replacement to address scour issues, S347 RP 3.15-3.65 Not all locations within the MPA
UPP
Pavement Preservation Pavement preservation Various urban routes
25
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
19
MACI
Belgrade Urban Improvements 9057 Intersection improvements, signal upgrades
2026 EQUIP PURCHASE - BELGRADE 10865 Mechanical Street Sweeper Local Match
TA
Path Preservation II - Bozeman 10450 Preservation work on several paths in
Bozeman at various locations MDT - Statewide
Bike/Ped Paths Bozeman 10453 Construct shared use paths in Bozeman at various locations MDT - Statewide
Hoffman St Sidewalks-Belgrade 10737 Improve sidewalks along Hoffman Street MDT - Statewide
Helen-Hoffman Walks - Belgrade 10738 Sidewalk installation on Helen Drive and Hoffman Street in Belgrade MDT - Statewide
Madison Ave Sidewalk - Belgrade 10441 Improve sidewalks along Madison Ave MDT - Statewide
Huffine Lane Shared Use Path 10743 Construct a shared use path on Huffine MDT - Statewide
Ped Crossing Upgrades-Bozeman 10750 improve pedestrian crossing features and ADA ramps MPO
Flanders Mill Sidewalk-Bozeman 10751 install sidewalk along Flanders Mill Road MPO
Safe Routes to Schools-Bozeman 10752 Safe Routes to School improvements, citywide MPO
CR
Signal Kagy Sourdough 9644 Install traffic signal
Belgrade Int Improvements 9930 Intersection improvements, signal upgrades
FWP
Bikefill Community Bike Park Construct 5-6 miles of bike park at Snowfill Rec Area Gallatin Valley Land Trust
EARMARK
GRANTS
26
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
20
Kagy Blvd 8931 Reconstruction, added capacity, added bike/ped facilities
Belgrade Urban Improvements 9057 Intersection improvements, signal upgrades
FTA 5307
Capital Line Operations Transit Operations
FTA 5339
Purchases Buses & Bus Stop Amenities Formula/Discretionary
FTA 5310
Capital purchases Purchase paratransit vehicles
TRANSADE
Capital transit Transit operations
27
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
21
Estimated Revenue
Amounts shown in thousands of dollars.
Federal FTA 5307
FTA
5339 Formula FTA 5339 Discretionary FTA 5310 GAS TAX
Fiscal Year Federal Local Federal Local Federal Local Federal Local CITY COUNTY OTHER TOTAL
Carryover 0.0 380.4 16,608.3
FFY 2027 1,492.2 1,268.4 96.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 207.6 36.6 2,558.8 838.3 1,623.0 41,490.4
FFY 2028 1,492.2 1,268.4 96.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,558.8 838.3 1,623.0 71,020.9
FFY 2029 1,492.2 1,268.4 96.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,558.8 838.3 1,623.0 14,067.1
FFY 2030 1,492.2 1,268.4 96.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,558.8 838.3 1,623.0 16,490.7
FFY 2031 1,492.2 1,268.4 96.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,558.8 838.3 1,623.0 11,261.2
TOTAL 7,461.2 6,342.0 862.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 207.6 36.6 12,793.8 4,191.4 8,115.1 170,938.7
Notes: These estimates are based on historical data and projections.
Funding projections are based on best available information and are subject to change given current funding uncertainties and unknown impacts of future congressional or other federal actions.
Federal program funding availability may impact the scheduling of projects. Funding will be subject to the obligation limitation set by the annual appropriations process.
*STPU, TA, IM, NH, STPX, STPP, STPHS, BR, Earmark, UHPIP, UPP and MACI funds include match.
Operations and Maintenance funds; Average of Fiscal Years 2024-2025) and TransAde makes up OTHER.
Federal STP/S/X
Fiscal Year STPU* IM* NH* SFCN RRS HSIP* BR* UPP* MACI GRANTS TA TA (MPO) CR FWP SUBTOTAL
Carryover 13,486.6 1,615.9 1,125.4 16,227.9
FFY 2027 368.3 250.0 8,728.2 87.5 0.0 480.6 17.8 500.0 1,992.4 17,341.4 2,494.1 404.0 579.6 125.0 33,369.0
FFY 2028 1,004.4 250.0 17,544.9 5,482.5 0.0 6,868.7 2,438.9 500.0 3,451.6 25,000.0 198.7 404.0 0.0 0.0 63,143.7
FFY 2029 1,530.0 250.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 2,617.4 500.0 0.0 0.0 188.5 404.0 0.0 0.0 6,189.9
FFY 2030 1,530.0 250.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 5,229.5 404.0 0.0 0.0 8,613.6
FFY 2031 1,530.0 250.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 0.0 500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 404.0 0.0 0.0 3,384.0
TOTAL 19,449.5
1,250.
0 27,773.1 5,570.0 0.0 7,949.4 5,074.2 2,500.0 5,444.0 42,341.4 8,110.8 3,635.8 1,705.0 125.0 130,928.1
28
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
22
Projects by Funding Source
Projects with Multiple Funding Sources
Funding shown in thousands of dollars.
Project: Description Phase Program Schedule Funding Source Local State Federal Total Project Costs
Sponsor: Pre-2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 86.58%
Kagy BLVD
UPN 8931
MDT
Reconstruction
of the Kagy
Blvd
PE 1,772.6 STPU 237.9 1,534.8 1,772.6
PE 2,568.8 STPU 344.7 2,224.1 2,568.8
PE 1,000.0 Local 1,000.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0
RW 606.0 STPU 81.3 524.7 606.0
RW 1,961.0 MPDG* 1,961.0 1,961.0
IC 1,306.0 STPU 175.3 1,130.7 1,306.0
CN 7,989.8 STPU 1,072.2 6,917.6 7,989.8
CN 3,000.0 Local 3,000.0 3,000.0
CN 22,328.6 MPDG* 22,328.6 22,328.6
Total 42,532.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,000.0 1,911.4 36,621.4 42,532.9
Belgrade - Urban Improvements
UPN 9057
MDT
Intersection Improvements,
Signal
Upgrades
Jackrabbit Lane
to Amsterdam
RD
PE 5,885.8 STPX 789.9 5,095.9 5,885.8
RW 3,000.0 NH 402.6 2,597.4 3,000.0
IC 1,635.5 NH 219.5 1,416.0 1,635.5
CN 3,451.6 MACI 463.2 2,988.4 3,451.6
CN 15,570.6 NH 2,089.6 13,481.0 15,570.6
CN 25,000.0 Raise Grant 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 8,885.8 1,635.5 44,022.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,964.7 25,578.8 29,543.5
Belgrade Int Improvements
UPN 9930
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal
PE 2,651.7 STPX 355.9 2,295.8 2,651.7
RW 500.0 STPX 67.1 432.9 500.0
IC 87.5 STPX 11.7 75.7 87.5
29
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
23
MDT
Upgrades,
install roundabout
Jackrabbit
Corridor by
I-90
CN 1,992.4 MACI 267.4 1,725.0 1,992.4
CN 6,592.7 NH 884.7 5,707.9 6,592.7
Total 3,151.7 8,672.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,586.8 10,237.4 11,824.2
Belgrade Int Improvements Intersection Improvements, Signal upgrades
U-602 RP 6.1
to 6.2
Jackrabbit-Amsterdam RD INT CN 1,095.8 NH 147.0 948.7 1,095.8
UPN 9930001 CN 568.0 CR 76.2 491.8 568.0
MDT Total 1,663.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 223.3 1,440.5 1,663.8
Totals 56,234.2 10,308.1 44,022.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,000.0 7,686.3 73,878.2 85,564.5
30
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
24
Surface Transportation Program Urban (STPU) Bozeman
Funding shown in thousands of dollars.
Project
Description
Program Schedule Funding Source Total Project
Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor Pre-2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 86.58%
Carryover 8,290.0 0.0 0.0 636.1 1,797.8 2,959.5
Borrow 1,687.3
Estimated Allocation
(STPU) 0.0 636.1 1,161.7 1,161.7 1,161.7
Kagy Blvd Reconstruction PE 4,341.5 582.6 3,758.8 4,341.5
UPN 8931 RW 606.0 81.3 524.7 606.0
IC 1,306.0 175.3 1,130.7 1,306.0
CN
7,989,806 1,072.2 6,917.6 7,989.8
MDT Total 14,243.3 0.0 - - - - 0.0 1,911.4 12,331.8 14,243.3
Adjustment/Closures
STPU Totals 14,243.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,911.4 12,331.8 14,243.3
Federal 12,331.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 State 1,911.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Balance 0.0 636.1 1,797.8 2,959.5 4,121.2
Funding projections are based on best available information and are subject to change given current funding uncertainties and unknown impacts of future congressional and other federal actions.
Federal program funding availability may impact the scheduling of projects. Funding will be subject to the obligation limitation set by the annual appropriations process.
31
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
25
Surface Transportation Program Urban (STPU) Belgrade
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project
Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor Pre-2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 86.58%
Carryover 3,509.3 3,365.9 3,671.8 3,977.7 4,346.0
Estimated Allocation
(STPU) 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3 368.3
Main Street Belgrade
Reconstruction PE 612.1 511.7 150.8 973.1 1,123.9
UPN 9926 RW 62.4 8.4 54.1 62.4
IC 62.4 8.4 54.1 62.4
CN outside TIP
Timeframe CN 0.0 0.0 0.0
MDT Total 612.1 511.7 62.4 62.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 167.6 1,081.2 1,248.7
Adjustment/Closures
STPU Totals 612.1 511.7 62.4 62.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 167.6 1,081.2 1,248.7
Federal 530.0 443.1 54.1 54.1 0.0 0.0 State 82.1 68.7 8.4 8.4 0.0 0.0 Balance 3,365.9 3,671.8 3,977.7 4,346.0 4,714.4
Funding projections are based on best available information and are subject to change given current funding uncertainties and unknown impacts of future congressional and other federal actions.
Federal program funding availability may impact the scheduling of projects. Funding will be subject to the obligation limitation set by the annual appropriations process.
32
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
26
Interstate Maintenance (IM)*
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 8.76% 91.24%
MDT-PREVENTATIVE
MAINTENANCE - IM
Maintenance -
Striping, Durable All 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 109.5 1,140.5 1,250.0
MDT
Pave Marking, Pavement Pres. Total 0.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 0.0 109.5 1,140.5 1,250.0
BELGRADE TO
BOZEMAN Minor rehabilitation PE 129.2 11.3 117.9 129.2
UPN 10253 I-90 RP 301 to RP 307 CN 11,437.2 1,001.9 10,435.3 11,437.2
MDT Total 11,566.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,013.2 10,553.1 11,566.3
IM TOTAL 11,566.3 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 0.0 1,122.7 11,693.6 12,816.3
Federal program funding availability may impact the scheduling of projects. Funding will be subject to the obligation limitation set by the annual appropriations process.
*IM is a state sub-allocated program by the federal National Highway Performance Program.
33
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
27
National Highway (NH)*
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 86.58% MDT-PREVENTATIVE
MAINTENANCE - NH
Maintenance -
Striping,
Durable ALL 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 335.5 2,164.5 2,500.0
MDT Pave Marking,
Pavement
Pres. Total 0.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 0.0 335.5 2,164.5 2,500.0
Belgrade Urban
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal 0.0 0.0 0.0
Upgrades IC 1,635.5 219.5 1,416.0 1,635.5
RW 3,000.0 402.6 2,597.4 3,000.0
UPN 9057 CN 15,570.6 2,089.6 13,481.0 15,570.6
MDT
Jackrabbit Lane to Amsterdam RD Total 3,000.0 1,635.5 15,570.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,711.7 17,494.5 20,206.1
Belgrade Int
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal PE 0.0 0.0 0.0
UPN 9930 Upgrades CN 6,592.7 884.7 5,707.9 6,592.7
MDT
Jackrabbit
Corridor by I-
90 Total 0.0 6,592.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 884.7 5,707.9 6,592.7
Belgrade Int Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal Jackrabbit-
Amsterdam RD INT upgrades
UPN 9930001 CN 1,095.8 147.0 948.7 1,095.8
MDT
U-602 RP 6.1
to 6.2 Total 1,095.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147.0 948.7 1,095.8
34
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
28
INT IMPROVEMENTS-
FOUR CORNERS
Rehabilitation
project to address substantial rutting issues at the Four
Corners
Intersection
0.0 0.0 0.0
UPN 10771 0.0 0.0 0.0
CN 1,474.2 197.8 1,276.4 1,474.2
MDT Total 0.0 0.0 1,474.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 197.8 1,276.4 1,474.2
NH TOTAL 4,095.8 8,728.2 17,544.9 500.0 500.0 500.0 0.0 4,276.8 27,592.0 31,868.8
Federal program funding availability may impact the scheduling of projects. Funding will be subject to the obligation limitation set by the annual appropriations process.
Funding projections are based on best available information and are subject to change given current funding uncertainties and unknown impacts of future congressional and other federal actions.
*NH is a state sub-allocated program by the federal National Highway Performance Program.
35
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
29
Surface Transportation Program Off System (STPX), Secondary (STPS), Primary (STPP), State
Funded Construction
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description
Funding
Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 86.58%
Belgrade - Urban
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal PE 5,885.8 789.9 5,095.9 5,885.8
UPN 9057
Upgrades,
install
roundabout
MDT Total 5,885.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 789.9 5,095.9 5,885.8
Belgrade Int
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal PE 2,651.7 355.9 2,295.8 2,651.7
UPN 9930 Upgrades RW 500.0 67.1 432.9 500.0
IC 87.5 11.7 75.7 87.5
MDT
Jackrabbit
Corridor by I-
90 Total 3,151.7 87.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 434.7 2,804.5 3,239.2
SOUTH COTTONWOOD ROAD- BOZEMAN
resurfacing of
the existing
roadway
includes PE 18.9 2.5 16.4 18.9
UPN 10696 seal & cover.
Not all locations inside
MPO boundary
Using 30% for
costs CN 190.6 25.6 165.0 190.6
MDT Total 209.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.1 181.4 209.5
INT IMPROVEMENTS-
FOUR CORNERS
Rehabilitation
project to
address
substantial
PE 124.7 16.7 108.0 124.7
UPN 10771
CN 493.9 66.3 427.6 493.9
36
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
30
rutting issues
at the Four
Corners
Intersection
MDT Total 124.7 0.0 493.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 535.5 618.6
BELGRADE -
SOUTHEAST
Pavement
Preservation,
mill & fill PE 161.8 21.7 140.1 161.8
UPN 10856
Frontage Road CN 4,988.7 669.5 4,319.2 4,988.7
MDT
P-205 RP 21.1
to RP 26.8 Total 161.8 0.0 4,988.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 691.2 4,459.3 5,150.4
TOTALS 9,533.5 87.5 5,482.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,026.9 13,076.6 15,103.5
37
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
31
Railroad Crossing (RRS)
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Program Schedule Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 10.00% 90.00%
PE 0.0 0.0 0.0
RW 0.0 0.0 0.0
IC 0.0 0.0 0.0
CN 0.0 0.0 0.0
MDT Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
38
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
32
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project
Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor Pre-2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 10.00% 90.00%
SAFETY PROJECTS Various Locations ALL 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 100.0 900.0 1,000.0
MDT Total 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 100.0 900.0 1,000.0
SF179 Durston RD Curves Reconstruct curves to address road
crashes
Ajaker Creek L-
16-178 RP 2.7-
2.9
PE 681.3 68.1 613.2 681.3
UPN 9604 RW 178.2 17.8 160.3 178.2
IC 89.1 8.9 80.2 89.1
CN 3,679.4 367.9 3,311.5 3,679.4
MDT Total 681.3 178.2 3,768.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 462.8 4,165.2 4,628.0
Signal Kagy Sourdough Install a traffic
signal
intersection of
Kagy and
Sourdough
PE 811.7 81.2 730.5 811.7
UPN 9644 0.0 0.0 0.0
CN 90.7 84.9 0.6 5.2 90.7
MDT Total 811.7 90.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.9 81.8 735.8 902.4
SF 189 AMSTERDAM RD INTX IMPRV
Intersection improvements includes turn lanes and PE 1,286.5 128.6 1,157.8 1,286.5
traffic signals. RW 615.0 61.5 553.5 615.0
IC 11.8 1.2 10.6 11.8
UPN 9718 CN 2,900.2 290.0 2,610.2 2,900.2
MDT
S-347 RP 4.3 -
4.7 Amsterdam
and River Rock Total 1,901.5 11.8 2,900.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 481.3 4,332.1 4,813.5
HSIP Totals 3,394.5 480.6 6,868.7 200.0 200.0 200.0 84.9 1,125.9 10,133.1 11,343.9
39
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
33
Bridge Program (BR)
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 86.58%
LMC SUPPLY DITCH STRUCTURE
Bridge
Replacement PE 1,005.1 134.9 870.2 1,005.1
UPN 10273
with added
capacity RW 5.8 0.8 5.1 5.8
IC 35.0 4.7 30.3 35.0
CN 2,391.8 321.0 2,070.8 2,391.8
MDT
N-50 RP 81.2
to 81.8 Total 1,005.1 5.8 2,426.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 461.4 2,976.5 3,437.9
Gallatin River- 3M SW Belgrade
Bridge Replacement to address PE 231.2 31.0 200.2 231.2
UPN 10364 scour issues RW 12.0 1.6 10.4 12.0
IC 12.0 1.6 10.4 12.0
Not all locations inside
MPO boundary CN 2,617.4 351.3 2,266.2 2,617.4
MDT
S-347 RP 3.15
to 3.65 Total 231.2 12.0 12.0 2,617.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 385.5 2,487.1 2,872.6
BR TOTAL 1,236.3 17.8 2,438.9 2,617.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 846.9 5,463.6 6,310.5
40
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
34
Urban Pavement Preservation (UPP)
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Program Schedule Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 86.58% URBAN PAVEMENT
PRESERVATION ALL 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 335.5 2,164.5 2,500.0
MDT
Various
Locations Total 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 335.5 2,164.5 2,500.0
PE 0.0 0.0 0.0
IC 0.0 0.0 0.0
CN 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
UPP TOTAL 0.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 500.0 0.0 335.5 2,164.5 2,500.0
41
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
35
Montana Air and Congestion Initiative (MACI) – Discretionary Program
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor Pre-2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 86.58%
Belgrade - Urban
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal 0.0 0.0 0.0
UPN 9057 Upgrades CN 3,451.6 463.2 2,988.4 3,451.6
MDT
Jackrabbit Lane
to Amsterdam
RD Total 0.0 0.0 3,451.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 463.2 2,988.4 3,451.6
Belgrade Int Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal 0.0 0.0 0.0
UPN 9930 Upgrades CN 1,992.4 267.4 1,725.0 1,992.4
MDT
Jackrabbit
Corridor by I-
90 Total 0.0 1,992.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 267.4 1,725.0 1,992.4
2026 EQUIP
PURCHASE -
BELGRADE
Street Sweeper
for City 0.0 0.0 0.0
UPN 10865 OT 500.0 67.1 0.0 432.9 500.0
MDT Total 500.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.1 0.0 432.9 500.0
Total 500.0 1,992.4 3,451.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.1 730.6 5,146.3 5,944.0
42
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
36
Transportation Alternatives - MDT
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 13.42% 86.58%
Madison Ave
Sidewalk - Belgrade
Improve
sidewalks along
Madison ave PE 350.6 47.1 0.0 303.6 350.6
UPN 10441 IC 10.3 1.4 0.0 8.9 10.3
CN 997.3 133.8 0.0 863.4 997.3
MDT
Madison Ave in
Belgrade Total 350.6 1,007.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 182.3 0.0 1,176.0 1,358.3
Path Preservation II - Bozeman
Preservation
work on several paths in PE 43.5 5.8 0.0 37.6 43.5
UPN 10450
Bozeman at various
locations CN 349.0 46.8 0.0 302.2 349.0
MDT Total 392.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.7 0.0 339.8 392.5
Bike/Ped Paths
Bozeman
Construct
shared use
paths in PE 202.5 27.2 0.0 175.4 202.5
UPN 10453
Bozeman at
various
locations CN 539.7 72.4 0.0 467.2 539.7
MDT Total 742.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.6 0.0 642.6 742.2
HOFFMAN ST SIDEWALKS-BELGRADE
improve
sidewalks along
Hoffman Street PE 769.5 103.3 0.0 666.2 769.5
UPN 10737 RW 12.3 12.3 0.0 0.0 12.3
IC 56.8 56.8 0.0 0.0 56.8
more local funds than normal split CN 2,775.2 1,488.7 76.3 1,210.2 2,775.2
City of Belgrade Hoffman Street in Belgrade Total 0.0 769.5 12.3 56.8 2,775.2 0.0 1,661.0 76.3 1,876.5 3,613.7
43
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
37
HELEN-HOFFMAN WALKS - BELGRADE Sidewalk
installation PE 458.2 61.5 0.0 396.8 458.2
UPN 10738 RW 7.8 1.1 0.0 6.8 7.8
IC 56.7 7.6 0.0 49.1 56.7
CN 1,419.4 190.5 0.0 1,228.9 1,419.4
City of Belgrade
Helen Drive
and Hoffman
Street in
Belgrade Total 0.0 458.2 7.8 56.7 1,419.4 0.0 260.6 0.0 1,681.6 1,942.2
HUFFINE LANE
SHARED USE PATH
Construct a
shared use
path on Huffine PE 258.7 34.7 0.0 224.0 258.7
UPN 10743 RW 178.6 24.0 0.0 154.6 178.6
IC 75.0 10.1 0.0 64.9 75.0
CN 1,035.0 138.9 0.0 896.1 1,035.0
Gallatin County LAG
Huffine Lane near Bozeman Total 0.0 258.7 178.6 75.0 1,035.0 0.0 207.6 0.0 1,339.7 1,547.3
TA TOTALS 1,485.3 2,494.1 198.7 188.5 5,229.5 0.0 2,463.8 76.3 7,056.1 9,596.1
Federal 1,286.0 2,159.4 172.0 163.2 4,527.7 0.0
Local/State 199.3 334.7 26.7 25.3 701.8 0.0
44
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
38
Transportation Alternatives - MPO
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor Pre-2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 13.42% 86.58%
Carryover 1,615.9 1,825.8 821.0 1,224.9 1,628.9
Estimated Allocation
(TA) 404.0 404.0 404.0 404.0 404.0
Ped Crossing
Upgrades-Bozeman
improve
pedestrian
crossing
features and
ADA ramps
PE 57.6 7.7 0.0 49.9 57.6
UPN 10750 CN 727.7 97.7 0.0 630.0 727.7
City of Bozeman LAG Total 0.0 57.6 727.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.4 0.0 680.0 785.3
FLANDERS MILL SIDEWALK-BOZEMAN
install sidewalk along Flanders
Mill Road PE 66.8 9.0 0.0 57.8 66.8
UPN 10751 CN 681.0 91.4 0.0 589.6 681.0
City of Bozeman LAG
Flanders Road in Bozeman Total 0.0 66.8 681.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.4 0.0 647.5 747.8
SAFE ROUTES TO
SCHOOLS-BOZEMAN
Safe Routes to
School
improvements OT 69.7 9.4 0.0 60.4 69.7
UPN 10752 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
City of Bozeman LAG Citywide Total 0.0 69.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 60.4 69.7
TA TOTALS 0.0 194.1 1,408.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 215.1 0.0 1,387.8 1,602.9
Federal 0.0 168.1 1,219.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Local/State 0.0 26.1 189.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Balance 0.0 1,825.8 821.0 1,224.9 1,628.9 2,032.9
45
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
39
Carbon Reduction (CR) – 50k – 200k
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 13.42% 13.42% 86.58%
Carryover 1,125.4 557.3 119.3
Estimated allocation 579.6
Signal Kagy
Sourdough
Install traffic
signal IC 5.8 0.8 5.1 5.8
UPN 9644 CN 1,011.8 135.8 876.0 1,011.8
MDT
intersection of
Kagy and
Sourdough Total 1,017.7 136.6 881.1 1,017.7
Belgrade Int Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal
Jackrabbit-
Amsterdam RD INT upgrades
UPN 9930001
MDT
U-602 RP 6.1
to 6.2 CN 568.0 76.2 491.8 568.0
Total 568.0 1,017.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 212.8 1,372.9 1,585.7
Federal 491.8 881.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Local/State 76.2 136.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
46
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
40
FWP Recreational Trails Program
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Project Costs Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor Pre-2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 20.00% 0% 80.00%
Bikefill Community Bike Park
Construct 5-6 miles of bike park. PE 25.0 5.0 20.0 25.0
IC
CN 100.0 20.0 80.0 100.0
Gallatin Valley Land
Trust
Snowfill
Recreation
Area
Total
0.0 125.0 0.0
0 0 0
25.0 0.0 100.0
125.0
47
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
41
Discretionary Grants
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source* Total Estimated Obligation Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor Pre-2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Kagy BLVD Reconstruction of the Kagy
Blvd
RW 1,961.0 1,961.0 1,961.0
UPN 8931 CN 22,328.6 22,328.6 22,328.6
MDT Total 24,289.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24,289.6 24,289.6
Belgrade Urban
Improvements
Intersection
Improvements,
Signal
UPN 9057 Upgrades CN 25,000.0 25,000.0 25,000.0
MDT Total 0.0 0.0 25,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25,000.0 25,000.0
Connecting Communities
Install Roundabout, build shared
use path.
Gallatin County Rural-
Urban All 17,341.4 3,468.3 13,873.1 17,341.4
County SS4A
Alaska RD and
Cameron
Bridge RD Total 0.0 17,341.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,468.3 0.0 13,873.1 17,341.4
TOTAL 24,289.6 17,341.4 25,000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,468.3 0.0 63,162.7 66,631.0
*local and federal match vary by grant opportunity and phasing.
48
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
42
Federal Transit Administration Section 5307*
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Estimated Obligation Phase Local** State Federal
Sponsor 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Carryover 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Allocation
(Estimated)(Fed
Share) 1,492.2 1,492.2 1,492.2 1,492.2 1,492.2
Transit Operations
Operating costs 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 6,342.0 7,461.2 13,803.2
Capital Transit Total 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 6,342.0 7,461.2 13,803.2
SECTION 5307
TOTALS* 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 2,760.6 6,342.0 0.0 7,461.2 13,803.2
Federal 1,492.2 1,492.2 1,492.2 1,492.2 1,492.2 Local 1,268.4 1,268.4 1,268.4 1,268.4 1,268.4 Ending Balance (Federal) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
*FTA administered funds are not subject to indirect cost recovery.
** Local match rates vary by project.
Full 5307 apportionment $1,492,234
Project 1 - Operating Assistance FTA Amount Local Total FTA Share Local Share
ALI 30.09.01 - Up to 50% share Operating Assistance $ 1,178,865 $ 1,178,865 $ 2,357,730 50.00% 50.00%
ALI 30.09.01 - Up to 50% share Operating Assistance (1% for Security)* $ 14,922 $ 14,922 $ 29,845 50.00% 50.00%
ALI 11.7C.00 - Non Fixed Route ADA Paratransit Service** $ 298,447 $ 74,612 $ 373,059 80.00% 20.00%
Total P2 $ 1,492,234 $ 1,268,399 $ 2,760,633
* at least 1% of allocation amount.
**up to 20% of total allocation if 3 criteria are met.
49
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
43
Federal Transit Administration Section 5339
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description
Funding Source*
Total Estimated
Obligation Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 20% 80%
Carryover 380.4 476.9 573.4 669.9 766.4
Allocation (Estimated
Federal Share) 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5 96.5
Buses & Bus Stop Facilities Program, Rural Funds
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
Capital Transit Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SECTION 5339
TOTALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Federal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Local 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ending Balance
(Federal) 476.9 573.4 669.9 766.4 862.9
50
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
44
Federal Transit Administration Section 5339 Discretionary Funding
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description Funding Source Total Estimated Obligation Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor
Pre-
2027 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
Carryover
FTA Grant Award
0.0
0.0
Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SECTION 5339
TOTALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Federal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 `
Local 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Balance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
51
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
45
Federal Transit Administration Section 5310
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description
Funding Source
Total Estimated
Obligation Phase Local State Federal
Sponsor 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 15%** TransAde 85%*
Carryover 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Allocation (Estimated) 244.3 244.3 244.3 244.3 244.3
Paratransit Vehicles
Purchase ADA
accessible
vehicles Purch.
GVUTD 9 Pass Van 102.7 15.4 87.3 102.7
Reach 7 Pass Van 50.0 10.0 40.0 50.0
Reach 12 Pass
Extended Van 91.5 18.3 73.2 91.5
Gallatin Valley UTD -
Lead Agency 244.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.7 0.0 200.6 244.3
SECTION 5310 TOTALS 244.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Federal 207.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 State 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Local 36.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ending Balance 0.0 244.3 244.3 244.3 244.3
*Funding dependent on the outcome of a competitive process and funding availability
** Match for ADA accessible 15% and Non-ADA accessible 20%
52
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
46
Transade (State Funded)
Funding shown in thousands of dollars
Project Description State Total
Estimated
Obligation Phase Funded
Sponsor 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 100%
Carryover 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Allocation (Estimated) 115.7 115.7 115.7 115.7 115.7 578.3 578.3
Transit Operations Operating 115.7 115.7 115.7 115.7 115.7 578.3
Capital Transit 115.7 115.7 115.7 115.7 115.7 578.3 578.3
STATE TOTALS 115.7 115.7 115.7 115.7 115.7 578.3 578.3
Public Comment
FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
The draft TIP and notice of availability for review and comment were posted on the MPO’s webpage. Direct public comment was also
called for at the TTAC and TPCC meetings where action for approval of the TIP was considered.
53
Gallatin Valley FFY 2027-2031 Transportation Improvement Program
47
Certification
The Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Bozeman, Montana, urbanized area hereby certifies that its
transportation planning process is in compliance with applicable provisions for transportation planning included in the following
sections:
(1) 23 U.S.C. 134, 49 U.S.C. 5303, and this subpart;
(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and 49 CFR part 21;
(3) 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age in employment or
business opportunity;
(4) Section 1101(b) of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-357) and 49 CFR part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business
enterprises in DOT funded projects;
(5) 23 CFR part 230, regarding the implementation of an equal employment opportunity program on Federal and Federal-aid
highway construction contracts;
(6) The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR part 27, 37, and 38;
(7) The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance;
(8) Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C. regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on gender; and
(9) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 CFR part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals
with disabilities.
Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization
_______________________________________________________________
Joey Morrison, TPCC Chair
Date:
54
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Gallatin Valley MPO - Transportation Technical Advisory Committee
FROM:Jeff Butts, MPO Manager
Emiliano Esparza, Acting Director of Transportation and Engineering
Department
SUBJECT:First Review of the Draft Long Range Transportation Plan
MEETING DATE:October 14, 2026
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Plan/Report/Study
RECOMMENDATION:Review and discuss the draft Long Range Transportation Plan and provide
initial feedback.
STRATEGIC PLAN:4.3 Strategic Infrastructure Choices: Prioritize long-term investment and
maintenance for existing and new infrastructure.
BACKGROUND:The Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) first Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) establishes shared transportation goals,
policies, programs, and investment priorities through 2050. The plan covers
the Metropolitan Planning Area, which includes Bozeman, Belgrade, Four
Corners, and surrounding portions of Gallatin County.
The plan must meet federal requirements for evaluating current and future
needs, addressing safety and system performance, involving the public, and
aligning proposed investments with reasonably anticipated funding. This
work requires coordination among the MPO, member jurisdictions, Montana
Department of Transportation (MDT), transit providers, and federal partners.
The first review provides an opportunity for the Transportation Technical
Advisory Committee (TTAC) to consider the draft as a complete regional
plan, identify refinements, and prepare for subsequent committee review.
How the plan was developed
LRTP development began in 2025 and builds on existing local, regional, and
state plans, studies, and capital priorities. The process has combined
technical analysis and partner coordination, which have been informed by
surveys, online engagement, pop-up events, and community workshops.
TTAC and the Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee (TPCC) helped
shape the goals and objectives, which were formally adopted by TPCC. They
address safety, maintenance, mobility choices, quality of life, regional
character, transportation and land use coordination, and resilience. Project
55
concepts originated with member jurisdictions and the public, drawing on
existing plans and submissions through the call for projects and engagement
activities. Projects were evaluated against the adopted goals, regional needs,
funding eligibility, feasibility, and partner input. This bottom-up approach
established the foundation for the regional project lists.
Coordination with MDT on travel demand modeling helped compare broad
approaches to improving the regional transportation system.
The Community Advisory Panel included members from each jurisdiction
with varied backgrounds and perspectives. Its input, together with internal
discussions, helped inform the draft Policies, Programs, and Practices. As this
chapter comes before TTAC for its first review, staff would welcome
members' perspectives on the proposed guidance. An advance draft was
provided to members on October 2, 2026.
What is included in the draft
LRTP appendices are attached as supporting reference materials for
members to consult as helpful during their review. The document progresses
through the following:
Introduction, planning process, and community input: The MPO’s
role, how the plan was developed, and how public and partner input
shaped it.
Goals, performance, and conditions: The adopted vision, goals, and
objectives; the performance framework; and existing and future
transportation conditions.
Project evaluation and recommendations: Project identification and
prioritization, network alternatives, and recommended projects,
including committed and illustrative projects.
Policies, Programs, and Practices: Guidance linked to the adopted
goals and objectives, with proposed priority levels, partners, and next
steps.
Funding, measuring success, and implementation : Project costs and
anticipated revenues, assessing progress, and advancing the plan
through continued partnership.
Appendices: Supporting information and technical detail for members
to consult as helpful during their review.
The policies and programs are an important part of this review. They
describe how the MPO and its partners can advance regional goals through
on-going coordination, planning, and future investments.
Review and Next Steps
Staff would particularly welcome feedback on two areas:
Projects and funding: Confirm that upcoming projects are accurately
represented with appropriate funding sources, assumptions, and
anticipated timing.
Policies, Programs, and Practices: Review the proposed guidance,
priority levels, partners, and next steps for alignment with adopted
56
goals, community input, and partner responsibilities.
Comments on all sections are welcome during the TTAC meeting and as
technical and regulatory refinements continue. Written comments received
by noon October 20, 2026, will inform TPCC’s review later this month.
Adoption remains on track this year, with TTAC’s recommendation
scheduled for November 5, 2026, replacing the Veterans Day meeting.
This item is presented for review and feedback; no formal action is
requested.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Committee.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Attachments:
Draft Long Range Transportation Plan.pdf
Appendix F GVMPO Projected Revenue.xlsx
Appendix A Project Lists.pdf
Appendix C Existing and Projected Conditions.docx
Appendix D Transit Strategic Plan.docx
Appendix F GVMPO Projected Revenue.pdf
Appendix B Community Involvement Summary.docx
Appendix E Project Evaluation Framework.docx
Report compiled on: October 7, 2026
57
58
i
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1-1
2 Plan Process .......................................................................................... 2-1
3 Community Input ................................................................................ 3-1
4 Vision, Goals, Objectives ..................................................................... 4-1
5 Performance Framework .................................................................... 5-1
6 Existing and Future Conditions.......................................................... 6-1
7 Project Identification and Prioritization ........................................... 7-1
8 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................... 8-1
9 Recommended Projects ...................................................................... 9-1
10 Policies, Programs, and Practices ................................................... 10-1
11 Funding the Plan ............................................................................... 11-1
12 Measuring Success............................................................................ 12-1
13 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 13-1
59
ii
Acknowledgements
AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION
City of Belgrade
City of Bozeman
Gallatin County
Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District / Streamline
Montana Department of Transportation
GALLATIN VALLEY MPO
Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee
Joey Morrison, Mayor – City of Bozeman (Chair)
Neil Cardwell, City Manager – City of Belgrade (Vice-Chair)
Emma Bode, Commissioner – City of Bozeman
Zach Brown, Commissioner – Gallatin County
Mark Egge, Chair – Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District
James Hanson, Member at Large
Geno Liva, District Administrator – Montana Department of Transportation
Former Members
Terry Cunningham, Mayor – City of Bozeman
Douglas Fischer, Commissioner – City of Bozeman
Scott Macfarlane, Commissioner – Gallatin County
Transportation Technical Advisory Committee
Nicholas Ross, City of Bozeman (Chair)
Chad Mozol, City of Belgrade (Vice-Chair)
Beth Clarkson, Montana Department of Transportation
Levi Ewan, Gallatin County
John How, Montana State University
60
iii
Brandon Jones, Montana Department of Transportation
Katharine King, City of Belgrade
Sunshine Ross, Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District
Chris Saunders, City of Bozeman
Chris Scott, Gallatin County
Todd Wilson, Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District
Non-Voting Members
Chris Pomeroy, Bozeman/Yellowstone International Airport Manager of Operations
Richard Wolff, County Planning Board
Former Members
Jason Karp, City of Belgrade
Sean O’Callaghan, Gallatin County
Camaree Ulijua, City of Belgrade
Community Advisory Panel
Kristin Blackler, Briger Bowl
Marilee Brown, Galla10 Alliance for Pathways; Safer Bozeman
Ricky Burns II, Ability Montana
Elizabeth D’Imperio, Montana State University Agricultural Extension
Lila Fleishman, Human Resources Development Council
Sandy Lee, Belgrade Planning Board
Matt Parsons, Gallatin Valley Land Trust
Andy Rowse, Monforton Moves
Captain Doug Samuelson, Montana Highway Patrol
Hayden Savage, Bozeman Transportation Advisory Board
Ellie Staley, Downtown Bozeman Partnership
MPO Staff
Jeff Butts, MPO Manager; Project Manger
61
iv
Joelean Hall, Transportation Planner
Special Thanks
Emma Belmont, Federal Transit Administration
Mitch Buthod, Montana Department of Transportation
Kevin Larsen, Gallatin County Emergency Management
Katie Potts, Federal Highways Administration
Brad Stein, City of Belgrade
Geoff Streeter, Montana Department of Transportation
CONSULTING TEAM
Zachary Zabel, Project Manager
Bethany Rorem, Deputy Project Manager
Chris Johnson, Principal-in-Charge
Kristine Fife, Big Sky Communications
Bill Delo, DJ&A
Disclaimer: This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The views
and opinions of the agency expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, or Montana Department of
Transportation.
62
v
Glossary of Terms
Acronym Definition Acronym Definition
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act NHPP National Highway Performance Program
CAP Community Advisory Panel NHS National Highway System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
STP Surface Transportation Program
FHWA Federal Highway Administration STPU Surface Transportation Program-Urban
FSI Fatal and Severe Injury TA Transportation Alternatives
FTA Federal Transit Administration TAMP Transit Asset Management Plan
GVMPO Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization TIP Transportation Improvement Program
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program TPCC Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee
LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan TTAC Transportation Technical Advisory Committee
MACI Montana Air and Congestion Initiative ULB Useful Life Benchmark
MDT Montana Department of Transportation UPP Urban Pavement Preservation
MPA Metropolitan Planning Area UTD Urban Transportation District
63
vi
Acronym Definition Acronym Definition
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
MSU Montana State University
64
vii
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Area ........................................................ 1-2
Figure 3-1. LRTP Public Participation Continuum .................................................................. 3-1
Figure 3-2. Timeline of Engagement Touchpoints ................................................................. 3-3
Figure 6-1. Population Growth ................................................................................................. 6-2
Figure 6-2. Employment Growth .............................................................................................. 6-3
Figure 6-3. Major Employment Sectors ................................................................................... 6-4
Figure 6-4. Transit Propensity Index ........................................................................................ 6-5
Figure 6-5. Percent of Commute Modes 2019 vs. 2023 ........................................................ 6-6
Figure 6-6. Streamline Fixed-Route Service ............................................................................ 6-7
Figure 6-7. Historical Transit Ridership ................................................................................... 6-8
Figure 6-8. Goods Movement Network ................................................................................ 6-10
Figure 6-9. Crash History, 2015-2024 ................................................................................... 6-12
Figure 6-10. Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Locations 2015-2024 ................................... 6-13
Figure 6-11. Motorized Vehicle Only Crashes vs. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Injury
Level, 2015-2024 ............................................................................................... 6-14
Figure 6-12. 2050 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios ...................................................................... 6-16
Figure 6-13. Median Home Listing Price in Gallatin Valley, 2027-2024 ............................ 6-17
Figure 6-14. Renter-Occupied vs. Owner-Occupied Housing Units.................................. 6-18
Figure 7-1. Project Prioritization Determination Criteria ...................................................... 7-7
Figure 8-1. Alternative 1 Projects ............................................................................................. 8-2
Figure 8-2. Alternative 2 Projects ............................................................................................. 8-3
Figure 8-3. Alternative 3 Projects ............................................................................................. 8-4
Figure 8-4. 2050 Existing/Committed Volume/Capacity Ratios............................................ 8-6
Figure 8-5. Alternative 3 Volume/Capacity Ratios .................................................................. 8-7
Figure 8-6. VMT by Functional Classification by Alternative ................................................. 8-8
Figure 9-1. Committed Projects ................................................................................................ 9-4
Figure 9-2. Recommended Mid- and Long-Term Projects .................................................... 9-5
Figure 11-1. Recommended Project Costs by Timeline ..................................................... 11-2
Figure 11-2. Forecasted GVMPO Funding by Source .......................................................... 11-3
65
i
66
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 1-1
1 Introduction
Transportation connects Gallatin Valley residents to jobs, education,
services, recreation, and one another. It supports the movement of goods
and the regional economy. Daily travel crosses jurisdictional boundaries,
making the valley one interconnected transportation system.
Rapid growth over the past decade has increased pressure on existing infrastructure. Safety
concerns, gaps in walking, bicycling, and transit networks, changing development patterns,
rising costs, and limited funding call for coordinated investment. This Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) establishes shared priorities through 2050.
Community outreach and partner participation shaped the plan’s development. Regional
stakeholders contributed data and helped develop the Vision, Goals, and Objectives adopted by
the MPO board. Project concepts came from partner plans, partner submissions, and members
of the public. Travel demand modeling and performance analysis informed the plan’s
recommendations. This inaugural LRTP is a step toward a more coordinated future.
What is the Gallatin Valley MPO?
A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the policy board of an organization created and
designated to carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process. MPOs are required
for urbanized areas with populations exceeding 50,000, as determined by the U.S. Census. After
the 2020 Census counted 59,080 residents in the Bozeman Urbanized Area, Montana’s Governor
designated the Gallatin Valley MPO (GVMPO) on December 21, 2023.
The partnership includes Bozeman, Belgrade, Gallatin County, the Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT), and the Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District (UTD). The
Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee (TPCC) governs the MPO and sets regional policy
and investment priorities, with recommendations from the Transportation Technical Advisory
Committee (TTAC), staff support, and agency and partner input.
The MPO coordinates regional planning, maintains federally required plans and programs, and
provides a public forum for investment decisions. Member agencies retain their authority; the
MPO does not own facilities, operate transit, or make land-use decisions.
67
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 1-2
The Metropolitan Planning Area
The Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) is the geographic area determined by agreement
between the GVMPO and the Governor, in which the metropolitan transportation planning
process is carried out. The Gallatin Valley MPA includes Bozeman, Belgrade, Four Corners, and
developing portions of Gallatin County. Its boundary encompasses the Census-designated urban
area, adjacent areas expected to urbanize within the planning horizon, and areas added through
voluntary boundary expansion (Figure 1-1).
Figure 1-1. Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Area
68
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 1-3
What is the LRTP?
Connecting Gallatin Valley is the GVMPO’s LRTP, a multi-decade development strategy designed
to guide long-term policy, investments, and multimodal system integration. It establishes a
shared vision among local, regional, state, and federal jurisdictions and addresses current
conditions and future needs for roadways, transit, walking, bicycling, freight, operations,
connections, and infrastructure preservation.
The LRTP is developed through a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning process
involving public agencies, transportation providers, and interested parties. It uses data and
public input to assess current conditions, forecast future demand, and identify transportation
needs. The plan guides investments and strategies for an integrated multimodal transportation
system that safely and efficiently moves people and goods, supports the economy, and serves
communities through 2050.
The plan links long-range priorities to near-term investment. Projects seeking federal surface
transportation funding must be consistent with the LRTP before entering the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Federal Requirements
Under Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 450 (23 CFR Part 450), the LRTP must
address no less than a 20-year planning horizon. This plan spans 24 years through 2050 with
short-term (Committed), mid-term (Recommended), and long-term (Recommended) strategies
and projects identified in Chapter 9. See Appendix I for details.
69
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 1-1
70
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 2-1
2 Plan Process
Connecting Our Planning Efforts
Although Connecting Gallatin Valley is the first LRTP for the region, the GVMPO’s local
jurisdictions and partner agencies have developed a wide array of previous plans, policies, and
studies which have informed and shaped this effort. The purpose of the LRTP is not to replace
previous planning efforts, but rather to build upon them, by establishing a shared regional
vision for the transportation system and enhancing collaboration between those responsible for
delivering projects across the planning area. Local, regional, and state plans from the last decade
were reviewed in the initial discovery phase of the LRTP and are summarized in Appendix A.
Recurring themes and priorities memorialized in previous efforts include:
• Provide a safe, efficient, and reliable network for the movement of both people and
freight.
• Preserve and maintain existing transportation infrastructure.
• Support walking and bicycling as important transportation modes for access to
destinations, economic vitality, and health.
• Expand reliable public transit and paratransit services, while improving first/last-mile
access to existing stops.
• Address growth through collaborative cohesion of land use and transportation decision-
making.
71
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 2-2
Our Approach
Connecting Gallatin Valley was an iterative multi-year effort guided by federal transportation
planning factors and using a performance-based transportation planning process. This approach
links a community-driven vision and goals to analysis, programming, and implementation by
using data, analytical and mapping tools, performance measures, public involvement, and
interagency collaboration. The federal planning factors informed each step, from identifying
needs to evaluating projects and strategies, and are discussed more in Chapter 5.
72
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 2-3
Creating the LRTP
The project team, made up of GVMPO staff, partner agencies, and consultants, collected and
analyzed qualitative and quantitative input at key milestones throughout the LRTP process to
capture the region’s values and priorities to develop recommendations that are implementable
and technically sound.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
August to November 2025
The project kicked off in Summer 2025 by reviewing previous planning documents and the latest
available datasets to understand existing transportation network conditions and opportunities
to better meet current and future needs.
TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN
August to November 2025
Consultants and MPO staff worked closely with Streamline to identify current system challenges
and establish best practices of a successful transit system in the context of the Gallatin Valley.
We then developed a set of recommended long-range transit service changes and the needed
capital infrastructure to support growth, along with implementation steps and potential sources
of funding. Those findings can be found in the companion Transit Strategic Plan.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
August to December 2025
The planning team held several pop-up events, created a website, and launched a survey to
understand community values and needs for the regional transportation system. This values
outreach concluded with an online open house and informed the draft goals and objectives.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
January to April 2026
Developed with TTAC and public input in November-December, the Vision, Goals, and
Objectives were adopted by TPCC. The technical team and agency partners hosted workshops to
gather community input on desired project types, network gaps, and priorities for investing
finite public funds in the regional transportation system. This included a multi-station public
meeting in each of the GVMPO’s three jurisdictions.
73
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 2-4
PROJECT COLLECTION, EVALUATION, AND PRIORITIZATION
April to July 2026
The MPO and its partners created a vast inventory of potential projects from previous plans,
formal entries by GVMPO partners, and community comments to assess through a multi-step
evaluation framework to understand alignment with LRTP goals and objectives to begin
prioritizing investments.
ALTERNATIVES, FUNDING PLAN, AND REFINEMENT
June to August 2026
Roadway projects were collaboratively assessed in a regional travel demand model with MDT to
better understand how different alternative futures of potential investments can help to relieve
potential delays and respond to future growth. Revenue forecasts were developed in step with
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for the MPO to establish realistic
funding constraints and fundable projects. Final prioritization of projects was refined based on
TTAC input which included consideration of construction feasibility, synergy with existing efforts,
and funding needs for annual operations, maintenance, and preservation.
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
September to December 2026
Connecting Gallatin Valley includes a final list of fiscally constrained and illustrative projects,
programs, and policies along with measures to monitor performance. The plan will be adopted
by the GVMPO and will serve as a framework for future funding needs.
Guiding the GVMPO
In addition to robust community engagement covered in the next chapter, the formation of the
plan was guided throughout with frequent updates to standing committees and collaboration
meetings with the GVMPO’s jurisdictional partners the City of Belgrade, City of Bozeman, and
Gallatin County. Coordination with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Gallatin Valley
UTD informed the plan’s transit elements and companion Transit Strategic Plan. Representatives
from MDT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided guidance in bi-weekly working
meetings to ensure the plan was developed in compliance with state and federal requirements
and leverages best practice for fiscally constrained long range plan development.
74
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 2-5
Transportation Policy Coordinating
Committee
The Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee is the official policy and governing board of
the GVMPO, responsible for carrying out the continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative (3-C)
transportation planning process in the Gallatin Valley MPA. The TPCC has final local approval for
GVMPO plans and programs related to public participation, transportation planning, the scope
of services, and the work program. The TPCC includes positions for the Belgrade City Manager,
Mayor of Bozeman and an appointed City Commissioner, Gallatin County Commission Chair,
MDT District Administrator, Gallatin Valley UTD Chair, and an at-large member with education or
experience in transportation engineering or planning. The TPCC provided overall policy direction
to the project team, responded to recommendations from TTAC and input from the community,
and informed refinement of the final LRTP recommendations.
Transportation Technical Advisory
Committee
The Transportation Technical Advisory Committee is a standing committee of the GVMPO and
conducts technical reviews and makes recommendations to the TPCC to support the continuing,
comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process while providing technical
guidance to GVMPO staff. TTAC includes planning, community development, engineering, and
transit staff from across the City of Belgrade, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Gallatin Valley
UTD, MDT, and MSU. Non-voting members include representatives of Bozeman Yellowstone
International Airport, Gallatin City-County Health Department, Belgrade School District 44, and
Bozeman School District 7 in a non-voting capacity. LRTP progress updates were provided to
TTAC during regularly scheduled meetings, with members providing feedback through all
phases of the plan development.
75
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 2-1
76
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-1
3 Community Input
Public Participation Approach
Community input shaped the LRTP’s vision and priorities, projects, and recommendations. In-
person and online engagement at key milestones offered several ways for the public to
participate in the plan development and review.
The GVMPO’s Public Participation Plan, informed by the International Association for Public
Participation (IAP2) spectrum, guided engagement. Activities matched the decision and
anticipated public interest, from sharing information and consulting to involving the public and
collaborating with the Community Advisory Panel (CAP).
Figure 3-1. LRTP Public Participation Continuum
77
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-2
Engagement Methods
Outreach throughout the MPA included:
• Information shared through the GVMPO website, postcards, press releases, notices, and
partner networks.
• Paper and online surveys on regional values, transportation needs, travel choices, and
funding priorities.
• A virtual open house, webinar, and online activities.
• Pop-ups at community events and public locations in Bozeman and Belgrade.
• An interactive map for identifying needs, proposing projects, commenting, and
responding to others’ ideas.
• Drop-in workshops in Belgrade, Bozeman, and Four Corners with polling, mapping,
project-selection, and budgeting exercises.
• CAP meetings at major milestones.
• An online feedback forum, written comments, and a 30-day public review of the plan.
78
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-3
Engagement informed decisions at key milestones throughout the LRTP process.
Figure 3-2. Timeline of Engagement Touchpoints
79
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-4
Community Advisory Panel (CAP)
The CAP met four times, advising GVMPO staff and committees. Members represented
communities, interests, and perspectives across the Gallatin Valley.
Early meetings refined the vision, goals, and objectives later adopted by TPCC. Members also
identified needs and projects, tested spring engagement activities, discussed public input,
project evaluation, fiscal constraints, and recommended policies, programs, and practices. Final
discussions reviewed key recommendations and how community input shaped the plan.
Spring Engagement Workshops
Drop-in workshops held April 14-16, 2026, in Belgrade, Bozeman, and Four Corners anchored
the project and alternatives engagement phase. Each offered the same activities and welcomed
input on need throughout the planning area. Concurrent online mapping expanded
participation.
The workshops included five interactive activities:
• This or That: Weigh trade-offs, including transit coverage versus frequency, on-street
lanes versus separated pathways, and improving existing infrastructure versus adding
new connections.
• Pick a Project: Use dots to identify priorities among projects in existing local plans.
• Build a Project: Allocate a limited budget among roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, transit,
landscaping, accessibility, and safety elements for a hypothetical project.
• Add to the Map: Identify needs, barriers, connections, and project ideas on a map.
• GVMPO Programming: Use interactive polling to gather input on broader values,
outcomes, and types of programs the GVMPO should support.
80
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-5
Pop-Ups, Surveys, and Online Engagement
The GVMPO also joined partner-led events, including a downtown disability-access workshop
and a university walk audit for firsthand insights into network conditions. Early pop-ups and
surveys identified regional values and needs. Later mapping and feedback gathered location-
specific ideas and comments on potential recommendations.
81
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-6
What We Heard
The following summarizes recurring and notable comments from engagement activities. They
reflect participant perspectives and are not statistically representative of the region.
Early Surveys and Interactive Polling
Participants envisioned a safe, affordable, sustainable, accessible, connected, and well-
maintained transportation system supported by transit. Leading considerations included
affordability, safety, infrastructure conditions, sustainability, and access to jobs and services.
Walking and bicycling input emphasized connected trails, bikeways, sidewalks, and separated
facilities, safer crossings, and accessibility and comfort for people of all ages and abilities.
Transit comments emphasized more frequent, reliable service, longer service hours, and
connections among Bozeman, Belgrade, Four Corners, Bozeman Yellowstone International
Airport, schools, employment centers, services, and recreational areas.
Driving-related comments focused on signal timing, congestion, street connectivity, roadway
maintenance, safer intersections, and separation of users.
Pop-up Events
Regional connections were a recurring theme. Transit comments emphasized service between
Bozeman and Belgrade; direct connections to MSU and Gallatin College; and access to the
airport, Four Corners, shopping, employment, schools, the Warming Center, and other daily
destinations. Some participants expressed willingness to pay for convenient airport service.
Comments on walking and bicycling emphasized continuous routes between communities,
including safer travel along Frontage Road and bicycle connections between Bozeman and
Belgrade. Participants also identified wider shoulders or separated facilities, sidewalk gaps,
school bicycle programs, and access in developing areas.
Roadway comments included speeding along Huffine Lane and Jackrabbit Lane, red-light
running, turning movements along Jackrabbit Lane, downtown truck traffic in Belgrade and
Bozeman, parking and enforcement, and student traffic on surrounding streets. One comment
suggested a diagonal roadway running parallel to I-90 along its south side.
82
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-7
Spring Workshops
Budgeting and mapping activities highlighted interest in connected multimodal networks and
context sensitive improvements. Participants emphasized shared-use paths, trail connections,
pedestrian crossings, bicycle lanes, and safer intersections.
Other interests included roadway maintenance, targeted road reconfiguration, landscaping,
parking, transit connections, and capacity improvements where warranted. Participants also
emphasized extending the connected street-grid pattern into growing areas.
Mapping emphasized connections between facilities, neighborhoods, schools, parks, commercial
areas, and neighboring communities. Comments addressed roadway-design, truck routes,
zoning and development standards near a potential future interchange.
Project voting focused on a small group of planned investments. Results informed the plan but
did not establish a regional project ranking.
Interactive Mapping and Online Comments
The spring interactive map received 102 comments. Approximate theme counts overlap because
individual comments may address several issues.
83
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-8
Theme Approximate
Comments
Common Requests
Walking and bicycling connectivity
59 Shared-use paths, bike lanes, sidewalks, trail connections, and closing network gaps
Crossing, intersection, and speed safety
46 Signals, RRFBs, refuge islands, roundabouts, lower speeds, and pedestrian timing
Roadway design and operations 34 Lane design, widening concerns, two-way streets, parking, and truck routing
Transit service and investment 11 Streamline funding, school service, and connections to Four Corners and the airport
Regional policy and land use 11 Complete Streets, parking reform, development standards, and coordination among jurisdictions
Maintenance and accessibility 10 Snow removal, bicycle-lane debris, sidewalk condition, and accessibility
Wildlife infrastructure 1 Potential wildlife crossing near Bozeman Pass and Bear Canyon
Agreement on problems did not always mean agreement on solutions. For example, crossing
proposals ranged from signals and Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) to refuge
islands, roundabouts, and speed management. Some proposals favored roadway widening for
bicycle lanes, whereas others preferred lowering speeds and not widening roads.
84
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 3-1
85
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 4-1
4 Vision, Goals, Objectives
Developing a Regional Vision
The vision, goals, and objectives adopted by TPCC establish the LRTP’s policy foundation and
are used in conjunction with the federal performance-based planning and programming
framework. The goals establish broad regional direction and the objectives translate that
direction into guidance for planning, investment, and decision-making. Performance measures
complement this framework by providing a consistent basis for tracking system conditions,
evaluating outcomes, and assessing changes over time.
This chapter presents the LRTP vision, goals, and objectives, and Chapter 12 describes the
performance measures and targets in greater detail. Together, they shaped project evaluation,
program and policy development, comparison of alternatives, and regional transportation
investment decisions.
Vision Statement
In 2050, Gallatin Valley’s transportation system provides safe, reliable, and
multimodal connectivity that supports people, goods, and communities as the
region grows. The system is well maintained, fiscally sustainable, and
designed to strengthen human-centered connections.
86
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 4-2
Goals
The LRTP includes six goals representing the region’s desired transportation outcomes:
The goals are interconnected and should be considered together. A project, program, policy, or
practice may support several goals even when organized under one primary goal for purposes
of evaluation or presentation.
87
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 4-3
Objectives
The objectives provide each goal with more specific planning direction. They help the GVMPO
and its partners evaluate transportation needs, compare potential investments, and develop
recommendations. They are intended to guide decisions rather than prescribe a single project or
solution.
Goal 1: Support Safe Travel Across All Modes
1. Eliminate all traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries across all transportation modes.
2. Improve safety outcomes and reduce barriers for nonmotorized travel.
3. Improve safety performance on high-injury corridors and intersections.
4. Improve accessibility and safety by reducing existing facility gaps and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) deficiencies.
5. Reduce conflicts and barriers that undermine safety, comfort, and personal security.
6. Maintain safe and secure connections for transit riders and operators.
7. Strengthen partnerships to support reaching Vision Zero goals.
Goal 2: Ensure a Well-Maintained
Transportation System
1. Maintain a state of good repair for roadway, bridge, and transit assets.
2. Maintain reliable travel times across the transportation system.
3. Improve pedestrian conditions to and within pre-1980s neighborhoods, activity centers,
and transit stops.
4. Improve long-term system performance through preservation-focused investments.
88
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 4-4
Goal 3: Expand Mobility Choices Throughout
the Region
1. Improve access between schools, jobs, services, and key destinations.
2. Improve street and pathway connectivity to support more direct multimodal travel.
3. Expand transportation infrastructure to support trips made by not driving alone.
4. Improve access, comfort, and safety to and at transit stops and transfer locations.
5. Expand access to everyday non-driving travel options that lower household costs.
6. Improve continuity and comfort by filling missing gaps in the pedestrian network.
7. Establish a regional bicycle network connecting key destinations for all ages and
abilities.
Goal 4: Enhance Health, Quality of Life, and
Preserve Regional Character
1. Improve access to nonmotorized facilities that support active travel options.
2. Improve transportation access to parks, trails, and recreation areas.
3. Reduce wildlife-vehicle conflicts and improve safe wildlife movement across corridors.
4. Reduce transportation-related impacts on environmentally sensitive areas.
5. Reduce per capita air emissions from the transportation system.
89
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 4-5
Goal 5: Enhance Transportation and Land-Use
Planning Coordination
1. Align transportation system and network decisions with adopted growth plans.
2. Encourage land use decisions consistent with transportation investments and policies.
3. Align system design to support walkable, human-centered, and well-connected places.
4. Support placemaking, economic vitality, and access in centers.
5. Prioritize year-round needs to avoid overbuilding driven by seasonal travel demand.
6. Reduce speed-related conflicts through context-sensitive design.
Goal 6: Improve Transportation System
Resilience
1. Improve the adaptability and flexibility of transportation network design.
2. Maintain and enhance system design for the reliable movement of people and goods.
3. Maintain a transportation system that can accommodate emerging technologies.
4. Strengthen coordination, cooperation, and preparedness among transportation partners
to support mobility, access, and logistics during emergency response and recovery.
90
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 4-1
91
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-1
5 Performance Framework
Performance-Based Planning
The LRTP links the region’s adopted vision, goals, and objectives to federal performance
measures and applicable targets. These measures track system conditions over time, helping
evaluate progress toward adopted goals and inform future planning and investment decisions.
Defining and establishing measurable outcomes helps the GVMPO and its partners track
progress, identify performance needs, make informed planning and investment decisions, and
improve transparency to the public.
Federal and State Coordination
To maintain federal compliance with 23 CFR 450.306(d), MPOs must use a performance-based
approach to transportation decision-making that supports the following national performance
goals established in 23 U.S.C. § 150(b):
Safety: To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public
roads.
Infrastructure Condition: To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of
good repair.
Congestion reduction: To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the National
Highway System (NHS).
92
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-2
System reliability: To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system.
Freight Movement and Economic Vitality: To improve the National Highway Freight Network,
strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets,
and support regional economic development.
Environmental Sustainability: To enhance the performance of the transportation system while
protecting and enhancing the natural environment.
Reduced project delivery delays: To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and
expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through
eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing
regulatory burdens and improving agencies' work practices.
These national goals are translated into specific measures and targets. MDT sets statewide
targets using prescribed methods and statewide data in coordination with Montana’s five MPOs.
Transit providers may establish transit-asset and safety targets through federal planning
process. The GVMPO acts within federal timeframes to support statewide targets or establish
separate targets for the MPA.
TPCC voted to support MDT’s statewide targets for the applicable performance periods. The
GVMPO’s Performance-Based Planning Agreement defines responsibilities for target setting,
data sharing, reporting, and LRTP integration. These targets are near-term benchmarks, not
2050 forecasts and are updated with MDT. Streamline previously participated in the State’s
Transit Asset Management Plan but is no longer included in the updated plan. Streamline is now
developing its own plan. The MPO continues to use Streamline’s targets for transit safety.
93
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-3
National Planning Factors
The GVMPO also aligned the Connecting Gallatin Valley goals and objectives with the required
ten National Planning Factors in 23 CFR 450.306(b):
• Economic Vitality
• Safety
• Security
• Accessibility
• Project Environment and Align with Planned Growth
• Connectivity Across Modes
• System Management and Operation
• System Preservation
• Resiliency and Reliability
• Travel and Tourism
These factors informed the assessment of conditions, identification of transportation needs, and
discussions around the goals and objectives. They provide the broader framework for the LRTP’s
performance-based approach, with performance measures and targets helping assess system
conditions and track progress.
94
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-4
Performance Measures and Targets
Federally required target setting and reporting help evaluate progress and inform transportation
investment decisions. Measures describe system conditions and outcomes. Targets define
anticipated level of performance for a defined reporting period. Measures apply at the system
level with applicability varying by roadway, facility, and project. They complement local needs,
public input, fiscal constraints, and adopted goals.
Statewide Safety Targets
Highway safety measures track fatalities and serious injuries for both motorized and
nonmotorized travel using five-year rolling averages.
Performance Measure Annual
Reduction
per Year
2027 Targets
Fatalities 8 199.6
Fatality Rate 0.056 1.445
Serious Injuries 29 750.4
Serious Injury Rate (per 100 million VMT) 0.210 5.371
Combined Nonmotorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries 2 64.6
The 2027 targets reflect a trajectory toward continued reductions in fatalities, fatality rates,
serious injuries, and serious injury rates.
95
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-5
Pavement and Bridge Condition Targets
These measures track Interstate and non-Interstate NHS pavement and bridge condition. MDT
may revise four-year targets at mid-period. The lower pavement targets reflect measurement
changes, not an observed decline in condition.
Performance Measure 2-Year Targets (2028) 4-Year Targets (2030)
Interstate Pavement: Good >35% >35%
Interstate Pavement: Poor <2% <2%
Non-Interstate Pavement: Good >30% >30%
Non-Interstate Pavement: Poor <3% <3%
NHS Bridge Deck Area: Good >17% >17%
NHS Bridge Deck Area: Poor <8% <8%
Pavement targets reflect lower rates in good condition due to changes in data collection
equipment, whereas poor-condition thresholds are generally steady. Bridge targets have
increased from 16 to 17 percent while targets for poor deck area have declined from nine to
eight percent.
96
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-6
System Performance and Freight Targets
These measures track passenger and freight travel reliability on the NHS. The table presents
MDT’s statewide targets for the 2026-2029 performance period. The MPO coordinates with MDT
to support these targets through its planning and programming.
Performance Measure 2-Year Targets (2028) 4-Year Targets (2030)
Reliable person-miles traveled on the Interstate >98% >98%
Reliable person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS >80% >80%
Interstate Truck Travel Time Reliability Index <1.35 <1.35
Interstate and non-Interstate NHS reliability targets remain unchanged, and the Interstate Truck
Travel Time Reliability Index is maintained at 1.30.
Emissions-Reduction Targets
Federal emissions measures apply where required under the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). Statewide targets are shown for context. The GVMPO
meets air quality standards and receives no direct CMAQ suballocation; local partners may seek
eligible funding through MDT.
Performance Measure 2-Year Targets (2028) 4-Year Targets (2030)
Total Emission Reductions: PM2.5 N/A N/A
Total Emission Reductions: NOx N/A N/A
Total Emission Reductions: VOC N/A N/A
Total Emission Reductions: PM10 >0 kg/day >0 kg/day
Total Emission Reductions: CO >0 kg/day >0 kg/day
The PM10 and CO targets remain greater than zero kilograms per day, and PM2.5, Nox, and
VOC targets are not applicable.
97
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-7
Transit Asset Management Targets
Below are Streamline’s targets under the State’s Transit Asset Management Plan (TAMP). The
MPO will incorporate targets from Streamline’s forthcoming plan into its planning process.
Asset Category Asset Class 2024
2025 2026 2027
2028
Revenue Vehicles Bus 0% 16% 12% 8% 4%
Revenue Vehicles Cutaway Bus 7% 20% 7% 20% 7%
Equipment Age: % at or beyond
Useful Life Benchmark
2024 2025 2026 2027
2028
Non-revenue/service automobile 25% 25% 25% 0% 0%
Trucks and other rubber-tired vehicles 100% 100% 100% 50% 50%
Facility-maintenance vehicle 43% 29% 29% 29% 29%
Facilities Condition: % below 3.0 on
FTA Transit Economic
Requirements Model scale
2024 2025 2026 2027
2028
Passenger facilities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Administrative and maintenance 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Streamline previously used the statewide targets for their plans. The targets vary by vehicle class
but generally anticipate fewer vehicles operating beyond their Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) by
2028, and facility targets remain at zero percent below the 3.0 condition rating. Low annual bus
mileage locally may justify use beyond the age-based ULB. Streamline will develop its own
TAMP and the MPO will incorporate the resulting targets.
98
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-8
Transit Safety Targets
Streamline establishes transit safety targets through its Public Transportation Agency Safety
Plan. The targets are shown below.
Mode of
Transit
Service
Fatalities
(total)
Fatalities
(per 100
thousand
VRM)
Injury (total) Injuries (per
100
thousand
VRM)
Fixed-Route Bus 0 0 2 0.0
ADA / Paratransit 0 0 1 0.0
Mode of Transit
Service
Safety Events
(total)
Safety Events
(per 100
thousand VRM)
System
Reliability (VRM/
failures)
Fixed-Route Bus 1 0.0 42,800
ADA / Paratransit 1 0.0 32,000
The targets maintain zero fatalities for both fixed-route and ADA/paratransit service, with limited
injuries or safety incidents. System reliability targets are 42,800 vehicle revenue miles per failure
for fixed-route service and 32,000 for ADA/paratransit services.
99
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-9
Applying the Framework
The framework informs project evaluation, recommended policies and programs, and regional
investment decisions in support of adopted goals and objectives.
Future Regional and Local Measures
This LRTP establishes no independent GVMPO-specific measures nor numerical targets. Future
regional measures would require reliable data, sufficient staff capacity, coordination with MDT
and local partners, and TPCC consideration. Staff may develop informal indicators for local
planning without establishing formal measures or targets.
100
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 5-1
101
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-1
6 Existing and Future Conditions
Guiding Plans
With robust local and regional planning work conducted in the last 10 years, reviewing current
planning and policy documents, and understanding what has been successful in the past, helps
set the framework to build on previous momentum. The LRTP integrates existing plans and
projects while identifying new opportunities to create an integrated transportation system that
meets the needs of our community and partner agencies.
The 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan, 2018 Belgrade Transportation Master Plan, 2022
Gallatin County Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan, and 2023 Gallatin Valley Sensitively
Lands Protection Plan were the foundation for the LRTP. The recommendations from these plans
have been integrated into the LRTP so that we have a single list of projects that can advance
with our region’s limited transportation funding. These recent plans share common values that
informed our work on the Gallatin Valley LRTP.
102
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-2
Demographics
Our region has experienced rapid growth over the past decade. The population within the MPA
increased by 38% from 2013 (65,044) to 2023 (89,855) (Figure 6-1). Growth has slowed in recent
years, but the area has continued to add residents year over year. Projected growth estimates
show that Belgrade, Bozeman, and Four Corners will grow to a combined population of 114,300
in 2045 (Appendix C).
Figure 6-1. Population Growth
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023
103
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-3
The Gallatin Valley economy has become increasingly diversified. Retail, educational services,
and accommodation/food services account for over one-third of all jobs in the region. Jobs in
the MPA increased by 47% in the past decade, with a total of 56,759 jobs in 2022 (Figure 6-2),
and an additional 44,500 jobs are projected to be added in the Gallatin Valley by 2045
(Appendix C).
Montana State University and the vibrant tourist economy support the regional economic hub,
with many people traveling into the urbanized areas to access jobs, services, and other major
destinations. As the region continues to grow, transportation options and connectivity need to
be considered to link people from where they live to where they work.
Figure 6-2. Employment Growth
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2022
104
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-4
Figure 6-3. Major Employment Sectors
Source: Longitudinal Employer-House Dynamics (LEHD), 2022
Using select demographic, socioeconomic, and employment data can help determine the overall
transit need for a given area. Areas with higher transit propensity are more likely to generate
ridership and support transit services. The following groups were examined due to their
statistically higher likelihood of using transit based on Census journey to work data:
• Minority populations1
• Low-income households
• People with limited English proficiency
• Zero-vehicle households
• Young people ages 15-24
• Older adults age 65+
• People with a disability
A composite transit propensity score was computed for each block group in the MPA by
summing up the individual percentages of population or households in each block group that
met the given criteria. A higher composite score indicates a greater relative transit propensity.
1 “Title VI Circular to 4702.1B.” Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients, Federal
Transit Administration, 1 Oct. 2012, www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Title_VI_FINAL.pdf.
105
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-5
Downtown and northwest Bozeman have areas with the highest propensity to use transit, as well
as northeast Bozeman along I-90. Central Belgrade also has high transit propensity adjacent to
the airport and in the River Rock community west of I-90. Bozeman has four local bus routes
and one commuter route that connects Belgrade and Bozeman. Improving service in Bozeman
and expanding service in Belgrade will help meet mobility needs as the region grows.
Figure 6-4. Transit Propensity Index
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023. The transit propensity index is based on combined
densities of the following socioeconomic and demographic groups: people ages 15-24, people ages 65+, people with a
disability, low-income individuals, households without a vehicle, minority groups, and people with limited English
proficiency.
106
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-6
Multimodal Travel Conditions
A reliable transportation system is essential for the livelihood of our residents, connecting them
to neighborhoods, commercial and recreational areas, and job centers. Understanding how we
travel will provide insight into opportunities to create a better traveling experience for our
region.
Mode Share
Driving alone is the primary mode of transportation for 68% of area residents who commute to
work. Although the overall number of residents who drive alone to work has increased since
2019, the overall drive-alone share decreased by five percentage points. A small percentage of
residents take transit, although the share increased by 0.1% in 2023. Residents are more likely to
carpool, walk, or ride a bike, although the shares for these modes declined by 0.3 to
1.6 percentage points since 2019. Remote work more than doubled in 2023, likely due to the
COVID-19 pandemic causing changes to commute patterns.
Figure 6-5. Percent of Commute Modes 2019 vs. 2023
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2019 and 2023
107
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-7
Transit in the Gallatin Valley
Providing high-quality public transit is essential to connect residents, employees, and visitors
throughout the area. The Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation District manages Streamline, a
fare-free fixed-route transit service with four local routes in Bozeman and one commuter route
from Bozeman to Belgrade. The four local routes operate every 60 minutes on weekdays, with
30-minute service at peak hours while MSU is in session. The Pinkline operates as a commuter
route with four trips in each direction on the weekdays, and it does not operate on weekends.
Figure 6-6. Streamline Fixed-Route Service
Source: Streamline; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
108
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-8
Streamline currently contracts with the Human Resources Development Council (HRDC) to
provide Galavan, a door-to-door paratransit service for senior citizens and riders who are unable
to use fixed-route services due to a disability. The service operates within two miles of regular
Streamline fixed-route service, which is beyond the legal minimum of ¾-mile as set by ADA
requirements.
Streamline experienced a significant drop in ridership during the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 6-
7) and has been slow to recover, with current ridership at 59% of pre-pandemic levels. Ridership
is also heavily influenced by the academic calendar at MSU, with levels dropping during summer
and winter breaks and rising again when classes resume.
Galavan ridership has trended similarly to the fixed-route service with slow recovery after the
drop in ridership that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, and ridership has not yet
returned to pre-pandemic levels.
Figure 6-7. Historical Transit Ridership
Source: Streamline; Ridership is shown through fiscal year 2026, which ended in June 2026
109
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-9
Biking, Walking, and Rolling
Providing high quality and connected bicycle lanes, shared use pathways and sidewalk
networks is essential for supporting safe, healthy, and more affordable living in the Gallatin
Valley. Active transportation facilities expand opportunities for physical activity and provide
more reliable options for trips made without driving alone.
An accessible and complete sidewalk network is also essential for people to walk or use mobility
devices to safely reach their destinations. As the region continues to grow, a complete bicycle
and pedestrian network will need to be a priority to meet community mobility needs. Available
bicycle and pedestrian facilities data are incomplete across the MPA, and developing a complete
inventory will require additional data collection beyond this LRTP.
110
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-10
Freight and Goods Movement
Moving goods efficiently and safely through the Gallatin Valley is essential to the region’s
economy and the success of local businesses. The freight network in the MPA includes highways,
railroads, and Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (BZN).
Figure 6-8. Goods Movement Network
Source: MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
111
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-11
Roadway-based goods movement through and within the MPA primarily occurs along key
portions of the MDT system. These include major freight flows along I-90, US-191/Gallatin Road,
and MT-85/Jackrabbit Lane.
Local jurisdictions, including Gallatin County and the cities of Belgrade and Bozeman, do not
currently designate any roadways as truck routes, though they have the authority to do so. As
the region continues to grow, greater planning considerations should be given to areas where
local and freight traffic share the network.
112
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-12
Transportation Safety
One of our priorities is keeping people safe on our streets as they move through the region.
According to MDT crash data, there were 13,070 transportation-related crashes in the MPA
between 2015 and 2024 (Figure 6-9). Of those, 23.1% were reported as injury crashes, 2.5% of
which were fatal or serious injury (FSI) crashes. Certain corridors in the MPA have a
concentration of FSI crashes, including Huffine Lane, 19th Avenue, West Oak Street, Main Street,
and Jackrabbit Lane. See Figure 6-10 for details.
Figure 6-9. Crash History, 2015-2024
Source: MDT
113
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-13
Figure 6-10. Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Locations 2015-2024
Source: MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Over 88% of crashes involving people biking, walking, using mobility aids, or riding other small-
wheeled devices result in some level of injury or fatality (Figure 6-11). This highlights the
importance of having safe infrastructure that reduces vehicle conflicts with people biking,
walking, or using mobility aids or other small-wheeled devices. Although these crashes account
for a small share of all crashes, they are more likely to result in fatal or serious injuries.
114
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-14
Figure 6-11. Motorized Vehicle Only Crashes vs. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Injury Level, 2015-2024
Source: MDT
Most crash reports include information on factors that contributed to the crash. Crash factors
can be environmental factors, such as road conditions, or human factors, such as reckless
driving. The most common human factor for crashes within the MPA is driving in a distracted,
inattentive, or careless manner, whereas driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or other
substances is the most common contributing factor in FSI crashes specifically.
The top five human crash factors are:
115
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-15
Growth and Land Use
Integrating land use with our transportation planning is an essential part of how we plan for
growth in our region. The projected conditions and growth estimates in this plan were
developed in collaboration with the Gallatin Valley Land Use Committee and built off the
Gallatin County Growth Policy and Future Land Use Map.
Using the projected growth in households and jobs (detailed in Appendix C), traffic volumes
were modeled throughout the MPA and show projected growth in vehicle volumes between
2022 and 2050. Volumes are expected to grow significantly in locations where future households
and job growth are concentrated or where alternative travel routes are limited. Chapter 8
provides a more detailed analysis of projected growth in vehicle volumes.
Some roadways may experience traffic volumes that approach or exceed capacity by 2050. As
shown in Figure 6-12, the blue segments on the map show where future projected traffic
volumes exceed current roadway capacities and congestion is expected to be most acute.
The green segments show roadways where future needs may emerge.
The 2050 projections reflect conditions before the projects and policies in this plan are
implemented. As such, it helps inform the plan’s policies, programs, and practices.
116
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-16
Figure 6-12. 2050 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
Source: Travel Demand Model
117
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-17
Housing and Affordability
Housing costs in our region have risen faster than wages, creating challenges for residents
seeking housing they can afford. Transportation is often one of the largest household expenses,
so affordable transportation options are essential to connect residents with jobs, schools,
services, and recreational opportunities.
Figure 6-13. Median Home Listing Price in Gallatin Valley, 2027-2024
Source: Realtor.com, 2024
118
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 6-18
Of residents in the study area, 55% own their home and 45% rent (Figure 6-14). This percentage
may change over time as housing prices shift and influence whether households choose to rent
or purchase. Vacant and part-time residential housing units are also an area of focus for local
elected officials due to Bozeman being an amenity destination during both the summer and
winter months. This may impact housing availability and affordability for full-time residents in an
already constrained market.
Figure 6-14. Renter-Occupied vs. Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023
119
120
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 7-1
7 Project Identification and Prioritization
Evaluation Process
This chapter describes how the evaluation framework was developed to help collect, screen,
assess, and prioritize for LRTP recommendations through the horizon year 2050. This process
builds off community input from public engagement and consensus building from GVMPO
Committee working sessions.
Collection
Projects were collected in two phases. First, the project team created an inventory of projects
recommended or identified in existing local and state plans to collaboratively review with
partner agencies to confirm which projects have been built, are in progress, or may no longer be
relevant. Next, an agency call for projects was held for GVMPO partners to submit any new
project concepts to be considered for inclusion in the LRTP, as well as provide technical and
project description refinements to already identified projects.
121
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 7-2
Screening
Altogether, over 900 projects were identified or submitted for evaluation. The projects were then
screened and updated accordingly for completeness of project descriptions, accuracy of
geographic extents to map, and removal of duplicates or those outside the MPA boundary.
Projects were advanced for further evaluation if they were potentially eligible for anticipated
LRTP funding sources or were identified as regionally significant. Projects generally involve
facilities functionally classified as Collector or higher to align with typical federal surface
transportation funding eligibility. However, other projects or facilities not on the federal-aid
system may qualify for certain funding programs, such as Transportation Alternatives (TA) or
other applicable funding sources.
At this point, concepts not specifically tied to a transportation network capital project and more
closely aligned with a program, policy, study, or equipment acquisition were set aside for
consideration in Chapter 10. Eligible projects were then filtered into one of four project types:
SAFETY
Projects aimed at reducing or eliminating conflicts at intersections and key corridors and
improving safety for people using active transportation modes. Types of projects include:
• Traffic signals and roundabouts
• New or upgraded pedestrian crossings
• Curb extensions and lane configurations
• Signal phasing improvements
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Projects aimed at providing dedicated space for people to walk, bike, or use mobility aids to
reach destinations throughout the region. Types of projects include:
• Constructing new sidewalks or filling in sidewalk gaps
• Pedestrian/bicycle tunnels and overpasses
• Dedicated bike lanes and shared-use paths/trails
ROADWAYS
Projects designed to increase vehicle capacity and enhance the roadway system through
creation, redesign, and reconstruction of streets and bridges. Types of projects include:
• Reconstructing or widening to upgrade road classification
122
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 7-3
• Restriping and reconfiguring lanes
• New extensions for network connectivity
• Realignment of segments to accommodate infrastructure projects
MAINTENANCE
Projects designed to preserve the roadway system through maintenance efforts. Types of
projects include:
• Bridge maintenance or replacement
• Pavement seal, mill, and overlay
• Streetscape improvements
Assessing
With a screened list of LRTP funding eligible and regionally significant projects complied, a
multi-step quantitative geospatial analysis was conducted to “score” projects to estimate their
potential to advance GVMPO goals and objectives based on design elements and location
within the transportation network. In total, 21 specific scoring metrics directly tied towards
meeting performance measures were developed and refined with input from the TTAC. Scored
projects were then assigned within four tiers based on natural breaks out of a possible total of
29 points, to be used to inform but not dictate the prioritization of projects. The full evaluation
criteria, assignment of scores, and aggregate scores are provided in Appendix E.
GOAL 1: SUPPORT SAFE TRAVEL ACROSS ALL MODES
Scoring Metric Projects Receive Points if They
Crash Reduction Address corridors which average two or more serious injury or fatal collisions per year
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Improve active transportation safety near corridors which average two or more bicycle/pedestrian involved collisions per year
Accessibility Improve or close a gap in the ADA network
123
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 7-4
GOAL 2: ENSURE A WELL-MAINTAINED TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
Scoring Metric Projects Receive Points if They
Facility Preservation Improve pavement, bridge, or transit facilities rated in “fair” or “poor” condition
Pedestrian Conditions Repair, restore, or improve pedestrian conditions in pre-1980s neighborhoods
GOAL 3: EXPAND MOBILITY CHOICES THROUGHOUT THE
REGION
Scoring Metric Projects Receive Points if They
Access to Essential Services Improve or expand multimodal access to schools or hospitals
Access to Jobs Improve access to key commercial and employment centers
Route Choice Improve network access and connectivity by increasing intersection density
Transit Access Close a gap, remove a barrier, or improve transit operations near Streamline bus routes and stops
Active Transportation Network Improve or close a gap in pedestrian or bicycle network; Add low-stress facilities for walking or bicycling separated from motor vehicles
124
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 7-5
GOAL 4: ENHANCE HEALTH, QUALITY OF LIFE, AND
PRESERVE REGIONAL CHARACTER
Scoring Metric Projects Receive Points if They
Access to Recreational and Active Facilities Improve or expand access to public recreation facilities, parks, or trails
Wildlife Do not impact moderate or high wildlife sensitivity and use corridors
Natural Preservation Do not encroach on environmentally sensitive areas
Emissions Reduce VMT, single-occupancy vehicle trips, or carbon emissions
GOAL 5: ENHANCE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE
PLANNING COORDINATION
Scoring Metric Projects Receive Points if They
Connectivity to Destinations Add connections near multiple key destinations or provide connections between neighborhoods and/or urban renewal districts
Growth Plans Located within a Moderately or Most Suitable area as defined by the Gallatin Valley Future Land Use Map
Walkable Place Support Improve pedestrian access or contribute to a more comfortable walking environment
Complete Streets Design Include Complete Street elements that better align the street or road with surrounding land use, access needs, and multimodal activity
125
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 7-6
GOAL 6: IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM RESILIENCE
Scoring Metric Projects Receive Points if They
Freight Reliability and Access Located on a corridor where freight traffic is common or within ½ mile of an industrial zone used for trucking
Network Redundancy Improve route options, parallel circulation, emergency access, or system redundancy
Transit Reliability and Access Advance Transit Strategic Plan recommendations or improve reliable transit operations
Prioritizing and Recommending
Project scoring results were presented to TTAC for feedback and discussed in working sessions
with GVMPO partners to memorialize specific project benefits and project-specific features or
context that may not be elevated through the spatially focused assessment, determine tradeoffs,
and identify potential challenges with implementation. This iterative process was used to
collaboratively prioritize projects to help select final recommendations contingent on the
forecasted availability of applicable funding sources by project types, which is detailed in
Chapter 11.
Final decisions were informed based on work sessions held with GVMPO staff and TTAC partners
to determine tradeoffs and feasibility challenges with projects to develop a fiscally constrained
list with the greatest potential return on investment based on the GVMPO goals and objectives.
Scored projects not in alignment with the prioritization criteria were allocated to the Illustrative
List for further evaluation in subsequent LRTP updates and consideration as conditions may
evolve in the future.
126
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 7-7
Figure 7-1. Project Prioritization Determination Criteria
Advance for Funding Consideration Assign to Illustrative List
The project has committed or
partial funding
The project is a key priority for
implementation based on GVMPO
Committees and partner feedback
The project is in an advanced state
of shovel readiness (e.g.,
preliminary design or engineering)
The project received strong
support in LRTP workshop voting
or online comments
The project is a strong candidate
for grant funding
The project will advance regional
collaboration
The project will improve system
resilience or replace deficient
assets
• The project has major design or feasibility constraints
• The project has significant right-of-way acquisition needs or complications
• The project is primarily dependent on future private development
• The project warrants an increase in traffic volumes
• The project will significantly increase future costs for roadway preservation, maintenance, or snow removal
• The project has limited funding source or grant opportunities
127
128
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-1
8 Alternatives Analysis
Approach
A total of three future transportation network alternatives were analyzed with the travel demand
model to help understand which projects (or packages of projects) would best address future
needs. Projects modeled consisted solely of those that would affect the capacity of the network
(e.g., widenings or intersection turn lane modifications). The three alternatives are described
below:
1. Adding Capacity to Existing/Committed Corridors
2. Adding Capacity through New Connections
3. Hybrid Combination of Alternatives 1 & 2
Additional summary of the travel demand model analysis which informed the LRTP is provided
as Appendix G.
129
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-2
Alternative 1
ADDING CAPACITY TO EXISTING/COMMITTED CORRIDORS
Figure 8-1. Alternative 1 Projects
130
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-3
Alternative 2
ADDING CAPACITY THROUGH NEW CONNECTIONS
Figure 8-2. Alternative 2 Projects
131
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-4
Alternative 3
HYBRID COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVES 1 & 2
Figure 8-3. Alternative 3 Projects
132
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-5
Using the projected growth in households and jobs through 2050, future traffic volumes were
estimated for the roadway network within the MPA and then compared to underlying roadway
capacities to identify roadway segments by generalized level of need. Roadways with a volume-
to-capacity (v/c) ratio within the range .75 to 1.00 are indicative of an emerging capacity
constraint, and those exceeding a v/c ratio of 1.00 may indicate more pronounced capacity
constraints. Volumes are expected to grow significantly in locations where future households
and job growth are concentrated or where alternative travel routes are limited. The model does
not quantify the extent to which congestion could be mitigated through changes to land-use
mix, trip lengths, mode choice, development form, or local-street connectivity.
The projected growth in households and jobs were developed in collaboration with the Gallatin
Valley Land Use Committee and built off the Gallatin County Growth Policy and Future Land Use
Map. Future housing and job growth was assigned to transportation analysis zones throughout
the MPA based on adopted growth plans, environmental constraints, infrastructure availability,
and vacant developable land.
Evaluation
The Gallatin Valley Travel Demand Model was the primary tool used to evaluate the roadway
network alternatives described above.
A travel demand model is used to simulate existing travel patterns, forecast future travel
patterns and conditions, and evaluate the relative effects of transportation improvement
alternatives. Knowledge of how transportation systems perform, and the magnitude of their
impacts, provides local decision-makers with valuable information needed to evaluate various
transportation improvements.
This travel demand model was developed by staff at MDT’s Rail, Transit, and Planning Division
using Caliper Corporation’s TransCAD modeling software (Version 9.0). The traditional modeling
process of trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment were used to develop the
Gallatin Valley Travel Demand Model. For the purposes of this model only part of Gallatin
County was included. Areas south of Gallatin Gateway were excluded.
Results were measured both model-wide and within the Bozeman Urbanized Area boundary.
Overall, the model achieves results well within target validation guidelines as set forth by
FHWA’s Travel Model Improvement Program Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness
Checking Manual Second Edition. The model reasonably reflects observed traffic data for the
2022 base year.
133
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-6
The maps below show the 2050 Volume/Capacity ratios on the Existing/Committed and
Alternative 3 networks.
Figure 8-4. 2050 Existing/Committed Volume/Capacity Ratios
134
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-7
Figure 8-5. Alternative 3 Volume/Capacity Ratios
135
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-8
Key Findings
When comparing the model results of the Alternative 1 to Alternative 2, and when focusing on
2050 projected VMT (e.g., modeled volumes weighted by distance) for the “worst of the worst”
(i.e., those network segments with volume/capacity ratios exceeding 1.00), Alternative 2 resulted
in less future travel being exposed to highly congested conditions, particularly at the system
level. This outcome reinforced additional exploration of the effects of the remaining “new
connections” projects and led to the creation of a final alternative for modeling (Alternative 3)
and could be supportive of a recommended policy direction that emphasizes “new connections”
projects.
Figure 8-6. VMT by Functional Classification by Alternative
Functional Class 2050 Existing/
Committed
2050 Alt 1 2050 Alt 2 2050 Alt 3
Interstate 0 0 0 0
Principal Arterial
- Other
254,559 248,560 223,555 182,774
Minor Arterial 114,095 75,754 94,808 74,150
Major Collector 101,123 108,798 86,425 72,954
Minor Collector 4,415 5,252 3,554 6,128
Local 113,733 93,928 98,702 76,525
Ramp 18,181 11,493 17,994 11,225
All 606,106 543,786 525,038 423,756
All (Excluding
Local Roads)
492,373 449,858 426,336 347,231
All VMT shown is for V/C>1.00
136
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 8-9
Functional Class Alt 1 vs. Existing/
Committed
Alt 2 vs. Existing/
Committed
Alt 3 vs. Existing/
Committed
Interstate 0% 0% 0%
Principal Arterial
- Other
98% 88% 72%
Minor Arterial 66% 83% 65%
Major Collector 108% 85% 72%
Minor Collector 119% 80% 139%
Local 83% 87% 67%
Ramp 63% 99% 62%
All 90% 87% 70%
All (Excluding
Local Roads)
91% 87% 71%
All VMT shown is for V/C>1.00
Although none of the alternatives modeled was shown to completely address the “worst of the
worst” congestion, Figure 8-6 above provides a clear indication that the package of projects
included in Alternative 3 would make the most progress.
Except for Minor Collector roadways, Alternative 3 would result in significantly reduced exposure
of future travelers to highly congested conditions when compared to the Existing/Committed
condition and to Alternatives 1 and 2.
Although the modeling results do not directly inform project selection, they do provide
confirmation that the collection of projects included in Alternative 3 address future needs and,
as such, these projects were advanced to the illustrative list for further evaluation and pending
funding availability, were included in the final list of recommended projects.
137
138
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-1
9 Recommended Projects
Our Transportation Future
Formed through community input, collaboration with GVMPO partners, and technical analysis
focused on achieving our goals and performance targets, the Recommended Project List
includes 46 projects that address immediate needs within the Gallatin Valley MPA and identifies
future investments that support the LRTP goals, objectives, and performance targets.
Committed projects have funding allocated or are currently underway within MDT’s current
five-year STIP with federal funds. Many of these projects are in progress or construction is
anticipated within the next five years. STIP committed projects are included in the near-term
funding projections, though in some cases the funding needs extend beyond the current
timeframe of the STIP.
139
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-2
Committed projects also include locally funded projects from the City of Bozeman’s Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) and a locally funded project from the City of Belgrade’s Safety Action
Plan. Committed local projects are not federally funded and are included in this plan for
illustrative purposes because they represent important transportation investments in the region
in the next five years.
Committed projects include important maintenance on roads, trails, and sidewalks, including
South Cottonwood Road, South 27th Avenue, and Oak Street. They also include major capital
projects on Main Street and Jackrabbit Lane in Belgrade, as well as Kagy Boulevard and Fowler
Lane in Bozeman.
Recommended projects are divided into mid-term and long-term phases and are
recommended to be implemented as funding allows.
Mid-term projects focus on building off or enhancing projects committed in the near-term, as
well as improving connections and expanding mobility options along key priority corridors. This
includes projects such as adding new multimodal facilities along Amsterdam Road, I-90
Frontage Road, and Gallatin Gateway, and improving capacity and traffic operations on 3rd
Avenue, Oak Street, and at the 19th Avenue/I-90 interchange in Bozeman.
Long-term projects invest in critical infrastructure upgrades across the MPA to improve safety
and prioritize regional connectivity between Bozeman and Belgrade and within Four Corners.
Illustrative projects are used to supplement the recommended project list as community needs
evolve and funding opportunities arise. Construction costs and right-of-way acquisition may not
be feasible for these projects within the timeframe of the plan, but they are important to
consider for future implementation. Some illustrative projects reflect local commitments and
expectations for projects, but their implementation is dependent on traffic warrants being met
or development occurring near the project site. Funding is not yet programmed for these
projects, and they are outside the fiscally constrained project list. There are 85 illustrative
projects in total, 72 of which are roadway projects, seven are safety projects, three are active
transportation projects, and three are maintenance projects.
The complete list of projects can be found in Appendix A.
140
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-3
Prioritizing Projects
Projects are recommended for implementation based on the Evaluation Framework described in
Chapter 7 and the availability of funding sources described in Chapter 11. The following sections
display the projects by their phases and describe the projects in more detail, including cost
estimates and potential funding sources. Costs in the mid- and long-terms have been adjusted
for inflation using MDT’s standard three percent annual increase to the midpoint of each phase.
Listing a source does not constitute a commitment.
141
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-4
Committed Projects
Figure 9-1. Committed Projects
142
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-5
Recommended Mid- and Long-Term Projects
Figure 9-2. Recommended Mid- and Long-Term Projects
143
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-6
Project Lists
Committed STIP Projects
LRTP
Project
ID
MDT
Project
Code
LRTP Project
Name
MDT STIP
Project Name
(If Different From
LRTP)
Project
Category
Cost
(2026
Dollars)
Funding
Source(s)
Local/Regional/
State Plan Source
S-1 UPN 9930 Jackrabbit Lane and Amsterdam
Road Intersection Improvements
Belgrade - Int Improvements Safety $12,915,725 NH; STP (STPX, STPS, SFCN) 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation
Plan
R-29 UPN 9926 Main Street (Bolinger Road to Jackrabbit Lane)
Main Street - Belgrade Roadway $11,000,000 STPU 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
S-52 UPN 9718 Amsterdam Road/River Rock Road and Green Belt Drive Intersections
SF 189 Amsterdam Rd Intx Imprv
Safety $3,786,387 HSIP 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
S-68 UPN 9644 SF 179 Signal Kagy Sourdough Safety $902,393 HSIP; CR MDT Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
144
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-7
LRTP
Project
ID
MDT
Project
Code
LRTP Project
Name
MDT STIP
Project Name
(If Different From
LRTP)
Project
Category
Cost
(2026
Dollars)
Funding
Source(s)
Local/Regional/
State Plan Source
R-10 UPN 9057 Jackrabbit Lane (Main Street to Madison Avenue)
Belgrade - Urban Improvements
Roadway $61,893,776 NH; STP (STPX, STPS, SFCN); MACI; Grants (RAISE)
2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
R-39 UPN 8931 Kagy Boulevard (Willson Avenue to S 19th Avenue)
Kagy Blvd - S 19th To Willson
Roadway $42,491,447 STPU; Grants 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-121 UPN 10751 Flanders Mill Sidewalk-
Bozeman
Active Transportation
$747,815 TA-MPO MDT Statewide Transportation
Improvement Plan (STIP)
S-69 UPN 10750 Ped Crossing Upgrades-Bozeman
Safety $785,346 TA-MPO MDT Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
A-86 UPN 10743 Connecting Communities in Gallatin County
Huffine Lane Shared Use Path / Connecting Communities
Active Transportation
$18,888,704 TA-Statewide; GRANTS (SS4A)
2025 Gallatin County Safe Streets for All
A-120 UPN 10738 Helen-Hoffman Walks - Belgrade Active Transportation
$1,942,195 TA-Statewide MDT Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
145
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-8
LRTP
Project
ID
MDT
Project
Code
LRTP Project
Name
MDT STIP
Project Name
(If Different From
LRTP)
Project
Category
Cost
(2026
Dollars)
Funding
Source(s)
Local/Regional/
State Plan Source
A-119 UPN 10737 Hoffman St Sidewalks-Belgrade
Active Transportation
$3,613,736 TA-Statewide MDT Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
M-15 UPN 10696 South Cottonwood Road- Bozeman
Maintenance $262,615 STP (STPX, STPS, SFCN) MDT Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
A-118 UPN 10453 Bike/Ped Paths-Bozeman Active Transportation
$891,573 TA-Statewide MDT Statewide Transportation
Improvement Plan (STIP)
M-14 UPN 10450 Path Preservation II-Bozeman Maintenance $392,466 TA-Statewide MDT Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
A-117 UPN 10441 Madison Ave Sidewalk-Belgrade
Active Transportation
$1,358,250 TA-Statewide MDT Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)
146
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-9
Committed Local Projects
LRTP
Project
ID
Local
Project
Code
LRTP Project Name Project
Category
Cost
(2026
Dollars)
Funding
Source(s)
Local/Regional/
State Plan Source
R-129 SIF191 in
FY27-31 CIP
Stucky Road (S 19th Avenue
to Fowler Lane)
Roadway $9,409,900 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman
Transportation Master Plan
R-100 SIF159 in FY27-31 CIP Oak Street (27th Avenue to 19th Avenue) Roadway $4,250,000 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-17 SIF157 in FY26-30 CIP W College Street (8th Avenue to 11th Avenue) Roadway $1,500,000 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-123 SIF114 in FY26-30 CIP Fowler Connection (Huffine Lane to Oak Street) Roadway $22,596,000 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-49 A&C016 in FY26-30 CIP S 19th Avenue Shared Use Path Active Transportation $432,600 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-51 WO 22-03 Dry Creek Road, Cruiser Lane, and Spooner Road Intersection Safety Project
Roadway $8,500,000 Local Funding, Private Developer Funding
2025 Belgrade Safety Action Plan
147
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-10
Mid-Term Project Recommendations
LRTP
Project
ID
Name Description Cost
(2036
Dollars)
Potential
Funding
Source(s)
Project
Source
Jurisdiction
R-130 Mendenhall &
Babcock Streetscape
Complete streetscape improvements
along Mendenhall Street and Babcock Street to include curb bulb-outs,
landscaping and crossing enhancements.
$3,297,000 TA-Statewide;
HSIP
2017
Bozeman Transportation
Master Plan
Bozeman
A-137 Peach St Complete Street Improvements
This project will improve sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle facility on Peach Street between N 7th Avenue and N Rouse Avenue in the city of Bozeman.
$6,500,000 STP (STPU); TA-Statewide; TA-MPO; Grants
City of Bozeman Call for Projects
Bozeman
R-90 Oak St: 7th To 19th Safety Improvement
This project will redesign Oak Street from 7th Avenue to 19th Avenue in the city of Bozeman to improve safety and access control. The project would adjust curb location to remove the existing bike lanes and narrow travel lanes to minimum arterial standards, install a landscaped median to provide traffic calming and access management, and construct missing sections of shared use path.
$6,500,000 STP (UPP); HSIP; MACI (CMAQ); Grants
City of Bozeman Call for Projects
Bozeman
148
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-11
LRTP
Project
ID
Name Description Cost
(2036
Dollars)
Potential
Funding
Source(s)
Project
Source
Jurisdiction
A-133 Madison Ave/Broadway St - Jackrabbit Lane to Main
Street
Bike lane; bike-ped route and connector; Reconstruct to urban minor arterial standards to include on-street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes
$2,600,000 STP (STPU) 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade
R-22 Main Street (North Quaw Boulevard to Gallatin Field Road)
Reconstruct to urban principal arterial standards to include 8-foot shoulder/parking, center turn lane/turn bays, curb and gutter
$6,930,000 NHPP 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
MDT, Belgrade
R-125 Bozeman Trail/Haggerty Lane (Main Street to Kagy
Boulevard)
Bozeman Trail should be reconstructed to a three-lane urban "minor arterial" roadway from the intersection with Kagy Boulevard north to the intersection with
Haggerty Lane. Haggerty Lane should also be upgraded to a three-lane urban "minor arterial" roadway. Bike lanes, sidewalks, curb, and gutter improvements.
$8,635,000 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA-Statewide; TA-
MPO
2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
Bozeman
A-123 Airway Blvd - Gallatin Field Road to E Frank Road
Bike lane or shared use path; partial commuter $993,700 STP (STPU); TA-MPO; Grants 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County
149
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-12
LRTP
Project
ID
Name Description Cost
(2036
Dollars)
Potential
Funding
Source(s)
Project
Source
Jurisdiction
A-134 Jackrabbit Lane - Frontage Road to Amsterdam Road/Alaska Frontage Road
Bike lane; bike-ped route and connector $1,232,792 Grants 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade
A-131 Amsterdam Road - Clovehitch Road to Jackrabbit Lane
Shared use path; commuter $1,105,000 STP (STPU) 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County
A-84 Bozeman To Belgrade Frontage Road Shared Use Path
Construct shared use path along Frontage Road from Cherry River Fishing Access to Valley Center Spur. Further extension to Belgrade to be completed in future projects.
$600,000
Committed Dollars: $700,000
TA-Statewide; Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
Bozeman, MDT
M-16 Lamme Street Bridge Rehabilitation
This project will rehabilitate or replace the existing structure on Lamme Street between N Bozeman Avenue and N Rouse Avenue in the City of Bozeman to improve structure condition and hydraulic capacity.
$5,900,000 BR City of Bozeman Call for Projects
Bozeman
150
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-13
LRTP
Project
ID
Name Description Cost
(2036
Dollars)
Potential
Funding
Source(s)
Project
Source
Jurisdiction
R-102 N 19th Avenue (Interstate 90 To Springhill Road)
This project consists of widening N 19th Avenue from Interstate 90 to the intersection with Springhill Road to a 5-lane urban arterial standard. This project includes widening the I-90 overpass along N 19th Avenue.
$7,379,000 NHPP 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
Bozeman, MDT
R-20 S 3rd Avenue (Graf Street to Kagy Boulevard)
Reconstruct S 3rd Avenue from Graf Street to Kagy Boulevard to an urban "collector" roadway standard.
$3,297,000 STP (STPU) 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
Bozeman
S-73 Jackrabbit Lane Pedestrian Tunnel
Tunnel under Jackrabbit Lane at Driveway $4,472,000 Grants 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade
R-165 N 19th Avenue Interchange Modifications
This project would construct modifications to the N 19th Avenue Interchange with I-90 (westbound exit ramp) to support street infrastructure for the North Park development
$13,000,000 NHPP City of Bozeman Call for Projects
Bozeman, MDT
A-136 Valley Center Spur Multimodal Connection
This project will construct a multimodal connection along Valley Center Spur between the existing Frontage Road shared use path and E Valley Center. Signal modifications at each existing
intersection are anticipated.
$1,300,000 STP (STPU) City of Bozeman Call for Projects
Bozeman
151
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-14
LRTP
Project
ID
Name Description Cost
(2036
Dollars)
Potential
Funding
Source(s)
Project
Source
Jurisdiction
A-79 Gallatin Road (Four Corners to Gallatin Gateway)
Extend existing shared use path $5,396,000 Grants 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan
MDT, County
A-59 Amsterdam Road (Royal Road to Fishing Access)
Extend the existing shared use path from Royal Road to Erwin Bridge Fishing Access Site
$852,000 TA-Statewide; FWP 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan
Belgrade, County
S-48 S 3rd Avenue and Graf Street Installation of a traffic signal or roundabout at the intersection of South 3rd Avenue, W Graf St, and Wagonwheel Dr
$1,570,000 Grants 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
Bozeman
M-17 E Griffin Bridge Replacement This project will replace the existing Bozeman Creek bridge on E Griffin Drive between N Rouse Avenue and Story Mill Road
$1,150,000 BR City of Bozeman Call for Projects
Bozeman
152
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-15
Long-Term Project Recommendations
LRTP
Project
ID
Name Description Cost
(2036
Dollars)
Potential
Funding
Source(s)
Project
Source
Jurisdiction
S-85 Streamline
Downtown Transfer Station
Improvements
The Downtown Transfer Station needs
major repairs to the bus pull through lane and improved ADA compliance. The
asphalt in the bus pull through lane is significantly deteriorated. The asphalt should be replaced with concrete to better withstand the load of heavy-duty transit buses. The passenger loading island does not meet ADA requirements, a walk audit demonstrated inability of a power chair to access the bus. The sidewalk south of the island should be moved to widen the bus pull through lane and comply with ADA.
$7,850,000 STP (UPP);
MACI (CMAQ); Grants
City of
Bozeman Call for Projects
Bozeman
M-19 Downtown Bozeman Creek Structure Rehabilitation
Bozeman Creek traverses downtown Bozeman through a series of three tunnels under Olive Street, Rouse Ave, Babcock Street, and Main Street for a total length of approximately 700 LF. This infrastructure is critical for the function of urban, primary, and NHS routes. The tunnel system is approaching the end of its useful life and requires rehabilitation, replacement, and hydraulic capacity improvements to manage flooding.
$22,125,000 NHPP; BR; Grants City of Bozeman Call for Projects
Bozeman
153
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-16
LRTP
Project
ID
Name Description Cost
(2036
Dollars)
Potential
Funding
Source(s)
Project
Source
Jurisdiction
S-60 US 191 Improvements Complete the following recommendations from MDT’s 2020 US 191 Corridor Study at 3 locations:
Modify business access; install second westbound left-turn lane; add pedestrian crossing treatments at Four Corners intersection; Install curve warning signs for substandard roadway elements;
Replace or widen bridge based on future needs of the highway
Consolidate approaches and realign intersection; improve intersection/roadway lighting
$20,496,000 NHPP; BR; HSIP; Grants 2025 Gallatin County Safe Streets for All
MDT, County
R-121 Cottonwood Road (Baxter Lane to Cattail Street)
Complete the construction of Cottonwood Road, from Baxter Lane to Cattail Street, to a five-lane urban "principal arterial" standard. This includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter throughout.
$9,200,000 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA-MPO; Grants
2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
Bozeman
S-63 Belgrade To Bozeman
Frontage Road Improvements
Includes roadway reconstruction, passing zone modifications, installation of
centerline rumble strips, and development of a separated shared use
path.
$37,104,000 NHPP; STP (STPU); TA-
Statewide; TA-MPO; HSIP;
FWP
2025 Gallatin County Safe
Streets for All
County, Bozeman
154
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-17
Project Spotlights
Streetscape Improvements
Downtown Bozeman is a major activity center in the Gallatin Valley MPA and has the highest
concentration of people walking, biking, and rolling. It also has some of the highest numbers of
crashes involving pedestrians, and safety has emerged as a top priority for the city and the
region. Three projects collected during the screening phase of the LRTP propose safety
improvements along key roads in and near Downtown Bozeman:
Project ID Project Name Cost
R-130 Mendenhall & Babcock Streetscape $3.3 million
A-137 Peach Street Complete Street Improvements $6.5 million
R-90 Oak Street: 7th Avenue to 19th Avenue Safety Improvement $6.5 million
The following improvements are planned on one or more of the corridors:
• Curb bulb-outs
• Pedestrian crossing enhancements
• Sidewalk upgrades
• Landscaping
• Bike lanes and/or shared use paths
155
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-18
Downtown Belgrade
Belgrade has experienced high population growth in the past decade, and the existing road
infrastructure needs upgrades to meet the increased demand. The City is currently working with
MDT on two projects that will widen key sections of Jackrabbit Lane and Main Street in
Downtown Belgrade. The LRTP has also identified four additional projects that could
complement the committed improvements to provide travel alternatives throughout the city.
Project ID Project Name Cost Phase
R-29
(UPN 9926) Main Street - Belgrade $11 million Near-Term
R-10
(UPN 9057) Belgrade Urban $61.9 million Near-Term
R-22 Main Street (North Quaw Boulevard to Gallatin Field Road) $6.9 million Mid-Term
A-133 Madison Avenue/Broadway Street - Jackrabbit Lane to Main Street $2.6 million Mid-Term
A-134
Jackrabbit Lane - Frontage Road to Amsterdam Road/Alaska Frontage Road $1.2 million Mid-Term
S-73 Jackrabbit Lane Pedestrian Tunnel $4.5 million Mid-Term
R-29
(UPN 9926) Main Street - Belgrade $11 million Near-Term
156
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 9-19
Frontage Road Corridor
The I-90 corridor is one of the most important in the region for the movement of people and
goods, with Frontage Road providing a parallel connection between Bozeman and Belgrade.
There are potential safety concerns for vehicles traveling along the road, including no safe active
transportation infrastructure along the corridor. To improve safety and connectivity between
Bozeman and Belgrade, two phases of projects are recommended to add a shared use path
between the two urban centers and reconstruct the frontage road with enhanced safety features
as travel demand associated with new developments continues to increase along the corridor.
Project ID Project Name Cost Phase
A-84 Bozeman To Belgrade Frontage Road Shared Use Path $1.3 million Mid-Term
S-63 Belgrade To Bozeman Frontage Road Improvements $20.5 million Long-Term
157
158
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-1
10 Policies, Programs, and Practices
This chapter identifies the non-capital programs, policies, and planning
practices that support the implementation of the LRTP. The project list
identifies future infrastructure investments, and the programs and policies
in this section describe how the GVMPO and its partners can guide
transportation decisions, coordinate regional priorities, and advance the
LRTP goals over time.
How To Use This Chapter
For ease of navigation, each item is placed under the LRTP goal it most directly supports. Many
items advance multiple goals, and their placement does not limit their purpose, application, or
relationship to other goals.
Each item is presented in a consistent profile describing what it is, why it matters, where we are
now, partners, next steps, and priority. Priority designations identify ongoing work or a high,
medium, or low level of emphasis for the efforts.
The GVMPO's role will vary. It may include regional planning or data efforts, convene partners,
provide technical assistance, review funding eligibility, support grants, incorporate eligible
projects into the TIP, or provide a forum for regional coordination. MDT, local governments,
transit providers, and community partners may lead other efforts. Identified partners indicate
potential roles rather than commitments. MDT participation and project decisions remain
subject to its authority, applicable practices, funding eligibility and formulas, and project-specific
conditions.
Taken together, these programs, policies, and practices provide a flexible framework for future
work programs, corridor and project planning, funding decisions, interagency coordination, and
LRTP updates. Implementation may occur through ongoing activities, additional study, partner
coordination, pilots, or new funding.
159
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-2
Goal 1: Support Safe Travel Across All Modes
Manage speeds, reduce severe-crash risk, improve visibility and crossings,
and focus attention on the locations and users facing the greatest safety
risks.
VISION ZERO POLICY
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
A commitment to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries through a Safe System approach
that anticipates human error and reduces crash severity.
WHY IT MATTERS
It reinforces preventing fatal and serious injury crashes the region’s highest safety priority.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, UTD, MSU, and Community Partners
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Regional partners prioritize severe crash reduction, but no regional Vision Zero policy has been
adopted.
NEXT STEPS
Use the LRTP to establish Vision Zero as a regional direction and explore a coordinated regional
effort
160
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-3
CONTEXT-APPROPRIATE SPEEDS AND TARGET SPEEDS
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Identifying target speeds and speed limits based on roadway context, crash history, land use,
and all users, then using design to support the intended speed.
WHY IT MATTERS
Speed is a primary determinant of crash severity; lower, context-appropriate speeds reduce risk
for all users.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, and MDT
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Authority and speed-setting practices vary among MDT and local jurisdictions.
NEXT STEPS
Coordinate with roadway owners on target speeds, supporting designs, and speed limits
reflecting current conditions.
TRAFFIC CALMING AND SPEED MANAGEMENT
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Supporting street designs that make the intended speed intuitive through physical and visual
cues, such as narrower travel lanes, tighter turning radii, pavement textures, and raised
crossings, which reduces reliance on signs to communicate appropriate speeds.
WHY IT MATTERS
Lower speeds reduce crash severity and improve comfort for people walking, bicycling, and
crossing.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, UTD, and MSU
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners address speeding through local programs and projects, with varying approaches.
161
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-4
NEXT STEPS
Support partner-led traffic calming through planning, project development, and grant
applications; encourage context sensitive design as highways enter communities.
ENHANCED CROSSINGS AND INTERSECTION DESIGN
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Context-sensitive designs–proven or emerging–that improve visibility, manage speed, shorten
crossing distances, clarify priority, and reduce conflicts.
WHY IT MATTERS
Predictable crossings help everyone navigate busy or wide streets and complex intersections
safely and comfortably.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, UTD, MSU, and school districts
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
High-demand or high-risk locations may need additional or redesigned crossings and
intersections.
NEXT STEPS
Use the LRTP to support improvements where roadway, land-use, network, or safety conditions
warrant.
HIGH-CRASH CORRIDOR PROGRAM
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Identifying regional corridors with concentrated fatal and serious injury crashes or elevated
safety risk for proactive analysis and improvement.
WHY IT MATTERS
Prioritizes addressing the region’s greatest safety risks, including higher-speed and heavily
traveled commuter corridors.
162
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-5
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, law enforcement, and first responders
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Crash concentrations are evident, but funding and jurisdiction complicate regional prioritization.
Speed and impairment may also warrant attention.
NEXT STEPS
Use data-based criteria to identify corridors and risks independent of ownership.
CONTEXT-SENSITIVE STREET LIGHTING
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Encouraging attractive, context-sensitive lighting that improves visibility, particularly for people
walking or biking, while fitting the scale, character, and environmental setting of each location.
WHY IT MATTERS
Thoughtful lighting improves visibility, safety, and nighttime comfort, especially where travel
modes interact, while preserving community character and limiting impacts on night skies,
residents, and wildlife.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, UTD, and Northwestern Energy
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Coverage and standards vary regionally, with gaps. Some past installations have caused light to
trespass into nearby residences.
NEXT STEPS
Use safety-based criteria to prioritize multimodal areas, pedestrian routes, and crossings, then
key intersections and corridors. Encourage lower-mounted, shielded, pedestrian-scale fixtures
with decorative designs where appropriate. Encourage evaluation of glare, residential light
trespass, and wildlife impacts before installation. Consider National Park Service lighting
standards for inspiration.
163
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-6
TRAIL AND SIDEPATH VISUAL CONTINUITY
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Supporting MUTCD-compatible visual cues that reinforce route continuity, including wayfinding
signs, markings, and muted earth-tone surfacing.
WHY IT MATTERS
Aesthetic treatments clarify complex routes for unfamiliar users while building regional identity.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, and MDT
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Treatments vary by location and must remain distinct from regulatory colors and markings.
NEXT STEPS
Support appropriate continuity treatments with future projects and grants.
SAFER ROUTES TO SCHOOL
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
A regional effort combining education, family engagement, skill progression, and infrastructure
to make walking, bicycling, and transit routine while building confidence and independence.
WHY IT MATTERS
Making active travel routine builds confidence, independence, and traffic awareness as culture,
infrastructure, and instruction reinforce one another.
PARTNERS
UTD, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, MSU, and school districts
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Safe Routes to School efforts and low-stress networks still lack consistent programs, resources,
expectations, and skill progression across schools and jurisdictions.
164
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-7
NEXT STEPS
Use TA funds for school cohorts; prioritize participation, skill progression, independence,
supportive culture, travel behavior, and infrastructure.
TRANSPORTATION EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Providing clear, accessible information to build understanding of regional transportation issues,
plans, responsibilities, decisions, and activities.
WHY IT MATTERS
Education strengthens public input, clarifies safety decisions, and supports safer travel but
cannot replace safer street design and infrastructure.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, UTD, MSU, schools, public health, law
enforcement, nonprofits, and topic-specific partners
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners conduct project-specific outreach and safety education, but regional public-awareness
efforts remain limited.
NEXT STEPS
As resources allow, develop materials, share relevant partner information, and expand GVMPO
communication channels.
TRAFFIC SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Supporting safety partnerships and leading selected efforts on prevention, education, roadway
improvements, and enforcement, including impaired driving.
165
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-8
WHY IT MATTERS
Transportation safety is a shared responsibility requiring coordinated action to reduce everyday
risk while preventing fatal and serious-injury crashes.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, UTD, MSU, law enforcement,
nonprofits, and topic-specific partners
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners conduct project-specific outreach and safety education, but regional public-awareness
efforts remain limited.
NEXT STEPS
Strengthen coordination with safety partners, including law enforcement, on regional planning,
field observations, prevention, and enforcement.
166
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-9
Goal 2: Ensure A Well-Maintained
Transportation System
Extend asset life and system value through preservation, maintenance
innovation, targeted operations, and responsible funding choices.
FIX IT FIRST
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Applying a preservation-first preference when choosing among eligible uses of flexible funds.
WHY IT MATTERS
Maintaining existing assets protects past investment, extends service life, and reduces long-term
costs.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, and MDT
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Community outreach and technical staff input showed strong support for a well-maintained
system. Funding eligibility and formulas shape many investments; flexible funds may involve
choices between preservation and capacity.
NEXT STEPS
Update partner needs and funding assumptions.
167
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-10
MAINTENANCE INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Monitoring materials, equipment, and practices that reduce lifecycle costs and simplify upkeep
of roads, asphalt trails, sidewalks, shared-use paths, and transit stops, including snow and ice
removal at bus stops and accessible boarding areas.
WHY IT MATTERS
Innovation can extend asset life, reduce disruptions, improve quality of life, and stretch limited
maintenance funding. Low annual mileage and effective maintenance may allow transit buses to
remain reliable beyond their ULB.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallatin County, UTD
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners evaluate products and practices independently.
NEXT STEPS
Use the GVMPO as a resource to research best practices, convene partners, and share effective
maintenance and asset-management approaches.
OPTIMIZATION BEFORE EXPANSION
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Using coordinated operations, technology, data, demand management, and targeted
improvements before major expansion.
WHY IT MATTERS
Better management of the existing transportation system can reduce delays, improve safety, and
extend infrastructure value at lower cost and with fewer impacts than expansion.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallatin County
168
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-11
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Agencies use operational strategies and performance monitoring; while regional coordination
and shared priorities are still developing.
NEXT STEPS
Monitor travel time reliability, identify priorities, and support studies, pilots, and investments
through regional planning.
STREET SWEEPING EQUIPMENT AND MACI FUNDING
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Recognizing MDT’s Montana Air and Congestion Initiative (MACI) funding for eligible street-
sweeping equipment.
WHY IT MATTERS
Sweepers reduce road dust and debris while helping keep streets, bicycle lanes, and drainage
systems clean.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallatin County
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners have identified equipment needs; MACI awards are competitive and depend on
eligibility, air-quality benefits, available funding, and match.
NEXT STEPS
Coordinate applications as needed; include awarded projects in the TIP.
169
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-12
Goal 3: Expand Mobility Choices in the Region
Expand safe, practical options for walking, bicycling, taking transit, using
mobility devices, and connected multimodal trips.
COMPLETE STREETS
Priority Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Complete streets are roadways designed, built, and maintained to provide safe, comfortable,
and convenient travel for all modes of travel. This can work alongside a complete network
approach where some corridors serve a primary modal purpose.
WHY IT MATTERS
Designing the network for all modes makes travel safer, healthier, and more affordable while
boosting local business.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallatin County
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Complete Streets and multimodal practices vary across the region. Developing a complete
network is challenging and will take time.
NEXT STEPS
Establish a regional expectation that multiple modes will be considered throughout project
development and, over time, explore priority corridor roles and connections to them.
170
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-13
LOW STRESS BIKEWAYS FOR ALL AGES AND ABILITIES
Priority: High
WHAT IT IS
A connected, intuitive bikeway network that minimizes traffic stress through separation, low
speeds and volumes, safer crossings, clear wayfinding, and a consistent visual identity.
WHY IT MATTERS
Low-stress routes make bicycling practical and comfortable for more people, including children,
older adults, and less-confident riders.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, UTD, and nonprofits
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
The region has the beginnings of a low-stress network, but expanding it will require better
connectivity, a wider range of facility types, and innovative intersection treatments.
NEXT STEPS
Prioritize projects and encourage designs that make everyday bicycle trips safe, intuitive, and
comfortable for people of all ages and abilities.
TRANSIT PRIORITY CORRIDORS
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Identifying corridors where transit reliability and travel times can be improved through
treatments such as signal priority, queue jumps, stop improvements, and targeted roadway or
operational changes.
WHY IT MATTERS
Faster, more reliable transit makes everyday trips easier and less stressful, encourages people to
choose transit, and helps existing resources serve more riders.
PARTNERS
UTD, MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MSU, and business districts
171
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-14
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Transit operates on many of the busiest corridors, but delays, congestion, stop access, and
design can affect reliability and passenger experience.
NEXT STEPS
Build upon the companion Transit Strategic Plan priority corridors and consider supporting
phased pilots beginning with increased service. Explore regional corridor planning with partners
to assess bus delays, ridership, and roadway improvements.
REGIONAL TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Expanding convenient transit connections among communities, employment centers, the
airport, recreational areas, and other regional activity centers.
WHY IT MATTERS
Reliable regional transit improves access to jobs, education, services, and daily needs for people
who cannot or prefer not to drive.
PARTNERS
UTD, Regional transit providers, MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallatin County
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Existing routes provide some regional connections, though service gaps and limited frequency
reduce their usefulness for daily needs.
NEXT STEPS
Support transit partners as they evaluate regional connections, service needs, community
interest in one-seat rides, and opportunities for phased improvements.
172
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-15
ACCESSIBILITY AND ADA TRANSITION NEEDS
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Improving regional understanding of sidewalk gaps, inaccessible curb ramps and crossings, and
barriers to transit access.
WHY IT MATTERS
Accessible routes support safe, independent travel and participation while advancing ADA
compliance.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, advocates, and nonprofits
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Accessibility planning and inventories vary across the region, with gaps and barriers remaining.
NEXT STEPS
Use future regional planning to better document accessibility needs, identify priority barriers,
and support partner-led improvements as opportunities arise.
STRATEGIC NETWORK CONNECTIONS BEFORE CORRIDOR
EXPANSION
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Prioritizing street, pathway and strategic connections to improve access and distribute trips
across parallel routes to relieve bottlenecks before adding general-purpose lanes to existing
corridors.
WHY IT MATTERS
Connections distribute trips, provide alternate routes, improve access, and relieve pressure
across multiple corridors.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallatin County
173
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-16
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
LRTP modeling found new connections outperformed widening, especially on east-west
corridors.
NEXT STEPS
Support strategic new connections over widening existing corridors where appropriate.
SUPPORT EXPANDED TRANSIT FUNDING FOR FREQUENT
SERVICE
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Increased transit funding to support higher-frequency service proven to attract riders of choice.
WHY IT MATTERS
Frequent service lets people show up and go without planning around a schedule, which
removes a major barrier to choosing transit.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, and nonprofits
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
UTD serves many destinations, but limited operating funds require tradeoffs between frequent
core service and broader lower frequency coverage.
NEXT STEPS
Support expanded operating funding and prioritize frequency and service span on high-demand
corridors.
174
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-17
Goal 4: Enhance Health, Quality of Life, and
Preserve Regional Character
Integrate transportation with community life, rural character, environmental
stewardship, and wildlife connectivity.
REGIONAL HABITAT CONNECTIVITY AND WILDLIFE
PASSAGE
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and improving habitat and riparian connectivity through
planning and wildlife-responsive bridge and culvert work.
WHY IT MATTERS
Roads, bridges, and culverts intersect natural movement corridors; preserving passage sustains
wildlife populations and ecological health.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, MSU, and nonprofits
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
The GVMPO has a wildlife-safety objective and supports the 2023 Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands
Protection Plan habitat and connectivity findings; connectivity planning and mitigation remain
project-specific.
NEXT STEPS
Use the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands findings and hotspot analysis early in facility siting and
design to avoid fragmentation, preserve linkages, identify passage opportunities, and guide
feasible mitigation; encourage best practices for safe wildlife passage for bridges and culverts.
175
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-18
OPEN STREETS AND CICLOVÍA-STYLE EVENTS
Priority: Low
WHAT IT IS
A Ciclovía, or Open Streets event, temporarily closes selected streets to through motor-vehicle
traffic and opens a connected route of streets for people to walk, bicycle, roll, play, visit local
businesses, and gather as a community. The concept originated in Bogota, Colombia, and has
been adopted in communities throughout the United States, creating a lively, festival-like way to
experience streets as public space.
WHY IT MATTERS
Open Streets brings people together while offering a fun, low-risk way to experience what a
healthier and less car-dependent future could feel like.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MDT, MSU, businesses, neighborhood
groups, nonprofits, and event organizers
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners close streets for individual events, but none has developed connected open-streets
routes.
NEXT STEPS
Gauge interest and support a partner-led pilot that connects destinations, reflects local
character, maintains access, and could grow into a recurring tradition.
ROAD ECOLOGY AND URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating ecological impacts while enhancing the urban forest by
supporting street trees, native plantings, maintaining connections among streams and wetlands
as part of healthy landscapes.
WHY IT MATTERS
Roads affect habitat, runoff, heat, and community character; thoughtful design and landscaping
can reduce impacts, support ecological function, and improve walking comfort.
176
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-19
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, utility providers, development
community, property owners, and forestry and conservation organizations.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Road-ecology practices vary among partners and projects; practices depend upon roadway
context, ownership, and maintenance. responsibility.
NEXT STEPS
Encourage early consideration of ecological impacts, conservation of healthy landscapes, native
plants, and street trees in appropriate plans and projects while avoiding visibility conflicts.
PUBLIC REALM AND PLACEMAKING
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Supporting partner-led improvements and activation of streets and public spaces through trees,
furnishings, plazas, parklets, wayfinding, and other accessible, human-scale features.
WHY IT MATTERS
Welcoming public spaces encourage walking, bicycling, transit use, gathering, and longer visits
while strengthening community identity, social connection, quality of life, and local businesses.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, MDT, MSU, downtown and business
organizations, development community, and community groups
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners advance placemaking through downtown and community plans, design standards,
parks and trails, and individual projects; approaches vary by jurisdiction and setting.
NEXT STEPS
Use the GVMPO as a forum to share practices and identify locally supported placemaking
opportunities through corridor planning and transportation projects.
177
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-20
RAILROAD QUIET ZONES AND TRANSPORTATION NOISE
MITIGATION
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Supporting efforts to reduce railroad and airport noise through railroad quiet zones, voluntary
aviation noise-abatement measures, compatible land use, and other measures where
appropriate.
WHY IT MATTERS
Reducing transportation noise can improve health and quality of life, make nearby
neighborhoods and commercial areas more attractive for investment, and support economic
development.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, UTD, MSU, MDT, BNSF, and Bozeman-Yellowstone
International Airport.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
The region remains relatively quiet, but growing traffic volumes, noise from train horns and
aircraft may dampen that in some areas. Responsibility is divided among local governments,
operators, and federal agencies.
NEXT STEPS
Encourage partner coordination, targeted planning, and investment to reduce transportation
noise; explore feasible mitigation measures and support voluntary aviation noise abatement.
178
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-21
Goal 5: Enhance Transportation and Land Use
Planning Coordination
Improve coordination of transportation, development, land use, and the
public realm to support connected, transit-ready, and walkable growth.
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Encouraging land use zoning, investment, and design that support walkable, mixed-use centers
and corridors designed around frequent transit, whether mixed within buildings or across nearby
sites.
WHY IT MATTERS
Bringing housing, businesses, services, and transit closer together improves access, including for
people with disabilities, supports local businesses, strengthens transit, and may lower household
transportation costs.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, UTD, MSU, MDT, and development community
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Transit-oriented development remains exploratory, and some higher-density residential areas
lack nearby commercial destinations for frequent transit.
NEXT STEPS
Encourage planning, zoning, transit, and investment around potential transit-oriented centers
and corridors, including commercial uses near higher-density housing as horizontal mixed use.
179
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-22
TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE DENSITIES
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Exploring how residential, employment, and activity densities near existing or planned transit
corridors can support useful, frequent service.
WHY IT MATTERS
Concentrations of people, jobs, and destinations can strengthen ridership and service feasibility,
expand access, and support efficient infrastructure.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, MSU, MDT, and development
community
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners approach density differently; alignment with current and future transit remains an
emerging regional opportunity.
NEXT STEPS
Encourage partners to consider transit-supportive densities in appropriate locations, with land-
use decisions and implementation remaining local.
WALKABLE AND TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
DESIGN
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Encouraging new neighborhoods to coordinate land use, connected local streets, alleys, walking
access, and future transit operations from the outset while extending connections across phases.
WHY IT MATTERS
Public input supports transit, but density alone is insufficient. Connected streets, well-placed
destinations, and direct stop access determine whether service can operate efficiently;
disconnected layouts are difficult to retrofit while increasing pressure on major roads.
180
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-23
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, MDT, school districts, emergency
services, and development community
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Neighborhood plans address transit and connectivity differently; shared regional understanding
could help inform network evaluation, land-use placement, walking access, and future transit
operations.
NEXT STEPS
Continue regional discussion and coordination on a shared approach to walkable and transit-
supportive neighborhood design; including early review of connected street and block
connectivity across development phases, land-use mix and placement, direct transit routing,
transit-operable streets, and accessible future stops.
TRANSIT STOPS, HUBS, AND STATION AREAS
Priority: Medium
WHAT IT IS
Supporting coordinated stop and hub siting, design, amenities, surroundings, and safe walking,
bicycling, and micromobility access.
WHY IT MATTERS
Visible, accessible, well-integrated stops make transit easier to reach and use, strengthen first-
and final-mile connections, and support coordinated investment and walkable development.
PARTNERS
UTD, MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, MSU, property owners, and
development community
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Transit serves many destinations, but stop visibility, accessibility, amenities, and connections
vary; a shared approach could better coordinate investment.
NEXT STEPS
Explore with transit and local partners opportunities for shared guidance on stop siting, access,
amenities, development integration, maintenance, and investment.
181
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-24
REGIONAL LAND USE AND MULTIMODAL ACCESS DATA
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Developing consistent regional GIS data and measures for density, land-use mix, street
connectivity, destination accessibility, and transit proximity.
WHY IT MATTERS
Comparable data help partners track change, identify gaps, evaluate growth patterns, and
understand how land use and network design influence travel.
PARTNERS
City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, MDT, and MSU
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners use related data in local planning; a documented regional baseline would support
consistent measures, comparisons, and updates.
NEXT STEPS
As resources allow, explore a regional GIS baseline that could include activity density, land-use
mix, intersection density, four-way intersection share, and destination and transit access.
REGIONAL FREIGHT UNDERSTANDING AND PLANNING
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Building a practical understanding of regional freight movement, generators, commercial truck
parking and other needs, and data limitations to better incorporate freight into planning.
WHY IT MATTERS
Better understanding helps partners consider goods movement, safety, access, reliability, land
use, and infrastructure needs in plans and projects.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, Bozeman-Yellowstone International
Airport, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, freight carriers, and major freight generators
182
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-25
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
FHWA and MDT provide broad information, but regional freight routes, truck counts,
generators, and local patterns are not yet well understood.
NEXT STEPS
As resources allow, use available FHWA, MDT, local, and industry information to improve
regional understanding, identify data gaps, and continue to gradually integrate freight into
planning. Utilize local land use planning as a key resource for understanding where truck
generators will be located.
183
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-26
Goal 6: Improve Transportation System
Resilience
Prepare the regional system for hazards, emergencies, freight needs,
infrastructure dependencies, and long-term challenges.
TRANSPORTATION VULNERABILITY SCREENING
Priority: Medium
WHAT IT IS
Using available hazard and asset information to screen transportation facilities for potential
exposure to flooding, wildfire, severe weather, and other disruptions.
WHY IT MATTERS
Early screening can direct practical upgrades where disruptions could threaten safety, access,
and system continuity.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, and Ready Gallatin
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners maintain relevant plans and data, but transportation vulnerabilities have not been
screened consistently across the region by the GVMPO.
NEXT STEPS
In coordination with partners, identify locations for further study, and apply findings to improve
infrastructure responsiveness to flooding, wildfire, and other hazards.
184
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-27
WATER-AWARE STREETSCAPES AND GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Encouraging context-appropriate trees, water-wise landscaping, permeable pavers, native plants,
and green stormwater features, such as rain gardens, instead of high-water turf, while keeping
pedestrian clear-vision areas.
WHY IT MATTERS
These treatments conserve water, reduce polluted runoff, and add shade, habitat, visual
character, and resilience in a drought-prone region.
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, improvement districts, and
watershed organizations
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners use water-wise landscaping and stormwater practices to varying degrees; approaches
depend on setting, ownership, and maintenance capacity.
NEXT STEPS
Use GVMPO coordination to share practices and support partner-led opportunities where site
conditions, geometries, ADA and code requirements, and long-term maintenance allow.
EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION
Priority: Ongoing
WHAT IT IS
Supporting coordination among transportation, transit, emergency-management, and response
agencies before, during, and after emergencies.
WHY IT MATTERS
Preparation and coordination can save lives by enabling faster response, clear decisions,
dependable access, and improved effectiveness during emergencies.
185
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 10-28
PARTNERS
MDT, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, Gallatin County, UTD, Ready Gallatin, law enforcement,
and first responders
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Partners maintain emergency plans and protocols; the GVMPO’s role in supporting regional
transportation coordination is still developing.
NEXT STEPS
Support partner planning, exercises, transportation information sharing, and coordination.
186
187
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 11-1
11 Funding the Plan
Achieving our long-range transportation vision by 2050 will require
substantial investment. Our funding plan includes formula-based federal
and state/local funds, as well as potential funding sources, such as
competitive grants that may fill critical funding gaps. The combination of
these funding sources will allow us to meet our goals and performance
targets for transportation in the Gallatin Valley MPA.
The total cost for the 46 recommended capital projects in the LRTP, including committed
projects in the STIP, is estimated at $341.4 million. The recommended projects are fiscally
constrained, meaning the expected costs do not exceed projected revenues for transportation
investments throughout the LRTP horizon.
188
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 11-2
Cost by Phase
We developed project costs using existing estimates from MDT’s STIP, the City of Bozeman’s
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the City of Belgrade’s Draft Transportation Management Plan
(TMP), and other local and regional plans. We also used custom estimates based on recently
completed multimodal projects in the region. Project costs are planning-level estimates and
represent the amount of funding needed for planning, designing, and constructing the project.
Although most of the recommended projects can be implemented within existing right-of-way,
additional right-of-way acquisition costs are not included in these estimates.
All project costs in the LRTP are estimated using inflated year-of-execution dollars per MDT
requirements. Construction and material costs continue to rise each year, and accounting for
inflation helps determine what projects can be accomplished with the estimated revenues. We
used MDT’s recommended annual inflation factor of three percent per year to the midpoint of
each timeframe to determine our list of fiscally constrained projects.
Figure 11-1. Recommended Project Costs by Timeline
Category Near Term
(2027-2031)
Mid Term
(2032-2040)
Long Term
(2041-2050)
LRTP Total
(2027-2050)
Roadway $115.4M $49.0M $9.2M $173.6M
Active
Transportation $27.4M $20.6M $0.0* $48.0M
Safety $18.4M $6.0M $65.5M $89.9M
Maintenance $655K $7.1M $22.1M $29.8M
Total $161.9M $82.7M $96.8M $341.4M
*Although there are no dedicated active transportation projects recommended in the long-term phase, several long-term
projects have multimodal elements that will support safe and comfortable active transportation.
189
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 11-3
Revenue Projections
Building our projects and implementing our programs will require federal, state, and local
funding sources. An estimated $470.9 million is projected to be available to fund projects and
programs from 2027 to 2050. Projected revenues from federal, state, and local sources were
estimated based on historic averages for Bozeman, Belgrade, and Gallatin County. The following
table summarizes the various funding programs available for the GVMPO:
Figure 11-2. Forecasted GVMPO Funding by Source
Category Near Term
(2027-2031)
Mid Term
(2032-2040)
Long Term
(2041-2050)
LRTP Total
(2027-2050)
Federal
Programmed $72.4M $73.9M $82.1M $228.3M
Federal Grants $42.3M $14.4M $16.M $72.7M
Transit $14.5M $16.5M $18.3M $49.4M
State/Local
Operations &
Maintenance
$25.1M $45.2M $50.2M $120.5M
TOTAL $154.4M $149.9M $166.6M $470.9M
For a more detailed breakdown of each funding source, please refer to Appendix F.
Federal Transportation Funding Sources
With its creation, the GVMPO can now have a role in helping strategically program federal funds
to projects identified in the LRTP recommendations.
Federal transportation funding is primarily through formula funds from FHWA and FTA
apportioned to Montana and administered by MDT. Federal funding is the primary source for
capital projects in the recommended list. These sources include:
• NHPP (National Highway Performance Program)
190
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 11-4
− Interstate Maintenance (IM), National Highway Performance (NH)
• Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG)
− Urban (STPU); Off-System/Secondary/State Funded Construction (STPX, STPS, SFCN);
Urban Pavement Preservation (UPP); Transportation Alternatives (TA - Statewide and
TA - MPO)
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Bridge Formula Program (BR)
• Montana Air and Congestion Initiative (MACI)
• Carbon Reduction Program (CRP)
• Recreational Trails Program (FWP)
FTA formula funds are apportioned to states and urbanized areas and made available through
designated or direct recipients. These funds are programmed in the TIP or STIP in cooperation
among the MPO, MDT, and the transit operator. The Gallatin Valley UTD, which operates
Streamline within the Gallatin Valley MPA, uses eligible FTA funds for planning, operations and
capital need, including equipment:
• Urbanized Area Formula Grants (FTA Section 5307)
• Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with a Disability (FTA Section 5310)
• Formula Grants for Rural Areas (FTA Section 5311)
• Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities (FTA Section 5339)
State and Local Funding Sources
Although federal funds are critical, rising costs and transportation needs mean local jurisdictions
will also need to contribute funding. The GVMPO’s revenue projections include state and local
funding sources to provide a more complete picture of the region’s available transportation
resources. These funding sources are primarily used for operations and maintenance of the
transportation system rather than capital projects.
191
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 11-5
Additional Funding Opportunities
To advance projects and programs beyond the fiscally constrained recommendations, the
GVMPO may work with local jurisdictions and MDT to pursue additional funding. Potential
sources include competitive grants and locally authorized revenue options, such as fees or taxes.
The options described below are currently permitted for use under Montana law.
The United States Department of Transportation and FHWA administer competitive grant
programs for transportation projects and activities. Depending on the program rules, GVMPO or
its partners may be eligible to apply for programs including:
• Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program: For
surface transportation infrastructure projects with significant local or regional impact.
• Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A): For local initiatives to prevent transportation-
related deaths and serious injuries on roads and streets
Gallatin County was recently awarded an SS4A grant to improve safety at three
key intersections in the MPA. Connecting Gallatin County is reflected in the near-
term funding phase.
• Bridge Investment Program: For bridge or culvert replacement, rehabilitation, and
protection
192
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 11-6
Local jurisdictions within the MPA may also consider implementing revenue-generating
programs through additional fees or taxes. Bozeman and Belgrade currently assess impact fees
for new or expanding development to increase capacity for transportation, water, sewer, and
emergency services in the area. Other types of fees and taxes could include:
• Local Lodging Tax: A local lodging tax to support transportation would require
authorization by the Montana Legislature and subsequent local approval.
• Local-Option Resort Tax: Bozeman and Belgrade exceed the statutory population limit,
and unincorporated areas must meet narrow population and tourism criteria.
• Parking Fees: Using parking meter revenue to invest in specific projects or programs,
while also encouraging alternative modes of transportation.
• Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) / Business Improvement Districts (BIDs):
Levying assessments within a defined area, such as a business district, to fund projects
that benefit the area’s businesses and neighborhood, such as sidewalks, streetscapes, or
wayfinding.
• Additional public-private partnerships: Partnering with local and regional businesses,
organizations, or foundations to fund projects, such as new transit services, street
maintenance, or active transportation infrastructure.
193
194
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 12-1
12 Measuring Success
Success means safer travel, more useful connections, and a well-maintained
transportation system. The GVMPO and its partners can use performance
results to guide investments and assess progress toward the LRTP’s goals.
Performance Measures
Chapter 5 identifies the applicable performance measures and targets. TPCC voted to support
MDT's statewide targets for the current performance period. The table below connects
performance information to LRTP investment priorities.
Performance Areas
HIGHWAY SAFETY
Information
to Review
Connection
to LRTP
Investments
Number of
Recommended
Projects
Types of
Projects
Dollars
Invested
Fatal and
serious injury
counts and
rates;
nonmotorized
fatalities and
serious
injuries.
Address severe crash risks through roadway, intersection, crossing, and speed management investments.
31 High-crash corridor and intersection modifications, separated nonmotorized facilities, grade-separated crossings
$280 million
195
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 12-2
ROAD AND BRIDGE CONDITION
Information
to Review
Connection
to LRTP
Investments
Number of
Recommended
Projects
Types of
Projects
Dollars
Invested
Interstate
and non-
Interstate
NHS
pavement
condition;
NHS bridge
condition.
Preserve existing infrastructure; address rehabilitation and replacement needs.
10 Bridge rehabilitation and replacement, roadway preservation and maintenance
$108.2 million
TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY AND FREIGHT
Information
to Review
Connection
to LRTP
Investments
Number of
Recommended
Projects
Types of
Projects
Dollars
Invested
Percent of
person-miles
on the NHS
that are
reliable;
Interstate
truck travel
time
reliability.
Improve operations and connections for people and goods.
11 Highway interchange modifications, roadway widening and reconstruction
$188.5 million
196
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 12-3
TRANSIT ASSETS AND SAFETY
Information
to Review
Connection
to LRTP
Investments
Number of
Recommended
Projects
Types of
Projects
Dollars
Invested
Applicable
asset
condition
measures,
safety
measures,
and
coordinated
targets.
Extend the useful life of transit assets and support facilities needed for safe, reliable travel.
1 Transit center pavement condition and accessibility
$7.8 million
TPCC has expressed interest in more ambitious local safety targets. Future targets would be
developed in coordination with MDT and local partners. The LRTP does not establish GVMPO-
specific measures or targets.
Looking Beyond Federal Measures
Local indicators can show whether daily travel is becoming safer and more convenient,
particularly for walking and bicycling. The following could complement federal measures,
subject to data availability and staff capacity:
Focus Area Potential Indicator How the Information Helps
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Active transportation fatal and serious injuries; crash locations and patterns
Address severe crash risks through roadway, intersection, crossing, and speed management investments
Connected
Networks
Intersection density, share of four-way intersections, route directness, and street, walking, and bicycling connections.
Build understanding of how network patterns affect local access, travel options, and demand on major roads
197
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 12-4
Focus Area Potential Indicator How the Information Helps
Land Use Mix
and Walkable
Access
Share of households within a 10-minute walk of daily destinations
Show whether homes and everyday destinations are close enough to support routine trips on foot
Walking and
Bicycling
Activity
Walking and bicycling counts at consistent locations Track changes in use over time
Before the next LRTP update, the GVMPO may explore these indicators through internal tracking
to assess their usefulness and feasibility. Indicators that provide reliable, relevant information
could inform future planning and consideration of local targets.
Looking Toward the Future
Growth will continue to reshape Gallatin Valley’s transportation needs. The pace, location, and
design of development–including street connectivity and the mix of nearby uses–will influence
travel, demand, and infrastructure needs. Connected neighborhoods with convenient access to
daily destinations and transit can better support walking, bicycling, and transit use while
reducing reliance on major roads for local trips.
The GVMPO can supplement local planning with regional data and analysis to help partners
coordinate investments and connections across jurisdictional boundaries. This work can build on
shared priorities and community input while respecting local authority over land use,
development review, and local street planning.
Rising construction costs and inflation may reduce the purchasing power of transportation
revenues and place additional demands on available funds. Broader fiscal pressures and
uncertainty about future transportation funding may also affect the pace and scope of
improvements. As conditions change, the GVMPO and its partners should review cost and
revenue assumptions.
198
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 12-5
Future work should build on the LRTP’s analysis of bicycle and pedestrian safety, network gaps,
and access to daily destinations and transit. More detailed analysis of crash patterns and access
needs can guide GVMPO planning and project development, refine investment priorities, and
inform TPCC’s consideration of more ambitious safety targets.
Partner plans and records can help track the status of projects, programs, and policies. This plan
will inform the TIP, future studies, and LRTP updates. The GVMPO will update the plan at least
every five years to reflect changing needs and funding.
199
200
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 13-1
13 Conclusion
Our Pathway Forward
Connecting Gallatin Valley establishes a comprehensive community vision and performance-
based framework for funding and delivering transportation projects and programs to meet
existing and future needs of the region through 2050.
Reflecting Community Values and Priorities
The LRTP is grounded in community engagement that reflects varying transportation needs of
residents, workers, and visitors across the Gallatin Valley. Implementing the LRTP can help
improve safety for all modes, maintain a state of good repair, expand mobility choices and
access to opportunity, enhance health outcomes and quality of life, preserve regional character,
better integrate transportation into land use planning, and strengthen resilience to natural
disasters, and support adaptation to emerging technologies.
Data-Driven Project Recommendations
within Fiscal Constraint
The recommended list of projects reflects an assessment of existing and future conditions,
evaluation using quantitative and qualitative criteria, and the forecasts of reasonably expected
federal, state, and local revenue sources through 2050. Regional growth, transportation
conditions, available data, and funding may change over the plan's horizon. Connecting Gallatin
Valley is the region’s first LRTP and provides a foundation for updates. The GVMPO may amend
it as transportation needs and funding change. If additional funding becomes available,
illustrative projects may be considered through a future LRTP and TIP amendment.
Implementation Through Partnership and
Collaboration
Development of the LRTP was a cooperative process with the GVMPOs partner agencies and will
require ongoing collaboration to make the recommendations in this plan come to life. As
projects advance, those proposed for federal funding will be considered for inclusion in the
GVMPO’s TIP and MDT’s STIP, in coordination with the City of Belgrade, City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County, and Gallatin Valley UTD. The GVMPO will continue to build consensus and
201
Connecting Gallatin Valley LRTP 13-2
technical capacity with these partners to deliver LRTP projects in a manner that reflects efficient
use of public funds, community needs, and regional priorities.
Monitoring Success and Reporting
Performance
The GVMPO supports MDT’s statewide targets for the federally required performance measures
included in the LRTP and will use those targets as a baseline for monitoring regional
performance. Ongoing data collection, analysis, and reporting, including use of MDT’s travel
demand model as appropriate, will help the GVMPO track regional performance, inform future
priorities, and community progress to TTAC, TPCC, and the community. The GVMPO will provide
progress updates on performance measures and statewide targets. As described in Chapter 12,
the GVMPO may also test local indicators related to pedestrian and bicycle safety, walkability,
connectivity, and access, subject to staff capacity and data availability.
Planning Requirements and Partner Input
Connecting Gallatin Valley was developed under the metropolitan planning requirements in 23
CFR §450.324 with a performance-based approach, fiscally constrained recommendations, and
transparent public process. Implementation partners and FHWA representatives provided input
throughout the process to ensure recommendations are aligned with local priorities and
ongoing partner-led plans and initiatives. This collaborative foundation will support coordinated
implementation and future updates as regional needs and priorities evolve.
202
203
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
NHPP (3)-$8,978,186 $17,794,865 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $29,023,051 $3,318,570 $63,052,830 $92,075,881 $29,867,130 $33,185,700
IM -$250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 $1,510,197 $28,693,743 $29,943,743 $13,591,773 $15,101,970
NH -$8,728,186 $17,544,865 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $27,773,051 $1,808,373 $34,359,087 $62,132,138 $16,275,357 $18,083,730
NHFP ------------
STP (3)$24,594,567 $3,853,906 $7,631,092 $2,622,504 $7,663,569 $2,434,020 $24,205,091 $3,165,696 $60,148,224 $108,947,882 $28,491,264 $31,656,960
STPU $13,445,204 $368,335 $1,045,888 $1,530,046 $1,530,046 $1,530,046 $6,004,361 $1,530,046 $29,070,874 $48,520,439 $13,770,414 $15,300,460
STPX, STPS, SFCN $9,533,466 $87,485 $5,482,531 ---$5,570,016 $579,596 $11,012,324 $26,115,806 $5,216,364 $5,795,960
UPP -$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 $191,135 $3,631,565 $6,131,565 $1,720,215 $1,911,350
TA (Statewide) (4)-$2,494,112 $198,699 $188,484 $5,229,549 -$8,110,844 $460,945 $8,757,955 $16,868,799 $4,148,505 $4,609,450
TA (MPO) (5)$1,615,897 $403,974 $403,974 $403,974 $403,974 $403,974 $2,019,870 $403,974 $7,675,506 $11,311,273 $3,635,766 $4,039,740
BR -$17,845 $2,438,885 $2,617,434 --$5,074,164 $878,931 $16,699,685 $21,773,849 $7,910,377 $8,789,308
HSIP -$480,629 $6,868,744 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $7,949,373 $420,854 $7,996,226 $15,945,599 $3,787,686 $4,208,540
MACI (CMAQ) (11)-$1,992,388 $3,451,600 ---$5,443,988 $347,528 $6,603,030 $12,047,018 $3,127,751 $3,475,279
CR (6)$1,125,353 $579,613 ----$579,613 --$1,704,966 --
FTA (3)$380,421 $3,101,410 $2,857,133 $2,857,133 $2,857,133 $2,857,133 $14,529,942 $1,833,011 $34,827,209 $49,737,572 $16,497,099 $18,330,110
FTA 5307 -$2,760,633 $2,760,633 $2,760,633 $2,760,633 $2,760,633 $13,803,165 $1,492,234 $28,352,446 $42,155,611 $13,430,106 $14,922,340
FTA 5339 - Formula (7)$380,421 $96,500 $96,500 $96,500 $96,500 $96,500 $482,500 $96,500 $1,833,500 $2,696,421 $868,500 $965,000
FTA 5339 - Discretionary (8)------------
FTA 5310 -$244,277 ----$244,277 $244,277 $4,641,263 $4,885,540 $2,198,493 $2,442,770
Grants (9)-$17,341,405 $25,000,000 ---$42,341,405 $1,600,000 $30,400,000 $72,741,405 $14,400,000 $16,000,000
FWP -$125,000 ----$125,000 $25,000 $475,000 $600,000 $225,000 $250,000
RRS -------$50,000 $950,000 $950,000 $450,000 $500,000
TransADE -$115,658 $115,658 $115,658 $115,658 $115,658 $578,290 $115,658 $2,197,502 $2,775,792 $1,040,922 $1,156,580
Operations and Maintenance -$1,507,353 $1,507,353 $1,507,353 $1,507,353 $1,507,353 $7,536,765 $1,507,353 $28,639,706 $36,176,471 $13,566,176 $15,073,529
Fuel Tax (3)-$3,397,031 $3,397,031 $3,397,031 $3,397,031 $3,397,031 $16,985,154 $3,397,031 $64,543,584 $81,528,738 $30,573,277 $33,970,307
Fuel Tax - City of Belgrade (10)-$495,383 $495,383 $495,383 $495,383 $495,383 $2,476,916 $495,383 $9,412,282 $11,889,199 $4,458,450 $4,953,833
Fuel Tax - City of Bozeman (10)-$2,063,369 $2,063,369 $2,063,369 $2,063,369 $2,063,369 $10,316,847 $2,063,369 $39,204,020 $49,520,868 $18,570,325 $20,633,695
Fuel Tax - County (10)-$838,278 $838,278 $838,278 $838,278 $838,278 $4,191,390 $838,278 $15,927,281 $20,118,671 $7,544,502 $8,382,780
TOTAL $26,100,341 $41,490,424 $71,062,361 $14,067,113 $16,490,744 $11,261,195 $154,371,835 $16,659,631 $316,532,996 $497,005,172 $149,936,682 $166,596,314
Projected Funding by Funding Source (Estimated) – Gallatin Valley MPO
Source: Montana Department of Transportation, GVMPO Financial Plan and Draft FFY2027-2031 GVMPO TIP
Funding Source
FFY 2027
Beginning
Balance
Committed Funding (1)2027-2031
Committed
Funding
2032-2050
Annual
Projected
Funding
Average (2)
2032-2050 Total
Projected
Funding
Total Funding
(2027-2050)
(1) Based on funding information provided by the Montana Department of Transportation regarding the DRAFT FFY2027-2031 GVMPO TIP.
Mid-Term Funding
(2032-2040)
Long-Term Funding
(2041-2050)
FEDERAL
STATE AND LOCAL
(6) Carbon Reduction Program (CR) shows $0 for the 2032-2050 horizon projection. MDT does not anticipate any further CR funding following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution.
(5) TA (MPO) reflects the Gallatin Valley MPO's direct population-based sub-allocation of Transportation Alternatives funding under STP, separate from the statewide competitive TA pool but still part of the same STP set-aside.
(4) TA (Statewide) and TA (MPO) are both components of the STP roll-up above, since Transportation Alternatives is a federally-mandated set-aside of the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) that splits into a statewide competitive pool and a direct MPO suballocation. TA (Statewide)
funding is competitive and not guaranteed.
(3) NHPP, STP, FTA, and Fuel Tax are roll-up totals computed as the sum of their component rows directly below them.
(2) Projected Funding for 2032-2050 is estimated using the GVMPO Financial Plan (per-project/per-year annualized averages prepared by MDT) and is the best information available at this time. There is no guarantee that funding will be available in the future.
Note: NEVI (National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure) funding is not included because the GVMPO Financial Plan notes NEVI funding does not apply to newly-designated MPOs.
Note: NHFP (National Highway Freight Program) appears only as a category heading in the draft TIP's Projects sheet with no projects or dollar figures programmed for GVMPO in this TIP cycle. All values are shown as zero pending future project identification.
Note: The draft TIP and GVMPO Financial Plan report CMAQ funding for this MPO under a single MACI line with no further split into "Guaranteed" vs. "Discretionary" portions.
(7) FTA 5339 - Formula 2032-2050 annual projected funding reflects the GVMPO Financial Plan estimate. The draft TIP has only programmed this funding in FFY2027 pending future project identification.
Note: FTA 5307 and FTA 5310 figures combine the federal share and required local match into a single total funding amount for each year, consistent with how other federal programs (STPU, IM, NH, SFCN, HSIP, BR, UPP, MACI) already report combined federal-plus-match totals per the source TIP.
(11) Pure CMAQ funds that come to Montana based on the federal formula and are directed to Missoula, Montana's only moderate CO non-attainment area. Projects are prioritized through the MPO process.
Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) Discretionary Program: Projects using MACI discretionary funds are selected through a proposal process administered by the Transportation Planning Division of MDT. Projects are prioritized and selected amongst all eligible areas based on air quality
benefits. Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) Guaranteed Program: MACI guaranteed funds are distributed to Billings and Great Falls at a level equivalent to what Missoula receives each year in CMAQ funds. Projects are prioritized through the MPO planning process.
(10) Fuel Tax revenues are received by the City of Belgrade, City of Bozeman, and Gallatin County and are primarily used for routine operations and maintenance. Excess funds are prioritized for capital expenditures based on need and priority. The draft TIP's REVENUE sheet and GVMPO Financial
Plan both label this revenue "Gas Tax" internally; it is shown here as "Fuel Tax", since the tax applies to both gasoline and diesel. The draft TIP's REVENUE sheet reports only a combined City total (Belgrade + Bozeman) for FFY2027-2031; the Belgrade/Bozeman figures above prorate that combined total using each city's share of the GVMPO Financial Plan's individual city estimates. 2032-2050 annual averages use the Financial Plan's city-specific and county estimates directly.
(9) Grants reflects competitively awarded federal discretionary grants (e.g., BUILD, RAISE, SS4A) rather than a recurring formula funding source, currently consisting of the Belgrade Urban Improvements grant ($25,000,000, FFY2027) and Gallatin County SS4A grant ($13.9 million). The 2032-2050
annual amount is a simplified projection equal to the FFY2027-2031 total divided evenly across 5 years and held constant for the outyears; this is a modeling assumption only and is not a guaranteed or expected revenue stream. The annual projected average for grants was initially set at $5 million per year, but after direction from MDT, it has been adjusted to $1.6 million per year.
(8) FTA 5339 - Discretionary is a competitive federal program; no recurring annual amount is assumed for 2032-2050 given its non-formula, competitive nature.
204
Near-Term (Committed) Projects
205
LRTP Project ID Project Code LRTP Project Name MDT TIP Project Name Description Project Category Cost (2026 Dollars)Federal Committed Dollars State Committed Dollars Local Committed Dollars Funding Source(s)Local/Regional/State Plan Source
S-1 UPN 9930
Jackrabbit Lane and Amsterdam Road
Intersection Improvements BELGRADE - INT IMPROVEMENTS
This project will improve signal operations in Belgrade along the Jackrabbit Lane corridor
(from Amsterdam Road to I-90 West-Bound Off Ramp) and on Amsterdam Road (from
Jackrabbit Lane to Thorpe Road). The signal improvements will include upgrading the
existing signals by adding flashing yellow lights, improving bike/ped features (including
ADA), and adding retro-reflective backplates to signals. Additionally, the project will add a
new roundabout at the intersection of Broadway and Main Street in Belgrade.Safety $12,915,725 $11,182,435 $1,733,290 NH; STP (STPX, STPS, SFCN)2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
R-29 UPN 9926 Main Street (Bolinger Road to Jackrabbit Lane)MAIN STREET - BELGRADE
Reconstruction project on Main Street in Belgrade between Jackrabbit Lane and Bolinger
Road. The project scope will include added capacity (expansion to three lanes) with new
curb and gutter, sidewalks, ADA improvements and street lighting.Roadway $11,000,000 $1,081,167 $167,582 STPU 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
S-52 UPN 9718
Amsterdam Road/River Rock Road and Green
Belt Dr Intersections SF 189 AMSTERDAM RD INTX IMPRV
Improvements to address intersection-related crashes at 2 sites along Amsterdam Rd near
Belgrade. Amsterdam & River Rock Blvd: Installation of a 2-phase traffic signal with
detection on all legs. Install a dedicated left-turn lane on S-347. Amsterdam & Green Belt
Dr: Install a left-turn lane on Amsterdam and reconstruct the right turn lane to meet
current design standards. (Amsterdam is maintained by Gallatin County, and will require
coordination throughout the design process.)Safety $3,786,387 $3,407,748 $378,639 HSIP 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
S-68 UPN 9644 SF 179 Signal Kagy Sourdough SF 179 SIGNAL KAGY SOURDOUGH
Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Kagy and Sourdough to address intersection-
related crashes.Safety $902,393 $735,768 $81,752 $84,873 HSIP; CR MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
R-10 UPN 9057
Jackrabbit Lane (Main Street to Madison
Avenue)BELGRADE - URBAN IMPROVEMENTS
Reconstruct to 5-lane urban principal arterial standards to include shoulders, curb, gutter,
and sidewalks; Grade separated rail crossing (underpass), accommodate two lanes in each
direction Roadway $61,893,776 $56,942,631 $4,951,145
NH; STP (STPX, STPS, SFCN);
MACI; Grants (RAISE)2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
R-39 UPN 8931
Kagy Boulevard (Willson Avenue to S. 19th
Avenue)KAGY BLVD - S 19TH TO WILLSON
This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard, from the intersection of S. 19th Avenue
to Willson Avenue, to a four-lane urban principal arterial standard. This includes two travel
lanes in each direction, shared use paths on each side, curb and gutters, and intersection
improvements including two pedestrian tunnels.Roadway $42,491,447 $36,585,562 $1,905,885 $4,000,000 STPU; Grants 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-121 UPN 10751 Flanders Mill Sidewalk-Bozeman FLANDERS MILL SIDEWALK-BOZEMAN
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program project to install sidewalk along Flanders Mill
Road in Bozeman.Active Transportation $747,815 $647,458 $100,357 TA-MPO MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
S-69 UPN 10750 Ped Crossing Upgrades-Bozeman PED CROSSING UPGRADES-BOZEMAN
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program project to improve pedestrian crossing features
and ADA ramps in Bozeman.Safety $785,346 $679,953 $105,393 TA-MPO MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
A-86 UPN 10743 Connecting Communities in Gallatin County HUFFINE LANE SHARED USE PATH / Connecting Communities
Complete the shared use path on Huffine between Circle F Trail and Bozeman City Limits to
create a continuous non-motorized route between Four Corners and Bozeman. Reconfigure
Alaska/Cameron Bridge intersection as a roundabout. Enhance visibility and reduce
conflicts on Gooch Hill from Huffine to Durston through low-cost intersection safety
countermeasures and eventual long-term reconstruction.Active Transportation $18,888,704 $15,212,775 $3,675,929 TA-Statewide; GRANTS (SS4A)2025 Gallatin County Safe Streets For All
A-120 UPN 10738 Helen-Hoffman Walks - Belgrade HELEN-HOFFMAN WALKS - BELGRADE
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program project to install sidewalk along portions of Helen
Drive and Hoffman Street in Belgrade.Active Transportation $1,942,195 $1,681,552 $260,643 TA-Statewide MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
A-119 UPN 10737 Hoffman St Sidewalks-Belgrade HOFFMAN ST SIDEWALKS-BELGRADE
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program project to improve sidewalks along Hoffman
Street in Belgrade.Active Transportation $3,613,736 $1,876,488 $1,660,991 TA-Statewide MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
M-15 UPN 10696 South Cottonwood Road- Bozeman SOUTH COTTONWOOD ROAD- BOZEMAN
Butte District Project on Secondary 345 (S-345 ) from RP 0.51 to RP 5.5 near Bozeman. Seal
& Cover. Gallatin County has agreed to blade patch and crack seal this segment of S-345 in
2025. MDT has committed to delivering a chip seal treatment in 2026. This project is a
short-term solution that is intended to help repair the roadway until the County can
advance a long-term solution (major rehab, etc.) in the future.Maintenance $262,615 $181,390 $28,116 STP (STPX, STPS, SFCN)MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
A-118 UPN 10453 Bike/Ped Paths-Bozeman BIKE/PED PATHS-BOZEMAN
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program project to construct shared use paths at several
locations in Bozeman. Active Transportation $891,573 $642,598 $99,604 TA-Statewide MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
M-14 UPN 10450 Path Preservation II-Bozeman PATH PRESERVATION II-BOZEMAN
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program project for preservation work on a number of
paths within the City of Bozeman.Maintenance $392,466 $339,797 $52,669 TA-Statewide MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
A-117 UPN 10441 Madison Ave Sidewalk-Belgrade MADISON AVE SIDEWALK-BELGRADE
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program project to improve sidewalks along Madison
Avenue in Belgrade.Active Transportation $1,358,250 $1,175,973 $182,277 TA-Statewide MDT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
R-129 SIF191 in FY27-31 CIP Stucky Rd (S 19th Ave to Fowler Ln)
This project consists of upgrading Stucky road from the intersection with S. 19th Avenue
west to the intersection with Fowler Lane to an urban "collector" standard. Project includes
intersection improvement at Fowler and S 19th as well as addition of southbound lane on S
19th.Roadway $9,409,900 $9,409,900 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-100 SIF159 in FY27-31 CIP Oak (27th to 19th)
Description from CIP: This project will widen Oak St to a five-lane configuration that better
aligns with the adjacent sections of Oak St. It includes an eastbound lane reconfiguration
and signal upgrade at N 19th. These improvements will increase the intersection's capacity
by matching the lane configuration established in the 2016 Oak St 15th to 19th project. The
project will also address multimodal considerations by adding a shared-use path to this
corner of the intersection. It is identified in the 2017 Transportation Master Plan as TSM-16
and MSN-9.
Reconstruct Oak, from 27th to 19th, to a five-lane urban "principal arterial" standard.Roadway $4,250,000 $4,250,000 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-17 SIF157 in FY26-30 CIP W College (8th to 11th)
This project consists of reconstructing College Street, from the intersection of S. 11th
Avenue to S. 8th Avenue, to a two-lane urban "minor arterial" standard.Roadway $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-123 SIF114 in FY26-30 CIP Fowler Connection (Huffine to Oak)
This project consists of upgrading Fowler Road from the intersection with Huffin Lane to
the intersection with Oak Street to a five-lane urban "minor arterial" standard.Roadway $22,596,000 $22,596,000 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-49 A&C016 in FY26-30 CIP S 19th Shared Use Path
This project will widen the existing sidewalk on the east and west sides of S 19th Ave
between Lincoln St and Kagy Blvd to 10’ wide shared use paths.Active Transportation $432,600 $432,600 Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-51 WO 22-03
Dry Creek Road, Cruiser Lane, and Spooner
Road Intersection Safety Project
Roundabout. Filling in sidewalk gaps (or creating shared use paths). High visibility
crosswalks. Lighting upgrades.Roadway $8,500,000 $8,500,000
Local Funding, Private Developer
Funding 2025 Belgrade Safety Action Plan
206
Mid-Term Projects
207
Project ID Name Description Cost (2036 Dollars) Committed Dollars Potential Funding Source(s) Project Source Jurisdiction Notes
R-130 Mendenhall & Babcock Streetscape
Complete streetscape improvements along Mendenhall Street and Babcock Street to include curb
bulb-outs, landscaping and crossing enhancements. $3,297,000 $0 TA-Statewide; HSIP 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman
A-137 Peach St Complete Street Improvements
This project will improve sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle facility on Peach St between N 7th and N
Rouse in the city of Bozeman. Redesign of the street within existing right of way would be
accomplished with the next mill and overlay of this segment. $6,500,000 $0
STP (STPU); TA-Statewide; TA-
MPO; Grants City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman
R-90 Oak St: 7th To 19th Safety Improvement
This project will redesign Oak St from 7th to 19th in the city of Bozeman to improve safety and access
control. The project would adjust curb location to remove the existing bike lanes and narrow travel
lanes to minimum arterial standards, install a landscaped median to provide traffic calming and
access management, and construct missing sections of shared use path. This project would be
implemented with the next mill and overlay of the segment, which was last chip sealed in 2009. $6,500,000 $0
STP (UPP); HSIP; MACI (CMAQ);
Grants City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman
A-133 Madison Ave/Broadway St - Jackrabbit Ln To Main St
Bike lane; bike-ped route and connector; Reconstruct to urban minor arterial standards to include on-
street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes $2,600,000 $0 STP (STPU) 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade Project originated in 2018 TMP
R-22 Main Street (North Quaw Boulevard To Gallatin Field Road)
Reconstruct to urban principal arterial standards to include 8-foot shoulder/parking, center turn
lane/turn bays, curb and gutter $6,930,000 $0 NHPP 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan MDT, Belgrade
R-125 Bozeman Trail/Haggerty Ln (Main St To Kagy Blvd)
Bozeman Trail should be reconstructed to a three-lane urban "minor arteral" roadway from the
intersection with Kagy Boulevard north to the intersection with Haggerty Lane. Haggerty Lane should
also be upgraded to a three-lane urban "minor arterial" roadway. Bike lanes, sidewalks, curb, and
gutter improvements. $8,635,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA-
Statewide; TA-MPO 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman
A-123 Airway Blvd - Gallatin Field Rd To E Frank Rd Bike lane or shared use path; partial commuter. $993,700 $0 STP (STPU); TA-MPO; Grants 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County
A-134 Jackrabbit Ln - Frontage Rd To Amsterdam Rd/Alaska Frontage Rd Bike lane; bike-ped route and connector. $1,232,792 $0 Grants 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade
A-131 Amsterdam Rd - Clovehitch Rd To Jackrabbit Ln Shared use path; commuter. $1,105,000 $0 STP (STPU) 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County
Project originated in 2018 TMP. This project is along a
priority corridor identified in public outreach.
A-84 Bozeman To Belgrade Frontage Road Shared Use Path
Construct shared use path along Frontage Road from Cherry River Fishing Access to Valley Center
Spur. Further extension to Belgrade to be completed in future projects. $600,000 $700,000 TA-Statewide; Local Funding 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman, MDT
This project received support during public outreach. Has
partial committed funding.
M-16 Lamme St Bridge Rehabilitation
This project will rehabilitate or replace the existing structure on Lamme St between N Bozeman and N
Rouse in the city of Bozeman to improve structure condition and hydraulic capacity. $5,900,000 $0 BR City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman
R-102 N 19th Ave (Interstate 90 To Springhill Rd)
This project consists of widening N. 19th Avenue from Interstate 90 to the intersection with Springhill
Road to a 5-lane urban arterial standard. This project includes widening the I-90 overpass along N.
19th Avenue. This roadway is currently a principal. $7,379,000 $0 NHPP 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman, MDT
R-20 S 3rd Ave (Graf St To Kagy Blvd)
Reconstruct S. 3rd Avenue from Graf Street to Kagy Boulevard to an urban "collector" roadway
standard. $3,297,000 $0 STP (STPU) 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman
This project is along a priority corridor identified in public
outreach
S-73 Jackrabbit Ln Pedestrian Tunnel Tunnel under Jackrabbit Ln at Driveway $4,472,000 $0 Grants 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade
This project is along a priority corridor identified in public
outreach
R-165 N 19th Interchange Modifications
This project would construct modifications to the N 19th Interchange with I-90 (westbound exit ramp)
to support street infrastructure for the North Park development currently under MDT Systems Impact
review. $13,000,000 $0 NHPP City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman, MDT
A-136 Valley Center Spur Multimodal Connection
This project will construct a multimodal connection along Valley Center Spur between the existing
Frontage Rd shared use path and E Valley Center. Detailed planning and design will determine facility
type. Signal modifications at each existing intersection are anticipated. $1,300,000 $0 STP (STPU) City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman
A-79 Gallatin Road (Four Corners To Gallatin Gateway)Extend existing shared use path $5,396,000 $0 Grants 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan MDT, County
A-59 Amsterdam Road (Royal Road To Fishing Access)Extend the existing shared use path from Royal Road to Erwin Bridge Fishing Access Site $852,000 $0 TA-Statewide; FWP 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan Belgrade, County
S-48 S 3rd Ave And Graf St
Installation of a traffic signal or roundabout at the intersection of South 3rd Ave, W Graf St, and
Wagonwheel Dr. $1,570,000 $0 Grants 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman
M-17 E Griffin Bridge Replacement
This project will replace the existing Bozeman Creek bridge on E Griffin Dr between N Rouse and Story
Mill Rd. $1,150,000 $0 BR City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman
208
Long-Term Projects
209
Project ID Name Description Cost (2045 Dollars) Potential Funding Source(s) Project Source Jurisdiction Notes
S-85 Streamline Downtown Transfer Station Improvements
The Downtown Transfer Station needs major repairs to the bus pull through lane and improved ADA
compliance. The asphalt in the bus pull through lane is significantly deteriorated. The asphalt should be
replaced with concrete to better withstand the load of heavy duty transit buses. The passenger loading island
does not meet ADA requirements, a walk audit demonstrated inability of a power chair to access the bus. The
sidewalk south of the island should be moved to widen the bus pull through lane and comply with ADA.$7,850,000
STP (UPP); MACI (CMAQ);
Grants City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman This project is also eligible for FTA funding.
M-19 Downtown Bozeman Creek Structure Rehabilitation
Bozeman Creek traverses downtown Bozeman through a series of three tunnels under Olive St, Rouse Ave,
Babcock St, and Main St. for a total length of approximately 700 LF. This infrastructure is critical for the function
of urban, primary, and NHS routes. The tunnel system is approaching the end of its useful life and requires
rehabilitation, replacement, and hydraulic capacity improvements to manage flooding.$22,125,000 NHPP; BR; Grants City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman
S-60 US 191 Improvements
Complete the following recommendations from MDT’s 2020 US 191 Corridor Study (Four Corners to Beaver
Creek Road): Modify business access; install second westbound left-turn lane; add pedestrian crossing
treatments at Four Corners intersection; Install curve warning signs for substandard roadway elements; 3rd
Street to 2nd Street (S2) - Replace or widen bridge based on future needs of the highway; Bozeman Hot
Springs/Cobb Hill/Lower Rainbow Road (S3) - Consolidate approaches and realign intersection; improve
intersection/roadway lighting $20,496,000 NHPP; BR; HSIP; Grants 2025 Gallatin County Safe Streets For All MDT, County
R-121 Cottonwood (Baxter Ln to Cattail St)
Complete the construction of Cottonwood Road, from Baxter Lane to Cattail Street, to a five lane urban
"prinicpal arterial" standard. This includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and
gutter throughout.$9,200,000
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA-
MPO; Grants 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman
S-63 Belgrade To Bozeman Frontage Road Improvements
8: Passing Zone ModificaƟons
9: Install Centerline Rumble Strips
10: Develop Separated Shared Use Path
11: Roadway Reconstruction $37,104,000
NHPP; STP (STPU); TA-
Statewide; TA-MPO; HSIP; FWP 2025 Gallatin County Safe Streets For All County, Bozeman
Will complete the shared use path into Belgrade funded in the mid-
term. This project received support during public outreach.
210
Illustrative Projects
211
Project ID Name Description Project Category Project Source Jurisdiction
Long-Term Cost
(2045 Dollars)Committed Dollars Potential Funding Source(s)Notes
S-90 Huffine and Fowler Intersection Improvement
This project will modify the intersection of Huffine Lane and Fowler Avenue in the city of
Bozeman as the last phase of the city's planned Fowler Avenue Connection project. City
and MDT coordination on final scope of improvements and design review is ongoing.Safety City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman $7,850,000 $0 NH; HSIP; Grants (SS4A); MACI (CMAQ)
S-86 S 19th and Blackwood Rd Traffic Signal
This project will construct a traffic signal at S 19th and Blackwood Rd in the city of
Bozeman once volumes develop to a level that warrants signalization.Safety City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman $7,850,000 $0 MACI (CMAQ); Grants (SS4A)
S-77 Jackrabbit Ln/I-90 Grade-separated crossing. Safety 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade $16,715,790 $0
HSIP; TA; NHPP; Grants (SS4A); Grants
(RAISE)
S-76 Madison Ave/I-90 Underpass. Safety 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade $14,327,820 $0
HSIP; TA; NHPP; Grants (SS4A); Grants
(RAISE)
S-43 Davis & Valley Center
Geometric improvements with traffic signalization when warrants are met. Potential
lane configuration include northbound left and right-turn bays, a westbound leturn bay,
and an eastbound right-turn lane.Safety 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $3,680,000 $0 MACI (CMAQ); Grants (SS4A)Privately funded as a condition of new Turnrow subdivision
S-124 Improve Paratransit Visibility & Accessibility
Streamline's brand is recognizable and trusted in the community as reliable, safe, and
convenient. Aligning paratransit to Streamline's brand with vehicle wraps improves the
visibility and enhances accessibility to transit. Good branding for paratransit helps
reduce the stigma of specialized transportation - improving mobility, connectivity, and
sustainability. Fostering independence by better serving seniors and people with
disabilities. Integrated branding encourages usage and limits barriers to mobility
options.Safety City of Bozeman Call for Projects Streamline $1,570,000 $0 FTA 5310
S-123 Bus Stop Parklet Pop-Up
MDT guidelines dictate parklets located on MDT maintained streets must be
constructed out of steel to protect from vehicle conflicts. These structures will improve
the visibility and accessibility of this parklet. The space is currently occupied by two free
parking spaces that block bus riders (especially seniors and those with disabilities) from
boarding in an accessible manner. Additional benefits are safety, traffic calming through
inclusion of local art, seating and landscaping, and multimodal mobility.Safety City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman, Streamline $1,570,000 $0 FTA 5310
R-99 Oak (7th to Rouse)
This project consists of reconstructing Oak Street, from the intersection of N. 7th
Avenue to Rouse Avenue, to a three--lane urban "principal arterial" standard. This
includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter
throughout Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $3,588,000 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)This project is committed with adjacent development
R-98 Durston (Gooch Hill Rd To Study Area Boundary) - Minor Arterial
Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial. All street maintenance projects are evaluated
for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan County, Bozeman $2,760,000 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-97 Garfield (Fowler To Ferguson) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $2,944,000 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-96 S 11th Ave (Blackwood To Goldenstein) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $4,195,200 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-95 Blackwood Road (Fowler To S 31st Ave) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $1,030,400 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN)
R-91 Fowler Lane: Garfield To Stucky
This project will construct Fowler Lane from Garfield to Stucky as a 2-lane minor arterial
in the city of Bozeman to provide an alternate N/S route to S 19th. All street
maintenance projects are evaluated for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal
improvements.Roadway
City of Bozeman Call for Projects; 2017 Bozeman
TMP Bozeman $23,550,000 $0
STP (STPU) [tentative - not yet built,
system designation pending per MDT];
Grants (RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-77 W Frank Rd - Thorpe Rd To Jackrabbit Ln Reconstruct to collector standards. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County $25,627,110 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-76 Bolinger Rd - Weaver Rd To Cruiser Ln Reconstruct to minor collector standards. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade $34,792,770 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-74 New Roadway (Future) - Happy Ln To Dry Creek Rd New roadway. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade $21,994,130 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-73 Weaver Rd - West Of Thorpe Rd To Dry Creek Rd Upgrade to 4-lane arterial with center median. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County $151,274,210 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-72 E Valley Center Rd - Alaska Rd To Love Ln Upgrade to minor arterial; maintain shared use path. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, County $11,068,500 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE)
R-71 Tarmac Trail (New Airport Rd) - Jetway Dr To Frontage Rd
New roadway; Airport Rd relocation; minor collector standards. Jetway Dr to Frontage
Rd; Intersection improvements to include traffic signal Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County $24,948,870 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); NHFP; Grants
(RAISE)New airport road will be a high-interest project for the region
R-67 Kingston Rd (Future) - Collins Rd To Dry Creek Rd New collector roadway. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade $30,120,450 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-66 Harper Puckett Rd - E Cameron Bridge Rd To E Valley Center Rd Roadway improvements. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP County $4,394,430 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-65 E Cameron Bridge Rd - Alaska Rd To Harper Puckett Rd Upgrade from minor collector to major collector.Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP County $8,121,610 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-64 Spooner Rd - Weaver Rd To Cruiser Ln Roadway improvements. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County $8,072,940 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-63 Thorpe Rd - Planning Area Boundary To Royal Rd Roadway improvements if western interchange occurs. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County $25,537,620 $0
NHPP; STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants
(RAISE)
R-59 Frontage Rd - Airway Blvd To City Limits Reconstruct to urban street standards. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade $22,546,770 $0 STP (Primary); Grants (RAISE)
R-58 Amsterdam Rd - Countryside Ln/Royal Rd To Thorpe Rd
Reconstruct to 5-lane urban minor arterial standards with appropriate non-motorized
accomodations. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County $43,635,010 $0
STP (STPU); TA; CRP; Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-57 Jackrabbit Ln Overpass (Amsterdam Rd To Colorado St)
Widen/replace overpass to accommodate additional lanes and non-motorized
accomodations; reconstruct off-ramp to increase capacity. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade $44,997,770 $0
NHPP; BR; TA; Grants (Bridge Investment
Program); Grants (RAISE); CRP; Grants
(INFRA)
R-56 Jackrabbit Ln - Mayfair Dr To Frontage Rd
Reconstruct to urban minor arterial standards to be consistent with souther portion of
the corridor; realign side streets. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade $14,883,600 $0 STP (STPU); Grants (RAISE)
R-54 Amsterdam Rd - Thorpe Rd To Jackrabbit Ln
Reconstruct to 5-lane urban minor arterial standards with appropriate non-motorized
accomodations like paralell multi-use path. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP Belgrade, County $54,571,630 $0
STP (STPU); TA; CRP; Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-53 Frontage Rd - Thorpe Rd To Bolinger Rd Reconstruct to urban typical standard. Roadway 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP MDT, Belgrade $12,247,570 $0 STP (STPU); Grants (RAISE)
R-46 S. 19th Avenue (Kagy Blvd To Hyalite Canyon Road)
Reconstruct roadway to urban principal standards from Kagy Blvd to Goldenstein Road,
rural principal arterial standards from Goldenstein Road to Johnson Road, and minor
arterial standards to Hyalite Canyon Road. Parallel shared use path recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan Bozeman, County $67,971,800 $0
STP (STPU); STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA;
Grants (RAISE); CRP
R-38 Church (Main St To Kagy Blvd)
This project consists of reconstructing Church Street from the intersection with Main
Street south to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard to a two-lane urban "collector"
standard. This would include one travel lane in each direction, curb and gutter.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $6,476,800 $0 STP (STPU); Grants (RAISE)Project has significant right-of-way challenges
212
Project ID Name Description Project Category Project Source Jurisdiction
Long-Term Cost
(2045 Dollars)Committed Dollars Potential Funding Source(s)Notes
R-37 Valley Center (Valley Center Spur To 27th Ave)
This project consists of upgrading Valley Center Drive from the intersection with the
Valley Center Underpass to the intersection with N. 27th Avenue to a three-lane urban
arterial standard complete with one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side, curb and gutter.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman, MDT $6,458,400 $0 STP (STPU); TA; CRP; Grants (RAISE)This project is committed with adjacent development
R-36 Cottonwood Rd (Loyal Drive To Graf St)
This project consists of reconstructing Cottonwood Road, from the intersection of Loyal
Drive to Graf Street, to a three-lane urban "principal arterial" standard. This includes
one travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $10,120,000 $0
STP (STPU); STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA;
Grants (RAISE); CRP; Grants (INFRA)
R-33 Kagy Blvd (Highland To Bozeman Trail)
This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard from the intersection with Highland
Boulevard to the intersection with Bozeman Trail to a three-lane urban "principal
arterial" standard complete with one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side, curb and gutter.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $9,200,000 $0
STP (STPU); TA; Grants (RAISE); CRP;
Grants (INFRA)
R-23 Frontage Road (Weaver Road To Bolinger Road)
Reconstruct to rural minor arterial standards to include widended shoulders,
recoverable side slopes, center turn lane/turn bays Roadway 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan MDT, Belgrade $15,385,000 $0
STP (STPU); Grants (RAISE); Grants
(INFRA)
R-19 College St (11th to 19th)
This project consists of reconstructing College Street, from the intersection of S. 19th
Avenue to S. 11th Avenue, to a two-lane urban "minor arterial" standard.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $6,752,800 $3,670,000 STP (STPU); TA; Local Funding
College St from 8th-11th is committed in the near-term; some local funding for the
remainder of the project is programmed as SIF158 in Bozeman CIP FY27-31
R-169 Belgrade Rail Quiet Zone Implement rail quiet zone in the city of Belgrade to reduce noise pollution.Roadway Belgrade City Council Belgrade ---
R-162 Gooch Hill Road (Huffine Lane To Stucky Road)Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County, Bozeman $18,252,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-161 Alaska Road South (Frank Road To E Valley Center Road)
Reconstruct roadway to rural minor arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $32,617,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-160 Elk Lane (Red Mountain Drive To Gooch Hill Road)Minor Arterial. Parallel shared use path recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $15,210,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-159 Oak Street (Forest Glen Road To Love Lane)Principal Arterial. Parallel shared use path recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $25,519,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; Grants
(RAISE); CRP; Grants (INFRA)
R-158 Gooch Hill Road (Durston Road To Hulbert Road)Minor Arterial. Parallel shared use path recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $31,603,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-156 Durston Road (Parklands Trail To Monforton Drive)Minor Arterial Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $15,717,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); FWP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-155 Stucky Road (S 19Th Avenue To Gooch Hill Road)
Reconstruct roadway to urban collector standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $50,700,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-154 Stucky Road (Gooch Hill Road To Elk Lane)
Extend Stucky Road between Gooch Hill Road and Elk Lane / Red Mountain Drive
intersection as rural minor arterial Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $15,717,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-153 Cobb Hill Road / Elk Lane (Gallatin Road To Red Mountain Drive)
Reconstruct roadway to rural minor arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $33,293,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-152 Cottonwood Road (Oak Street To Hulbert Road)
Reconstruct roadway to urban principal arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County, Bozeman $18,421,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; Grants
(RAISE); CRP; Grants (INFRA)
R-151 Gooch Hill Road (Durston Road To Huffine Lane)
Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $14,027,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; HSIP; Grants
(SS4A); CRP; Grants (RAISE); Grants
(INFRA)
R-150 Harper Puckett Road / Gooch Hill Road (Cameron Bridge Road To Durston Road)
Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards, complete connection between
Durston Road and Harper Puckett Road. Parallel shared use path recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $55,263,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-15 Cruiser Lane (Dry Creek Road To Jackrabbit)Reconstruct to Urban major collector standard Roadway 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan Belgrade $4,525,000 $0 STP (STPU); Grants (RAISE)
R-149 Cameron Bridge Road (Harper Puckett Road To Alaska Road South)
Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $35,659,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-148 Cameron Bridge Road (Alaska Road South To Jackrabbit Lane)
Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County, Belgrade $17,069,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-147 Hulbert Road (Harper Puckett Road To Love Lane)
Construct roadway to urban minor arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $31,434,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-146 Hulbert Road (Love Lane To Jackrabbit Lane)
Reconstruct roadway to rural minor arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $30,589,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-145 Oak Street (Cottonwood Road To Love Lane)
Reconstruct roadway to urban principal arterial standards, complete connection
between Forest Glen Drive and Love Lane. Parallel shared use path recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County, Bozeman $3,718,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; Grants
(RAISE); CRP
R-144 Durston Road (Gooch Hill Road To Jackrabbit Lane)
Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards (Gooch Hill Road to Love Lane)
and rural minor arterial standards (Love Lane to Jackrabbit Lane), complete connection
between Parklands Trail and Jackrabbit Lane. Parallel shared use path recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $45,292,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; FWP; CRP;
Grants (RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-143 Baxter Lane (Harper Puckett Road To Jackrabbit Lane)
Reconstruct roadway to rural minor arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $27,378,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-142 Love Lane (Huffine Lane To E Valley Center Road)
Reconstruct roadway to rural principal arterial standards. Parallel shared use path
recommended.Roadway 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County $6,084,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE)
R-137 Frank Road (Jackrabbit Lane To Alaska Road South)Reconstruct and extend to urban minor arterial standards Roadway 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan County, Belgrade $5,430,000 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-135 Story Mill N / Mcllhattan Rd (Boyland Rd To Landfill)
This project consists of reconstructing Story Mill Road north to Mcllhattan, and
Mcllhattan northwest to the Landfill, to a two-lane urban "collector" road standard. This
would include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $5,667,200 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE)
R-133 Valley Center (Valley Center Spur to 27th Ave)
This project consists of upgrading Valley Center Drive from the intersection with the
Valley Center Underpass to the intersection with N. 27th Avenue to a three-lane urban
arterial standard complete with one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side, curb and gutter throughout.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $6,458,400 $0 STP (STPU); TA;
R-128 Highland (Main To Kagy)This project consists of mill and overlay on Highland Boulevard Maintenance 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $18,400,000 $0 Grants (RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-126 Cattail St (Ferguson To Cottonwood Rd)
This project consists of upgrading Cattail Street from the intersection with Davis west of
its current termini point to a three-lane urban "collector" roadway; Bike lanes,
sidewalks, curb, and gutter improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $5,520,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE)
R-122 Davis (Baxter To Valley Center)
This project consists of upgrading Davis from the intersection with Baxter to the
intersection with Valley Center Road to a five-lane urban "minor arterial" standard. This
includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $15,640,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA; CRP; Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
R-120 Kagy Boulevard (Willson Avenue To Highland Boulevard)
This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard, from the intersection of S. 19th
Avenue to Willson Avenue, to a four-lane urban principal arterial standard. This includes
two travel lanes in each direction, curb, and gutter.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $11,040,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-119 Babcock (El Dorado To Love Ln) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $4,931,200 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
213
Project ID Name Description Project Category Project Source Jurisdiction
Long-Term Cost
(2045 Dollars)Committed Dollars Potential Funding Source(s)Notes
R-118 Laurel Parkway (Valley Center To Oak) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $13,873,600 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-117 Baxter (US 191 to MPA Boundary) - Minor Arterial
Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial. All street maintenance projects are evaluated
for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $8,372,000 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN)
R-116 Deadman's Gulch/Cattail St (Cottonwood To Study Area Boundary) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $8,335,200 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-115 Graf St (Cottonwood To S 31st) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $3,588,000 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-114 S 27th Ave (Blackwood To Patterson) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $4,103,200 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
R-113 Ferguson (Huffine To Johnson) - Collector
Recommended Extension - Collector. All street maintenance projects are evaluated for
Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman, County $22,172,000 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-112 Gooch Hill (Durston To Harper Puckett) - Minor Arterial
Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial. All street maintenance projects are evaluated
for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $23,220,800 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-110 Catamount St (Davis Ln To Love Lane) - Minor Arterial
Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial. All street maintenance projects are evaluated
for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $16,615,200 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-109 Kagy Blvd (Cottonwood To S 27th Ave) - Principal Arterial
Recommended Extension - Principal Arterial. All street maintenance projects are
evaluated for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $16,320,800 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-108 Harper Puckett (Deadman's Gulch / Cattail St To Valley Center) - Principal Arterial
Recommended Extension - Principal Arterial. All street maintenance projects are
evaluated for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $13,781,600 $0
STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE);
Grants (INFRA)
R-106 I-90 Overpass/Underpass
New overpass/underpass across I-90 to connect Maxter and Mandeville (between N
19th and N 7th)Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman, MDT $13,800,000 $0
NHPP; BR; STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants
(Bridge Investment Program); Grants
(RAISE); Grants (INFRA);
R-105 "L" Street (Tamarack to Bridger Canyon Dr)
This project consists of reconstructing "L" Street and Story Mill Road from the
intersection with Tamarack Street to Bridger Canyon Drive to a two-lane urban
"collector" standard. This would include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on
each side, and curb and gutter throughout Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan Bozeman $3,937,600 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); TA This project is committed with adjacent development
R-103 Harper Puckett (Gooch Hill Rd To E Valley Center Road)
Reconstruct to a 3-lane urban minor arterial. All street maintenance projects are
evaluated for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Roadway 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan County $4,600,000 $0 STP (STPX/STPS/SFCN); Grants (RAISE)
M-19 Streep Sweeper Purchase - Bozeman
The City of Bozeman has two street sweeper replacements scheduled for FY29 and FY30
in their local capital plan.Maintenance City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman $1,256,000 $800,000 Local Funding; MACI (CMAQ)
M-18 Story Mill Bridge Replacement
This project will replace the existing Bridger Creek bridge on Story Mill Rd in the city of
Bozeman with improved structural capacity and shared use path on or adjacent to the
bridge Maintenance City of Bozeman Call for Projects Bozeman $6,710,000 $0
BR; TA; Grants (Bridge Investment
Program); Grants (RAISE); Grants (INFRA)
A-91 Cottonwood Rd Shared Use Path (Northbound)Proposed Shared Use Path on Cottonwood between Farmers Canal and Stucky Active Transportation 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)County, Bozeman $519,747 $0
TA; STP (STPU); Grants (SS4A); CRP;
Grants (RAISE)
A-14 W. Valley Center Road (Jackrabbit Lane To Path)
Construct approximately 100 feet of shared use path to connect existing facilities at the
intersection Active Transportation 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan County, Belgrade $16,900 $0 TA; STP (STPU); Grants (SS4A); CRP
A-112 E Valley Center/Cattail Creek Anchor Route Proposed Anchor Route on E Valley Center Rd and Cattail Creek Active Transportation 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)Bozeman $1,793,000 $600,000 Local Funding; TA
214
Local Projects
215
Project ID Name Description On/Off System Project Category Sub-Category Local/Regional Plan Source
A-10 Bike/Ped Overpass
Visionary project, but would provide more direct access for valley west resdients to
Bridger Drive trails.On Active Transportation Pedestrian Tunnel/Bridge 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-11 Grade separated crossing
Could be over or underpass connecting Fowler trails and the college to Huffine trail.
Engineering study needed.On Active Transportation Pedestrian Tunnel/Bridge 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-12 Signal or grade separation Conceptual project depends on ability to create east-west bicycle boulevard.On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-15 Baxter Lane Sidewalk Sidewalk Improvements on Baxter and N 11th On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-16 Baxter Lane Sidewalk Sidewalk Improvements on Baxter to N 7th On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-2 Grade Separation
Over or underpass for future central bicycle and pedestrian route as proposed in the Long
Range Campus Development Plan On Active Transportation Pedestrian Tunnel/Bridge 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-25 S 19th Sidewalk (west side)Sidewalk Improvements on S 19th from W Kagy to W Graf On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-26 Highland Blvd Sidewalk Sidewalk Improvements on Highland from Holly Dr to E Kagy On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-27 Baxter Ln Sidewalk Sidewalk Improvements on Baxter between Commerce Way and Simmental Wy On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-29 Bridger Dr Sidewalk Sidewalk Improvements on Bridger Dr from Story Mill Rd to Creekwood Dr On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-31 E Main/Haggerty Ln Sidewalk Sidewalk Improvements on E Main and Haggerty Ln On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-32 S 3rd Ave Sidewalk (east side)Sidewalk Improvements on S 3rd Ave from W Graf to Hill St On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-33 S 3rd Ave Sidewalk (east side)Sidewalk Improvements on S 3rd from Staudaher St to W Kagy On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-34 W Graf Sidewalk (north side)Sidewalk Improvements on W Graf between S 3rd and Wagonwheel Rd On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-35 W Graf Sidewalk (south side)Sidewalk Improvements on W Graf between S 3rd and Wagonwheel Rd On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-36 Sidewalk Sidewalk Improvements on W College between S 13th and McIntosh Ct On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-39 Highland Blvd Bike Lane Bike lane from E Kagy to Holly Dr when road is reconstructed / development occurs On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-4 Grade Separation
As part of the W Kagy improvements a pedestrian tunnel will be constructed providing
benefitial pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the Kagy/Wilson/S 3rd intersection as
well as serving the existing and future Gallagator trail.On Active Transportation Pedestrian Tunnel/Bridge 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-40 S 11th Bike Lane
For the section of bike lane between the roundabout and the southern parking access
just south of Harrison Street, South 11th is approximately 45 feet wide.
The bike lanes could be significantly wider here and be buffered to provide a more
comfortable On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-41 S 11th Bike Lane 2
Add bike lane signs and stencils every 200 feet, or after ped crossings and at far side of
intersections. Add 6" lane stripe.On Active Transportation Road Markings 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-43 W College Bike Lanes 1
This is the last part of College west of 11th that will not have been reconstructed. The
roadway has no curb and gutter and has sub-standard shoulders. There is approximately
32 feet of asphalt.
Short Term: The shoulders should be restriped as designat On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-46 N 7th Ave Bike Lane
Convert parking lanes to buffered bike lanes. Parking is underutilized.Coordination may
be neccessary near Oak St and the hotel/Santa Fe Reds.On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-47 S 11th Ave Bike Lane
S 11th Ave is proportioned as a local street, however it is classified as a minor arterial.
This is a popular biking and walking route to reach MSU and it carries considerable traffic
volumes. This project prohibits parking along S 11th Ave and establish On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-48 E Babcock St Bike Lane
Short term, provide shared lane markings in both travel lanes
mid-term, remove northern parking lane and provide a separated two-way bike lane
(cycle track) on the north side of the street. This side generally has less existing parking
and better aligns On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-5 Intersection Improvements
Add a bike box on Babcock in the EB direction in front of the combination lane. This will
help bicyclists position to use 23rd to reach College Ave.
Perform traffic study on WB approach on S 23rd Ave to verify right turn queuing
requirements. If possib On Active Transportation Road Markings 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-50 S 11 th Shared Use Path
Widen sidewalk to 10'-12' shared use path standard; provide bike lane transitions at
Lincoln and Kagy.On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-55 W Main St (North) Sidewalk
12 foot wide sidewalk to facilitate connections between bikeways that provide
alternatives to Main Street and N 19th Ave.On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-56 W Main St (South) Sidewalk
12 foot wide sidewalk to facilitiate connections between bikeways that provide
alternatives to W Main St and N 19th Ave.On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
216
Project ID Name Description On/Off System Project Category Sub-Category Local/Regional Plan Source
A-58 W Babcock St Requires sharrows to provide eastbound bicycle treatment to match Mendenhall Street On Active Transportation Road Markings 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-60 S 19th Ave Sidewalk (east side)Sidewalk improvements on S 19th from W Graf to W Kagy On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-63 S Churchill Sidewalk (east side)Sidewalk improvements on S Churchill Ave from E Kagy to E Story On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-66 Highland Blvd Bike Lane
Bike lane from Bozeman Deaconess Hospital to E Main St when road is reconstructed /
development occurs On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-67 N 7th Ave
I-90 overpass was designed for bike lanes, but never had them marked or signed. This
project completes the thought, adds dotted lane line extensions across the I-90 ramps
and signs/marks bike lane on N 7th north of the interchange.On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-68 N 19th Ave
8 foot minimum shoulders already exist. This project involves adding bicycle lane stencils
and signage. Future additions include adding through bike lanes where right only lanes
exist at intersections. This project is similar to other MDT highways of sim On Active Transportation Road Markings 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-71 Springhill Rd
Path linking Frontage Road with Sypes Canyon Rd. Could also connect to conceptual path
to Story Mill/Bridger Dr.On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-73 S 19th Ave As Proposed in the BozemanArea Alternative Transportation Study and PROST Plan On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-78 Koch St
Sharrows and bike route signs are present. The signal at 19th makes this an important
connection for bicyclists and pedestrians. Volumes have been recorded higher than
desired just east of 19th at 3700 vehicles per day.On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-8 Trail Underpass Replace at-grade crossing with underpass where grading is favorable.On Active Transportation Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
A-9 Trail Underpass Replace at-grade crossing with underpass where grading is favorable.On Active Transportation Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
M-2 S 19th Ave (Kagy to Stucky)Mill/fill, seal and cover, pavement markings On Maintenance Road Preservation 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-104 W Lincoln St (N 19Th Ave To S 11Th Ave)
This project consists of reconstructing W Lincoln Street from S. 11th Ave to S 19th Ave to
Willson Avenue, to a two-lane urban collector roadway. This includes one travel lane in
each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter throughout, and Off Roadway Road Construction 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-111
Goldenstein (Cottonwood To S 19Th Ave) -
Minor Arterial
Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial. All street maintenance projects are evaluated
for Complete Streets compliance and multimodal improvements.Off Roadway Road Construction 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-127 Kagy/Bozeman Trail (Bozeman Trail To I-90)Upgrade to 2-lane rural arterial & realign Off Roadway Road Construction 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-35 Springhill Rd (Frontage Rd To Sypes Canyon Rd)
Springhill Road from the intersection with the Frontage Road to the intersection with
Sypes Canyon Road should be widened to a three-lane rural "minor arterial" arterial
roadway. This includes one travel lane in each direction and a two-way center turn l On Roadway Road Construction 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-5 Durston & N 15Th Avenue Restripe/reconfigure to address peak hour traffic queueing On Roadway Lane Geometry 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
R-8 7Th & Mendenhall Restripe approach to include designated right-turn lane On Roadway Lane Geometry 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-10 Intersection Improvements
Improvements associated with Kagy Blvd project. Recommend roundabout with grade
separation across Kagy. If signal is to remain, include leading pedestrian interval, bike
lane to path transitions On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-11
W College St Midblock Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
School crossing for students living in family housing to go to Irving School. W College at S
13th On Safety Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-12
W College/S 15th Ave Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon
Provide crosswalk and RRFB based crossing for trail/sidewalk connection at W College
and S 15th On Safety Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-13 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Lamme is an existing high bicycle and pedestrian use street. This crossing point at 7th is
currently difficult and limits the east-west poential of the route. With the 4-lane cross
section with no median a rapid flashing beacon would not be visible enoug On Safety Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-14 Curb Extensions
Install curb extensions at Galligator trail crossing. This crossing will become more heavily
used when Kagy Blvd project is complete. RRFB could be a value added option, however
yielding compliance on Wilson Ave is usually good.On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-16 Realign Path Crossing
re route path crossing from current location to a location approximately 20 feet south.
Utilize median for single lane crossing at a time. Vehicles can then interact with pathway
users in a different decision process than merging into/out of traffic.On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-19 Intersection Improvements
Provide leading pedestrian interval to get peds in crosswalks before vehicles are given
green lights. Add shared lane markings in left and right turn lanes in the northbound
direction. Add a gore sepearator between left and right only lanes. Main street On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-20 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
Pedestrian activated 3-lens beacon. Only activates when pedestrian calls it. Could be
coordinated with existing signal progression along Main St.On Safety Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
217
Project ID Name Description On/Off System Project Category Sub-Category Local/Regional Plan Source
S-21 Trail Underpass
Need improved pedestrian crossing in conjunction with new development at Curtiss St or
in association with trails. Crossing should be underpass, which should be somewhat
straght forward with existing grading on west side, on east side the City of Bozeman On Safety Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-22 S 3rd Ave Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Add pedestrian crossing and RRFB on S 3rd Ave and Westridge Dr On Safety Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-23 S 3rd Ave Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Upgrade crossing to include RRFB on S 3rd Ave and W Arnold St On Safety Crosswalk 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-24 Remove crosswalk
Existing pedestrian crossing has no control and is on the hill into downtown where traffic
is decelerating from 40 mph. New signal at Broadway offers nearby controlled crossing.
Warrants would not likely support a signalized crossing at this location.On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-29 Main Street & Cypress Make Cypress right in, right out On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-30 Willson & Grant Intersection control On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-31 Willson & Peach Intersection control On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-32 Huffine & Fowler Update signal to include left-turn phase On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-33 Huffine & Ferguson Update signal to include left-turn phase On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-35 Highland & Kagy Intersection control On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-37 Babcock & Wilson Upgrade signal at Babcock and Wilson On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-40 Oak & 11Th Intersection control - Signal On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-44 Grant & S 11Th Avenue Install single-lane roundabout at the intersection of Grant Street and S. 11th Avenue.On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-45 Lincoln & S 11Th Ave Install single lane roundabout at the intersection Lincoln Street & South 11th Avenue.On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-8 Install full signal
Recommend installing a full signal to protect pedestrian and bike crossings on W Lincoln
Street. This could allow the current right turn out restrictiosn to remain and just activeate
for lefts and for pedestrian signal calls.On Safety Intersection Improvements 2017 Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
S-2 Amsterdam Rd/Royal Rd Intersection Intersection improvements; traffic signal or roundabout On Safety Intersection Improvements 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
S-4
Madison Avenue/Broadway Street/Colorado
Street Intersection Intersection improvements; roundabout or realignment; further evaluation needed On Safety Intersection Improvements 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
S-5 Oregon Street/Main Street Intersection Intersection improvements; traffic signal or roundabout with intersection realignment On Safety Intersection Improvements 2018 Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan
A-82 S. 19th Avenue (Nash Road to Kagy Boulevard) Construct a shared use path from Nash Road to Kagy Boulevard On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan
M-1 Amsterdam Road Preservation and/or minor rehabilitation On Maintenance Road Preservation 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan
S-55 Cottonwood Road/ Pasha Lane Intersection
Reconstruct the Cottonwood Road and Pasha Lane intersection to accommodate turning
movements of a fire truck. Pedestrian facilities with ADA accommodations should also be
included, primarily on the western side of the of the intersection.On Safety Lane Geometry 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan
S-56 Cottonwood Road/ S. 19th Avenue Intersection
Minor intersection reconstruction to address geometrics and pedestrian
accommodations. The intersection should be modified to accommodate bus turning
movements at a minimum. Appropriate ADA treatments should also be included at the
crosswalk.On Safety Lane Geometry 2022 Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan
A-100
Kagy/Bozeman Trail Rd Shared Use Path (south
side) Proposed Shared Use Path on Kagy/Bozeman Trail Rd between Highland and Academy On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-102 Springhill Rd Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on Springhill Rd between Sypes Canyon and I-90 Frontage Rd On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-103 S 19th Ave Shared Use Path (east side)Proposed Shared Use Path on S 19th between W Kagy and Nash Rd On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-104 W Kagy Blvd Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on W Kagy between S 19th and S Wilson On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-106 E Valley Center Shared Use Path (southwest side) Proposed Shared Use Path on E Valley Center to Honor Lane On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-107 Tamarack/Durston/W Main St Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on W Tamarack/Durston/W Main St On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-109 S 19th Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on S 19th between Durston and W College On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-110 N 7th Ave Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on N 7th between W Main and I-90 Frontage Rd On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-111 Durston Rd Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on Durston between N 15th and Greenway On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-113 W Main/Bridger Canyon Anchor Route Proposed Anchor Route on W Main/Bridger Canyon On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-115 Cottonwood Rd Shared Use Path (southbound) Proposed Shared Use Path on Cottonwood between Farmers Canal and Johnson On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-87 N 19th Ave Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on N 19th Ave between Durston and W Oak On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-88 S 3rd Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on S 3fd between Graf and S Montana Ave On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
218
Project ID Name Description On/Off System Project Category Sub-Category Local/Regional Plan Source
A-89 W Graf Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on W Graf between S 3rd and Wagonwheel Rd On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-90 Baxter Lane Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on Baxter between N 19th and N 11th On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-92 S 19th Ave Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on S 19th between W Garfield and W Kagy On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-93 S 11th Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on S 11th between W Grant and W Kagy On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-94 E Valley Center Shared Use Path (southwest side) Proposed Shared Use Path on E Valley Center between Catamount and Catron On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-95 E Valley Center Shared Use Path (northeast side) Proposed Shared Use Path on E Valley Center between Catron and N 19th On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-96 E Valley Center Shared Use Path (southwest side) Proposed Shared Use Path on E Valley Center between Catron and N 19th On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-98 W Koch St Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on W Koch between S 19th and S 20th On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
A-99 N Rouse/Bridger Drive Shared Use Path Proposed Shared Use Path on N Rouse/Bridger Drive between E Oak and Birdie Dr On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transporation Plan (PRAT)
S-62 Central Valley Fire Roadway Alert System Install an emergency signal at the driveway and a messaging system.On Safety Intersection Improvements 2025 Belgrade Safety Action Plan
A-122 Jackrabbit Ln - Cruiser Ln to Main St Bike lane. On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
A-124 Spooner Rd - Cruiser Ln to Mayfair Dr Bike lane. On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
A-125 Cruiser Ln - Westwood Cir to Dry Creek Rd Bike lane. On Active Transportation Bike Lane 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
A-127
Main St - Quaw's Blvd to Weaver St; N Kennedy
St to Voegeles Trailer Park Tpke Sidewalk. On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
A-128
Broadway St - Central Ave to Southview Ave;
Allison Ave to Cameron Ave Sidewalk. On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
A-130 Frontage Rd - 13th St to 8th St Sidewalk. On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
A-132
Dry Creek Rd/Airway Blvd - Penwell Bridge Rd to
Madison Ave Shared use path. On Active Transportation Shared Use Path 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
A-135 Madison Ave - Jackrabbit Ln to Nevada St Sidewalk. On Active Transportation Sidewalks 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-52 E Cameron Bridge Rd - Jackrabbit Ln to Alaska Rd Build to urban collector standards with paralell multi-use path. Off Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-62 Alaska Rd - E Frank Rd to E Valley Center Reconstruct to urban typical standards. Off Roadway Road Construction 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-68
New Roadway (future) - Penwell Bridge Rd to
Wes Davis Rd New roadway. Off Roadway Road Construction 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-70 Spain Bridge Rd - Penwell Bridge Rd to Airport Rd Roadway improvements. Off Roadway Road Construction 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-75
New Roadway (future) - Bolinger Rd to Hawken
Ln New roadway. Off Roadway Road Construction 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-79 Jackrabbit Ln/I-90 Interchange
Intersection improvements; Widen/replace overpass to accommodate additional lanes
and non-motorized accommodations; reconstruct off-ramp to increase capacity;
Amsterdam Rd to Colorado St On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-80 Alaska Rd/E Valley Center Rd Intersection improvements. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-81 E Valley Center Rd/Love Ln Intersection improvements. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-82 Penwell Bridge Rd/Dry Creek Rd Proposed roundabout. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-83 Frontage Rd/Bolinger Rd Intersection improvements. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-84
West Belgrade Interchange (future; near Thorpe
Rd) Potential interchange. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-85
West Belgrade Interchange (future; near Coulee
Dr) Potential interchange. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-86 13th St/Frontage Rd Intersection improvements; traffic signal or roundabout. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-87 Jackrabbit Ln/Frank Rd Intersection improvements. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-88 Jackrabbit Ln/Cameron Bridge Rd Intersection improvements. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
R-89 Collins Rd/Frontage Rd Intersection improvements; traffic signal or roundabout. On Roadway Intersection Improvements 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
S-74 Main St/Oregon St Crosswalk improvements. On Safety Crosswalk 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
S-75 Madison Ave/Broadway St Tie to intersection improvements. On Safety Crosswalk 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
S-78 Jackrabbit Ln/Missoula Ave Crosswalk improvements. On Safety Crosswalk 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
S-80 Airway Blvd/Service Sr Crosswalk improvements; Consider HAWK, PHB, or Roundabout On Safety Crosswalk 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
S-83 Jackrabbit Ln/Central Ave Crosswalk improvements. On Safety Crosswalk 2026 Belgrade Draft TMP
S-89 Huffine Lane Street Lighting
This project will construct street lighting on Huffine Lane from College St west to city
limits for improved safety.On Safety City of Bozeman Call for Projects
A-138 Stucky Bike Lane Bike lane on Stucky between Gooch Hill and S 19th Off Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-139 Baxter Bike Lane Bike lane on Baxter between Flanders Mill Rd and Shandalyn Ln Off Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-140 Gooch Hill Trail/Shared Use Path/BikeBlvd
Trail/shared use path from Huffine to N Laurel Pkwy via Westmorland Dr, providing
access to the Lakes at Valley West/Bronken Natual Space Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-142 S Alaska Trail/Shared Use Path Trail/shared use path between Airway Blvd and end of S Alaska Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
219
Project ID Name Description On/Off System Project Category Sub-Category Local/Regional Plan Source
A-143 Thorpe/Frontage Rd Trail/Shared Use Path Trail/shared used path connecting west Belgrade to downtown Belgrade On Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-144 Blackwood Rd Trail/Shared Use Path
Trail/shared use path connecting Four Corners to south Bozeman along the Gallatin River
and Blackwood Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-145 Bike Lane Bikelane on Main Street in Belgrade from west of Gallatin Field Rd to West of Astor Ave On Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-146 Trail Pathway linking L St. to Frontage Rd at Osterman Dr.Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-147 Frontage Road Bike Lane Bike lane along Frontage Road connecting Belgrade and Bozeman On Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-148 Bike Lane Need more road space, specifically connecting from River Rock Dr On Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-149 Amsterdam Rd Bike Lane Need more road space, specifically connecting from River Rock On Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-150 Bike Lane To connect to Valley Center Path from North Bozeman On Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-151 Bridger Dr Trail Trail on Rouse/Bridger Dr from W Peach to Story Mill, along Story Mill to McIlhattan Rd.Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-152 19th Ave Trail Shared use path on east side of 19th Ave from W College St to existing trail at Oak.On Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-153 Durston Trail Shared use path or enhanced bikeway (cycletrack) from Cottonwood Rd to N 7th On Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-154 Trail Trail to nature conservancy Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-155 Kagy Bike Lane Bike lane from 11th Ave to terminus east of S 22nd Ave.On Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-156 Kagy Bike Lane Bike lane on E Kagy from Highland Blvd to Fort Ellis Rd.On Active Transportation Bike Lane Public Workshop
A-157 Huffine Trail Trail on north side of Huffine (US-191) from Gooch Hill Rd to College.On Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-158 Amsterdam Trail Trail on Amsterdam Rd from Buckskin Rd to Jackrabbit Ln On Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-159 Frank Rd Trail Shared use path from Thorpe Rd to Jackrabbit Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-160 3rd Ave Trail Trail on Wagonwheel Rd - south of Sundance Dr - north on S 3rd Ave to W Kagy Blvd.On Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-161 Safety Enhancement Underpass for bikes On Active Transportation Pedestrian Tunnel/Bridge Public Workshop
R-166 Road Better design urban route. Get land use design done first On Roadway Road Construction Public Workshop
R-167 Redesign I-90 Redesign I-90 / US-191 interchange On Roadway Road Construction Public Workshop
R-168 Road Truck route on MT-84 and north to MT-85, avoiding US-191 into Bozeman On Roadway Road Preservation Public Workshop
S-100 Lighting W Garfield St and S Tracy Ave On Safety Lighting Public Workshop
S-101 Ped Crossing Ped bridge crossing over or under I-90 between N7th Ave and Rouse On Safety Crosswalk Public Workshop
S-102 Ped Crossing
Enhanced pedestrian crossing on Bridger Drive, mid-block, to help people get to trail on
south side of road On Safety Crosswalk Public Workshop
S-103 Ped Crossing Enhanced pedestrian crossing at Frank Rd and Jackrabbit. On Safety Crosswalk Public Workshop
S-108 Signal Improvement Signal improvements on W Main at S19th Ave and W Babcock On Safety Intersection Improvements Public Workshop
S-109 Huffine Lighting Lighting project on Huffine from College to east of Gooch Hill Rd.On Safety Lighting Public Workshop
S-114 Ped Crossing Improved pedestrian crossing at Burke St. and N 19th Ave On Safety Crosswalk Public Workshop
S-117 Safety Enhancement Intersection improvements at Blackwood Rd and Gooch Hill Rd.Off Safety Intersection Improvements Public Workshop
S-118 Safety Enhancement Intersection improvements at Blackwood Rd and Kimber Ct Off Safety Intersection Improvements Public Workshop
S-119 Signal Improvement Signal at Blackwood Rd and Cottonwood Rd On Safety Intersection Improvements Public Workshop
S-120 Ped Crossing Improved pedestrian crossing at Blackwood Rd and Cottonwood Rd On Safety Crosswalk Public Workshop
S-121 Lighting Lighting in Langhor Gardens near Gallagator trail On Safety Lighting Public Workshop
S-91 Lighting Lighting project at W Cameron Bridge Rd and Thorpe Rd Off Safety Lighting Public Workshop
S-92 Ped Crossing Enhanced pedestrian crossing at Bolinger Rd and Windjammer.Off Safety Crosswalk Public Workshop
S-93 Safety Enhancement Intersection improvements at Huffine Ln and S. Cottonwood Rd. On Safety Intersection Improvements Public Workshop
S-94 Ped Crossing Bike/ped bridge corssing over I-90 On Safety Pedestrian Tunnel/Bridge Public Workshop
S-95 Ped Crossing Ped crossing at Harmon Stream Blvd on south side of Huffine Lane.On Safety Crosswalk Public Workshop
S-96 Signal Improvement E Babcock to W Babcock Bike Lane & Ped Crossing On Safety Intersection Improvements Public Workshop
S-97 Ped Crossing Enhanced pedestrian crossing at Alaska Frontage Rd and Jackrabbit. On Safety Crosswalk Public Workshop
S-98 Lighting Lighting near Langohr Gardens at @ W Mason St. On Safety Lighting Public Workshop
A-162 Trail Trail on Bolinger Rd from Cruiser Lane to Gunslinger Ln Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
A-163 Trail Trail connecting Baxter Ln to Max Ave Off Active Transportation Shared Use Path Public Workshop
M-2 Maintainence Entryway beautification at I-90 and 7th Ave N On Maintainence Beautification Public Workshop
220
Gallatin Valley MPO Long-
Range Transportation Plan
Existing and
Projected
Conditions Report
May 2026
221
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
i
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
Introducing the Organization ................................................................................................................. 1-1
Introducing the Plan ................................................................................................................................... 1-4
How is the Report Organized? ............................................................................................................... 1-4
2 Regional Context .......................................................................................................... 2-1
Overview of Completed and Ongoing Plans .................................................................................... 2-1
Population and Employment Growth and Trends .......................................................................... 2-4
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 2-21
3 Transit Conditions ........................................................................................................ 3-1
Transit Service Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3-1
Other Regional Providers ......................................................................................................................... 3-6
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 3-8
4 Multimodal Transportation Conditions ..................................................................... 4-1
Functional Class System ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
Transportation Asset Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4-4
Goods Movement ........................................................................................................................................ 4-6
How People Get Around ........................................................................................................................... 4-9
Driving in the Gallatin Valley ................................................................................................................ 4-10
Walking ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-16
Biking and Rolling .................................................................................................................................... 4-18
Transportation Safety .............................................................................................................................. 4-20
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 4-28
5 Projected Conditions .................................................................................................... 5-1
6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
Appendix A – Plan Document Review ................................................................................ 6-2
222
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
ii
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 MPO Boundaries ........................................................................................................................ 1-2
Figure 2 Montana Statewide Routes .................................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 3 Population Growth .................................................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 4 Population Density .................................................................................................................... 2-5
Figure 5 Employment Growth ................................................................................................................ 2-6
Figure 6 Employment Density ................................................................................................................ 2-7
Figure 7 Major Employment Sectors ................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure 8 Population and Employment Density ................................................................................ 2-9
Figure 11 Minority Population ............................................................................................................... 2-13
Figure 12 Low-Income Households ..................................................................................................... 2-14
Figure 13 Limited English Proficiency ................................................................................................. 2-15
Figure 14 Zero-Vehicle Households .................................................................................................... 2-16
Figure 15 Young People ........................................................................................................................... 2-17
Figure 16 Older Adults .............................................................................................................................. 2-18
Figure 17 People Living with a Disability ........................................................................................... 2-19
Figure 18 Median Home Listing Price in Gallatin County, 2017-2024 ................................... 2-20
Figure 19 Renter-Occupied vs. Owner-Occupied Housing Units ............................................. 2-21
Figure 20 Streamline Fixed-Route Service ........................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 21 Streamline Paratransit Service Area .................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 22 Transit Route Information ...................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 23 Bus Stop Amenities ................................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 24 Functional Classification Roadway Miles .......................................................................... 4-1
Figure 25 Highway Functional Classification...................................................................................... 4-2
Figure 26 Proposed New Road Classifications ................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 27 Transportation Asset Conditions ......................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 28 Goods Movement Network ................................................................................................... 4-6
Figure 29 Percent of Commute Modes 2019 vs. 2023 .................................................................... 4-9
Figure 30 Annual Average Daily Trips (AADT) ................................................................................. 4-10
Figure 31 Roadway Volume Capacity Ratios, 2022........................................................................ 4-11
Figure 32 GVMPO Origin-Destination Travel, Spring 2025 ........................................................ 4-12
Figure 33 GVMPO Origin-Destination Trips, Spring 2025 .......................................................... 4-13
Figure 34 Intra-GVMPO Origin-Destination Travel, Spring 2025 ............................................. 4-14
Figure 35 Intra-GVMPO Origin-Destination Trips, Spring 2025 ............................................... 4-14
Figure 36 Intra-GVMPO Trips by Time of Day, Spring 2025 ...................................................... 4-15
Figure 37 Bozeman Pedestrian Network Gaps ................................................................................ 4-17
Figure 38 Existing Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................... 4-19
223
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
iii
Figure 39 All Crashes, 2015-2024 ......................................................................................................... 4-20
Figure 40 Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) Crashes, 2015-2024 ..................................................... 4-20
Figure 41 Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Locations 2015-2024 ................................................ 4-22
Figure 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Involved Crash Locations 2015-2024 ............................... 4-23
Figure 43 Motorized Vehicle Only Crashes vs. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Injury
Level, 2015-2024 ..................................................................................................................... 4-24
Figure 44 Crashes by Time of Day, 2015-2024............................................................................... 4-25
Figure 45 Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) Crashes by Time of Day, 2015-2024 ..................... 4-25
Figure 46 Crash Factors, 2015-2024 .................................................................................................... 4-26
Figure 47 Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) Crash Factors, 2015-2024 .......................................... 4-27
Figure 48 Committed Projects .................................................................................................................. 5-1
Figure 49 2022-2050 New Households ................................................................................................. 5-2
Figure 50 2022-2050 New Jobs ................................................................................................................ 5-3
Figure 51 2022-2050 Growth in Vehicle Volumes ............................................................................. 5-4
Figure 52 2050 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios......................................................................................... 5-5
Figure 53 Documents Reviewed with Key Projects Identified ...................................................... 6-3
224
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCING THE ORGANIZATION
Who is the Gallatin Valley MPO?
The 2020 Census marked an important milestone for the Bozeman area, with the population
surpassing 50,000 and launching the formation of the Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). Federal regulations require MPOs to develop a Long-Range
Transportation plan (LRTP), providing the opportunity for the City of Bozeman, City of
Belgrade, and urbanized areas in Gallatin County within the MPO boundaries to create a
multi-decade vision for transportation infrastructure and mobility programming. This process
brings together agency partners and the community to establish priorities and shared values
for the region. The MPO’s boundaries are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 show Montana
statewide routes.
225
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
1-2
Figure 1 MPO Boundaries
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
226
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
1-3
Figure 2 Montana Statewide Routes
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
227
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
1-4
INTRODUCING THE PLAN
Gallatin Valley’s Long-Range Transportation
Plan
The Gallatin Valley LRTP is a multi-decade plan that looks at all modes of transportation and
identifies future priorities for projects and funding. In accordance with the federal
requirements set in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), this plan will help steer
the community toward a healthier, safer, and more efficient future while preserving and
expanding mobility for all residents, workers, and visitors. This plan also supports MDT’s
statewide performance-based approach and aligns with the State’s performance targets.
The LRTP will build upon existing plans and projects while identifying new opportunities to
create an integrated transportation system that meets the needs of the community and
partner agencies. A strong transportation plan is critical to keep the Gallatin Valley a
prosperous and healthy place to live, learn, and visit.
HOW IS THE REPORT ORGANIZED?
This existing and projected conditions report serves as a foundation for the development of
LRTP goals, objectives, and prioritization of projects, policies, and plans. The existing
conditions report synthesizes key aspects of the Gallatin Valley’s regional planning context,
including population and employment patterns, and evaluates the existing transportation
network.
Chapter 2 examines planning and policy documents to understand previous planning
work done in the Gallatin Valley. It also includes key demographic and employment
information.
Chapter 3 summarizes the transit system, including fixed-route transit and paratransit
services, ridership trends, and other regional transit providers.
Chapter 4 provides a multimodal snapshot of transportation conditions in the region,
which includes the roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian networks.
Chapter 5 analyzes housing and employment growth estimates in the region to
project future travel demand using the MDT Travel Demand Model.
Chapter 6 lays the foundation for how the existing and projected conditions will
inform the Long Range Transportation Plan.
228
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-1
2 REGIONAL CONTEXT
OVERVIEW OF COMPLETED AND
ONGOING PLANS
Reviewing current planning and policy documents, and understanding what has been
successful in the past, helps set the framework to build on previous momentum. This section
summarizes key local plans and improvements identified in them, which can be considered as
part of the LRTP. A review of additional local, state, and regional plans documents is included
in the appendix.
Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan (2018)
The Belgrade Long Range Transportation Plan serves as a guide for development and
investment of the community’s transportation system to meet the needs of a growing
population. The LRTP identifies community goals, outlines infrastructure and service
improvements, and recommends projects to enhance connectivity and safety, foster
economic vitality, and improve quality of life. As Belgrade grows, traffic congestion is
projected to worsen along Jackrabbit Lane, Frontage Road, and Amsterdam Road. The goals
of the LRTP include providing a safe, efficient, and connected transportation system;
supporting economic vitality of the community; and promoting financially sustainable
transportation while coordinating between land use and environmental sustainability. The
City of Belgrade is currently updating their Comprehensive Plan, which also includes the
transportation component.
Bozeman Transportation Master Plan (2017)
The Bozeman Transportation Master Plan (TMP) guides transportation investments to
accommodate projected city growth. The City of Bozeman has reached its jurisdictional
growth update and may annex some land in Gallatin County in the next two to three
decades. The plan also outlines community goals, infrastructure and service improvements,
and projects to meet community needs. While most traffic operations are expected to remain
the same by horizon year 2040, major arterials – including 19th Avenue, Oak Street, Main
Street, and Kagy Boulevard – are projected to experience increased congestion and
229
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-2
delays. The goals of the plan include improving the efficiency, connectivity, safety, and
financial sustainability of the transportation system; coordinate land use and transportation;
and protect environmental sustainability and natural and cultural resources. The City of
Bozeman anticipates updating their TMP in 2027.
Bozeman Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Analysis (2025)
The Bozeman Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Analysis identifies two types of gaps in the bicycle
and pedestrian networks. Spot gaps are key focal points, such as crossings or intersections,
that lack appropriate infrastructure for comfortable pedestrian or bicycle travel. Linear gaps
are sections of missing segments of sidewalk, trail, bicycle lane, or shared-use paths that
create gaps between existing facilities. Four criteria were used to prioritize projects: safety
and comfort, connections to activity centers, equity, and public support.
Gallatin County Greater Triangle Area Transportation
Plan (2022)
The Gallatin County Greater Triangle Transportation Plan provides recommendations to
improve traffic safety, sustainability, and multimodal connections between Bozeman,
Belgrade, Four Corners, and Gallatin Gateway. The county has consistently outpaced the
population growth of other Montana counties, and this growth can be attributed to the
evolving economies of Bozeman and Belgrade, the continued expansion of Montana State
University, and migration patterns to the area. The plan incorporates land use trends,
projected development, and documented transportation needs to guide near-term and long-
range roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements that address anticipated
growth through 2040.
Gallatin County Triangle Trails Plan (2021)
The Gallatin County Triangle Trails Plan aims to connect the trail system throughout
Bozeman, Belgrade, Four Corners, and Gallatin County while establishing design standards
for different trail types. The vision of the trail system is to be connected, safe and welcoming,
and inclusive for all. Community members and stakeholders consider the trail network as a
highly valued community asset that should serve travelers of all ages and abilities.
Recommended projects improve connectivity between neighborhoods, schools, parks, and
employment centers, address documented gaps, and support access to active transportation
within the growing suburban area.
230
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-3
Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan (2023)
The Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan highlights sensitive lands throughout the Gallatin
Valley and identifies recommendations to improve sensitive lands conservation and
management. Project goals include securing the long-term ecological health of the region;
creating a regional model that identifies sensitive lands; recommendations for protecting
resources; identifying best practices; and facilitating dialogue between local and regional
stakeholders. The plan also identifies regional transportation infrastructure planning as a
priority recommendation that could mitigate impact to sensitive lands.
Additional Local, State, and Regional Plans
Additional plans were reviewed. Common themes emphasize multimodal connectivity, traffic
safety, coordinated land use, improved transit access, and long-term system preservation.
Multimodal investment and coordinated growth are broadly reinforced across plans. A
complete inventory and summary of all reviewed documents is provided in the Appendix.
231
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-4
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH AND TRENDS
The data in this section represents trends within the Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning
Area (referred to going forward as the MPA) based on Census data from 2023. The region
has experienced rapid growth over the past decade, with a compound annual growth rate of
3.3%.1 As population and employment opportunities continue to grow in the region, high-
quality transportation infrastructure and services should be a priority.
Population
Over the past decade, the population within the MPA area increased by 38% from 65,044
residents in 2013 to 89,855 residents in 2023 (Figure 3). Growth has slowed in recent years,
but the area has continued to add residents year over year. The 2025-2045 Bozeman
Population and Housing Forecast report projects that Belgrade, Bozeman, and Four Corners
will grow to a combined population of 114,300 in 2045.2
Figure 3 Population Growth
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023
1 American Community Survey, 2023
2 “2025-2045 Bozeman Population and Housing Forecast.” Engage Bozeman, Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., 5 Sept. 2025.”
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
232
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-5
Areas of the highest population density are clustered in downtown Bozeman, neighborhoods
surrounding Montana State University, and the River Rock Subdivision just to the west of I-90
and the Belgrade city limits (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Population Density
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
233
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-6
Employment
Jobs in the study area increased by 47% in the past decade, with a total of 56,759 jobs in
2022. The number of jobs decreased slightly in 2020, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
but have since surpassed pre-pandemic numbers (Figure 5). The 2025-2045 Bozeman
Population and Housing Forecast report projects that Gallatin County will add 44,500
additional jobs by 2045.3
Figure 5 Employment Growth
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2022
Employment density reveals that major employment hubs are concentrated in the Bozeman
and Belgrade urbanized areas (Figure 6). The industries with the most jobs are retail trade
and educational services, which account for about one-quarter of all jobs in the region
(Figure 7). Other jobs (26.9%) include other services, waste management, wholesale trade,
finance and insurance, public administration, transportation, and arts/entertainment, among
others. As the region continues to grow, transportation options and connectivity need to be
considered to link people from where they live to where they work.
3 “2025-2045 Bozeman Population and Housing Forecast.” Engage Bozeman, Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., 5 Sept. 2025.”
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
234
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-7
Figure 6 Employment Density
Source: Longitudinal Employer-House Dynamics (LEHD), 2022; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman;
City of Belgrade
235
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-8
Figure 7 Major Employment Sectors
Sector % Of Total Employment Share
Retail Trade 13.9%
Educational Services 11.8%
Accommodation and Food Services 11.6%
Health Care and Social Assistance 10.6%
Construction 10.1%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 9.2%
Manufacturing 5.8%
Other 26.9%
Source: Longitudinal Employer-House Dynamics (LEHD), 2022
Population and Employment
Combining population and employment data can better highlight areas that are anticipated
to be more supportive of transit service. Locations with higher densities of population and
employment can benefit the most from transportation investments, and transit service is
more productive in these areas. As shown in Figure 8, the areas with the highest combined
population and employment density are concentrated in downtown Bozeman and
surrounding the university.
236
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-9
Figure 8 Population and Employment Density
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; Longitudinal Employer-House Dynamics
(LEHD), 2022; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
237
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-10
Marriage and Birth Rates
Vital statistics such as marriage and birth rates are not published at the MPO geographic
scale, so this analysis uses county-level administrative records and proportional allocation
based on population share. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show historical birth and marriage rates
for Gallatin County for the past five years. Births have fluctuated over the five-year period but
have ultimately increased since 2020. Gallatin County has a slightly higher birth rate than the
rest of the state but slightly lower than the national rate. Marriage license issuance has
steadily increased since 2020, and despite a slight decrease from 2024 to 2025 YTD, Gallatin
County has a higher marriage rate than both the state and national rates.
Figure 9 Births Among Gallatin County Residents, 2020-2025
Year Births
2020 1,148
2021 1,256
2022 1,146
2023 1,218
2024 1,271
2025 1,202
5-Year Average 1,207.8
County Rate (per 1,000) 10.2
Montana Birth Rate (2023) 9.8
US Birth Rate (2023) 10.7
Source: Montana Office of Vital Statistics
238
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-11
Figure 10 Marriage Licenses Issued to Gallatin County Residents, 2020-2025
Year Licenses Issued
2020 949
2021 1,169
2022 1,249
2023 1,264
2024 1,451
2025 (YTD) 1,435
5-Year Average 1,216.4
MPO Rate (per 1,000) 10.2
Montana Marriage Rate (2023) 9.2
US Marriage Rate (2023) 6.1
Source: Gallatin County Clerk of Court
239
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-12
Demographic and Socioeconomic
Characteristics
Using select demographic, socioeconomic, and employment data can help determine the
overall transit need for a given area. Areas of higher propensity, or demand, are more likely
to generate ridership and support transit service that is provided. The following groups were
examined due to their higher likelihood to use transit based on Census journey to work data:
Minority populations
Low-income households
Limited English proficiency
Zero-vehicle households
Young people ages 15-24
Older adults age 65+
People with a disability
240
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-13
The Federal Transit Administration define a minority person as one who self-identifies as
American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, or
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.4 The highest concentration of minority individuals
are located in downtown Bozeman around MSU and in areas of Belgrade adjacent to the
airport and west of I-90. This information supports impact analysis and Title VI compliance.
Figure 11 Minority Population
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
4 “Title VI Circular to 4702.1B.” Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients, Federal
Transit Administration, 1 Oct. 2012, www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Title_VI_FINAL.pdf.
241
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-14
For the purpose of this study, low-income households are defined as earning less than 150%
of the federal poverty level. Low-income households are more financially burdened by
transportation options and are likely to use transit due to the high costs of vehicle
ownership. Low-income households within the MPA are primarily located surrounding MSU
and in Belgrade west of I-90. This information supports evaluating mobility access and
affordability implications of transportation investments.
Figure 12 Low-Income Households
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
242
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-15
Limited English proficiency (LEP) is often an indicator of immigrant communities, who are
more likely to take transit.5 While the MPA has an overall low density of limited English
speaking individuals, areas of the MPA with more LEP communities are located in south
Bozeman and the greater Belgrade area. This information helps inform mobility access and
language considerations in transportation planning.
Figure 13 Limited English Proficiency
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
5 “Movement after Migration: Immigrants’ Disproportionate Reliance on Public Transportation.” Migration Policy Institute,
21 Mar. 2021, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/movement-migration-immigrants-public-transportation.
243
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-16
People without access to a vehicle are more reliant on transit to meet their travel needs that
cannot be completed by walking, biking, or rolling. Most zero-vehicle households are located
in northern Bozeman and downtown Bozeman around MSU, which are areas currently served
by fixed-route transit.
Figure 14 Zero-Vehicle Households
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
244
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-17
Young people are less likely to have a driver’s license or access to a vehicle and therefore
have greater reliance on transit or other multimodal services to access their destinations.
Additionally, students at Montana State University are an important ridership base for public
transit services. The highest concentrations of young people are located surrounding MSU
and in northwest Bozeman.
Figure 15 Young People
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
245
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-18
People who are older than 65 years old may no longer be able to drive due to aging-related
changes in sight, hearing, and mobility. Older adults are less able to utilize other active
modal options and may rely solely on others driving them places or public transportation.
Older adult care facilities are often located along bus routes to provide access for older
adults. While the MPA has an overall low density of older adults, the highest concentration of
older adults are located south of downtown Bozeman and in northwest Bozeman.
Figure 16 Older Adults
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
246
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-19
People who are unable to drive alone or may require additional assistance rely more heavily
on public transportation, whether that be fixed-route service or paratransit services. Areas
with the highest density of people living with disabilities are located northwest of MSU, in
downtown Bozeman, and near I-90 in Belgrade.
Figure 17 People Living with a Disability
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
247
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-20
Changes in Affordability
Housing costs in the MPA are rising faster than wages, creating challenges for residents
seeking housing they can afford. Therefore, affordable transportation options are essential to
connect residents with jobs, schools, various services, and recreational opportunities.
Based on ACS 5-Year estimates for 2023, about 21% of households in the MPA have an
annual income of less than $40,000. As of 2025, the official poverty rate, as defined by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $15,650 for an individual and $21,150 for a household with two
people. In 2023, 8.8% of Gallatin County residents were living below the poverty line, while
within the MPA area, 11.2% residents live below the poverty line. Additionally, the median
home listing price in Gallatin County doubled between 2017 and 2023, posing challenges for
residents to live comfortably in the area (Figure 18). Home prices decreased in 2024 but are
still well above pre-pandemic prices and have overall increased by 68% since 2017. 55% of
the study area residents own their home and 45% rent. This percentage may change in the
future if housing prices begin to rise and more people choose to rent due to the high price
to purchase a home (Figure 19). Vacant and part-time residential housing units are also an
area of focus due to Bozeman being an amenity destination during both the summer and
winter months. This impacts housing supply for full-time residents in an already constrained
market.6
Figure 18 Median Home Listing Price in Gallatin County, 2017-2024
6 “2025-2045 Bozeman Population and Housing Forecast.” Engage Bozeman, Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., 5 Sept. 2025.”
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
$1,200,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
248
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
2-21
Source: Realtor.com, 2024
Figure 19 Renter-Occupied vs. Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023
KEY FINDINGS
Population in the MPA area has risen steadily over the past decade, increasing by
38% since 2013. The largest increase was from 2020 to 2021, most likely due to the
rise of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic and new arrivals or second home
buyers from other states.
Population density is concentrated in downtown Bozeman and neighborhoods
surrounding Montana State University. Belgrade has a growing population.
Jobs increased by 47% in the past decade except for a slight decrease in 2020, likely
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Employment is concentrated in downtown Bozeman
and surrounding MSU.
The median home listing price in Gallatin County doubled between 2017 and 2023.
While listing prices have since decreased, they are still well above pre-pandemic
levels.
Owner Occupied
55%
Renter Occupied
45%
249
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-1
3 TRANSIT CONDITIONS
TRANSIT SERVICE OVERVIEW
Streamline Transit serves Bozeman with fare-free connections in and around the city and to
Belgrade, as illustrated in Figure 20 below. Streamline operates five fixed routes, including
one commuter route that connects Bozeman to Belgrade, and seasonal transit service to
Livingston from October through April. Streamline connects to the Skyline Bus System for
travel to and from Big Sky and Jefferson Lines Intercity Bus Service. Streamline also operates
Galavan, a complementary paratransit service for seniors and people with disabilities, in
accordance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Galavan operates within a two-mile
radius of Streamline routes (Figure 21).
Streamline serves several top destinations in Bozeman such as the MSU campus, Gallatin
Crossing Mall, and downtown Bozeman. The Blueline and Goldline are the highest ridership
routes, and each serves two of the three top destinations. As discussed in Chapter 2, the MPA
has experienced significant growth beyond the downtown areas of Bozeman and Belgrade,
and current transit service does not operate outside of the downtown areas. Primary gaps in
service coverage include south of MSU to the Museum of the Rockies, west of Bozeman to
Four Corners, greater Belgrade, and the airport. While the Pinkline does serve Belgrade, it
operates only on weekdays with four trips in each direction, and it does not directly connect
to the airport. During public outreach activities, members of the public also identified a gap
in service to Gallatin College.
Like many transit agencies, Streamline experienced a significant drop in ridership due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, and current ridership is at 59% of pre-pandemic levels. Galavan
ridership has trended similarly and is operating at 67% of pre-pandemic levels. Additionally,
ridership is heavily influenced by the academic calendar at MSU, with levels dropping during
summer and winter breaks and rising again when classes resume.
The Transit Strategic Report provides a comprehensive overview of the transit system in the
MPA, including current span of service and frequency times, historical ridership, bus stop
inventory, paratransit service, and fleet and facilities.
250
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-2
Figure 20 Streamline Fixed-Route Service
Source: Streamline; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
251
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-3
Figure 21 Streamline Paratransit Service Area
Source: Streamline; MDT; MPA; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
252
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-4
Transit Routes and Facilities
On weekdays, Streamline operates four routes locally within Bozeman and one commuter
route between Bozeman and Belgrade. On weekends, four hourly local routes are available.
The Northeast Bozeman shuttle operates to provide direct service to social services, such as
the food bank and warming shelter, trails and local parks. Figure 22 provides an overview of
all Streamline routes.
Figure 22 Transit Route Information
Route Service Span Frequency Ridership (2024)
Weekday Blueline 6:45 am - 9:45 pm
60 minutes, with 30-
minute service at peak
hours while MSU is in
session
110,390
Weekday Goldline 6:45 am - 10:09 pm
60 minutes, with 30-
minute service at peak
hours while MSU is in
session
56,099
Weekday Purpleline 6:45 am - 7:36 pm 60 minutes, with 30-
minute service at peak
hours 25,601
Weekday Brownline 6:45 am - 6:47 pm 60 minutes 2,822
Pinkline (Belgrade) 7:04 am -7:01 pm Four trips in each
direction 13,584
Livingston 5:50 am -6:45 pm One trip in the morning
and evening -
Late-night (not currently
operating) 7:55 pm -2:25 am 30 minutes -
Weekend Blueline 9:13 am - 6:13 pm 60 minutes 15,468
Weekend Goldline 9:32 am - 5:54 pm 60 minutes 2,879
Weekend Purpleline 9:15 am - 6:15 pm 60 minutes 4,359
Weekend Brownline 9:16 am - 6:16 pm 60 minutes 2,928
Shuttle to Northeast
Bozeman 9:35 am -7:00 pm Six daily trips -
Streamline has one major transfer station, located at the Bridger Park garage in downtown
Bozeman, where riders can transfer between the Blueline, Purpleline, and Brownline. The
transfer station has capacity for two buses without independent pull-in/pull-out.
Streamline currently has 162 active stops in its system (Figure 23). Based on a September
2025 review of existing bus stops using Google Street View imagery, 113 stops are marked
253
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-5
with a pole, sign face, and route indicator. Ten of these stops have a shelter and bench, and
one has a standalone bench. The 49 stops without signage are primarily located along the
following corridors, several of which being federal-aid, MDT-maintained roadways: 7th Ave,
Huffine Ln, Main St, Oak St, and Rouse Ave.
Figure 23 Bus Stop Amenities
Amenity Number of Stops Percent
Signage 102 63%
No Signage 49 30%
Signage + Shelter + Bench 10 6%
Signage + Bench 1 1%
Total Bus Stops 162 100%
Source: Streamline, Google Street View
254
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-6
OTHER REGIONAL PROVIDERS
CatTracks Campus Shuttle
CatTracks is a pilot program that provides Montana State University’s campus with a parking
shuttle service. The shuttles connect MSU’s perimeter parking lots to key locations on the
main campus. The service is available on weekdays from 7am to 6pm, and shuttles run every
30 minutes.
During the academic year, two routes operate one-way loop service: the Blue line operates
on a westbound loop, and the Gold line operates on an eastbound loop. From May to
August, the Summer line replaces the Blue and Gold line service with one route that
combines key destinations from both.
Skyline
Skyline is the public transportation service that operates Big Sky Connect within Big Sky as
fare-free on-demand microtransit services. Skyline also operates fixed-route Link buses
between Big Sky and Bozeman seven days a week. The Link route serves Bozeman with a
stop at Walmart and MSU before continuing to Four Corners and then south to Big Sky. Fares
are required on Link buses, and schedules differ between the summer and fall seasons.
HRDC Community Commons
The Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) is the founding organization of
Streamline. In addition to Streamline’s fixed routes, HRDC implemented a shuttle service to
northeast Bozeman for riders to access the new Community Commons campus. Shuttles
operate six trips on weekdays excluding holidays.
Bridger Bowl
Streamline operates weekend seasonal bus service in partnership with Bridger Bowl to
connect visitors to the ski area. Bridger Bowl is committed to operating their ski areas in the
most socially responsible manner possible, and partnering with Streamline to provide
transportation service significantly reduces the impact on Bridger Canyon Road during peak
ski access times.
Reach
Reach is a non-profit organization that supports adults with developmental disabilities. Reach
has a fleet of 20 vehicles to provide transportation services to clients to get to work,
appointments, recreational activities, and other transportation needs. To receive services,
255
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-7
riders must be eligible for Medicaid and qualify for the state’s Developmental Disability
Program (DDP).
Karst Stage
Karst Stage is a charter-bus provider that operates an airport shuttle service for passengers
going from Yellowstone International Airport to Big Sky, West Yellowstone, and Mammoth.
The company is also the contracted provider for Streamline bus operators and maintenance
workers.
First Student
First Student is the contracted provider for school bus service to the Bozeman school district
and surrounding area. The company also provides charter bus service for other contracted
trips in the area.
Gallatin County Rest Home
Gallatin Rest Home is a county owned and operated senior living facility in Bozeman. The
facility provides transportation services for its residents to take to medical-related
appointments in and around Bozeman.
Taxis, TNCs, and Shuttles
Taxi service throughout the area is offered by Greater Valley Taxi, Montana Yellow Cab,
DeShields Rideshare Taxi, Spartan Taxi, and Bridger Taxi. The major hotels also provide
shuttle service to/from the airport and Uber and Lyft operate service in the area.
West Yellowstone
The West Yellowstone Foundation operates on-demand roundtrip transit service from West
Yellowstone Big Sky, Belgrade, and Bozeman every Tuesday and Thursday. Advanced
reservations are required on a first-come, first-served basis, and medical appointment
transportation requests are given priority.
Windrider Transit
Windrider Transit provides fare-free, fixed-route public and paratransit services within Park
County. Dial-A-Ride (DAR) services are available for medical appointments to Bozeman on
Tuesday and Wednesdays.
256
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-8
Angel Line
Angel Line provides door-to-door transportation service to residents of Livingston and the
surrounding communities. Angel Line is open to anyone 60 years of age or older and to
anyone with a doctor’s letter of disability. Angel Line is available for all trip purposes
including medical appointments, work, and recreation, on weekdays excluding holidays.
Madison County Transit
Madison County Transit currently provides a senior citizen shuttle service to Bozeman twice a
week on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and on the 4th week of each month, provides an additional
trip on Wednesdays. Riders must call the service to schedule a reservation in advance.
Inter-Regional Bus Service
Greyhound and FlixBus provide scheduled service from Bozeman along the I-90 corridor to
Billings, Butte, and Missoula, with connections to major hubs such as Seattle, Salt Lake City,
and Denver. Jefferson Lines also serves Bozeman through coordinated routes within the
Greyhound/FlixBus network.
KEY FINDINGS
Historical trend data gives insight into Streamline’s previous performance levels and
the state of the system today.
Fixed Route
Before the pandemic, ridership on the fixed-route network was variable
throughout the year with approximately 30,000 monthly boardings from October
to April and dropping as low as 15,000 during the summer months. This is likely
influenced by MSU’s academic calendar.
Ridership has been slow to recover, and while there is still seasonal variability,
there is more stability in ridership numbers month over month, which could
indicate more riders are using the service year-round.
The Blueline is the highest ridership route in the system with over 70,000 riders in
2023. The Goldline and Purpleline are the next highest ridership routes with
30,000 and 20,000 riders in 2023 respectively.
The three bus stops with the highest daily ridership are Walmart, Mendenhall &
Black (downtown Bozeman transfer station), and the MSU Strand Union Building.
The Blueline serves all three of these stops, while the other lines serve only one or
two of the highest ridership stops.
257
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
3-9
Out of 162 bus stops in the system, only 13 stops (6%) have a shelter and seating.
The market assessment performed in the TDP identified secondary trip-
generators such as public parks, schools, and areas of Belgrade and new markets
for service. Replica data in the market assessment also identified that trips
between 6 and 7 a.m. are popular and could therefore be captured by Streamline
if service hours were expanded to earlier than 7 a.m.
Paratransit
Galavan ridership has trended similarly to the fixed-route service with slow
recovery after the drop in ridership due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and ridership
has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels. Galavan has about 1,350 monthly
riders in 2025, while pre-pandemic ridership averaged 2,400 per month.
Community Engagement
Students use Streamline services more than non-students.
Respondents want more morning service between 6 and 7 a.m. and more
afternoon peak service between 3 and 6pm, as well as more service to Bozeman
Yellowstone International Airport, Four Corners, the YMCA, Billings Clinic,
Livingston, and Bridger Bowl.
The most common reason non-riders do not take transit is because of lack of
service near their destinations. Former transit riders expressed similar reasons for
no longer using transit because of infrequent service and inefficient routes.
258
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-1
4 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
This chapter summarizes the rest of the transportation network in the study area, including
driving, walking, biking, and transportation safety.
FUNCTIONAL CLASS SYSTEM
The roadway system is the most important piece of infrastructure in a transportation network
to facilitate the movement of vehicles, public transportation, freight, active transportation,
and other modes. The MPA contains 838 miles of roadway, which are broken down by
functional class in Figure 24. Functional classification helps define the purpose of roads in the
network and the expected traffic volumes, configuration, speed, and land use on and around
them. A functional classification map of roadway for the GVMPA is shown in Figure 25.
For the LRTP, roadways classified as collectors and above in MDT’s classification system will
be examined for improvements along the corridors. Local jurisdictions within the MPA use
their own functional classification systems, and these will also be considered when evaluating
and prioritizing projects to capture more current conditions on the roadways.
Most lane miles within the MPA area are owned by Gallatin County (approximately 36%) or
the City of Bozeman (approximately 32%). A large share is also owned by the State of
Montana (approximately 17%). The remaining streets are owned by private entities, Montana
State University, or the City of Belgrade.
Figure 24 Functional Classification Roadway Miles
Interstate Principal
Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Street
40 miles 42 miles 50 miles 69 miles 15 miles 622 miles
Source: MDT
259
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-2
Figure 25 Highway Functional Classification
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Potential new road segments have been identified throughout the MPA to coordinate future
land use and community planning. Based on Bozeman’s 2017 Transportation Master Plan and
the Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan, 105.3 miles of new road are proposed to be
built in Bozeman, Belgrade, Four Corners. As shown in Figure 26, the majority of new roads
will be collector roads, with additional minor arterial and principal arterial roads planned to
accommodate future growth through the limit of their municipal planning boundary. A new
network of collector roads is proposed to be built southwest of MSU between Cottonwood
260
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-3
Road and S 19th Avenue to support the increased development in the area. Similarly, another
new network in the northern part of Bozeman between Baxter and Valley Center Road is also
proposed to increase connectivity. Kagy Boulevard, a minor arterial through Bozeman is also
proposed to be extended farther west to Cottonwood Road. An additional road network is
proposed north of Four Corners bounded by Jackrabbit Lane, Cottonwood Road, Cobb Hill
Road, and Goldenstein Lane. Identified road segments are intended to be built as the land
develops and needs arise and therefore do not have committed funding and are not on a
defined construction timeline.
Figure 26 Proposed New Road Classifications
Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector
Bozeman 4.8 mi 9.9 mi 22 mi
Greater Triangle Area 7.4 mi 16.3 mi 44.9 mi
Source: City of Bozeman; Greater Triangle Area Transportation Plan
The Belgrade LRTP also identifies several new road segments to connect major-use roads.
Frank Road experiences heavy freight activity, and new road connections to Alaskan Frontage
Road and Amsterdam Road can improve freight movement. Additionally, a new network of
connector roads is proposed northwest of the airport between Bolinger Road and Dry Creek
Road.
The LRTP may examine roadway expansion projects during project identification for inclusion
in the plan. Evaluating land use around proposed expansion corridors and the MPO’s goals
and objectives will help guide any recommendations for expansion in the region.
261
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-4
TRANSPORTATION ASSET CONDITIONS
Transportation asset conditions are an important performance measure in the region. The
GVMPO adopted MDT’s statewide performance targets, and pavement and bridge conditions
is a critical measure for the overall viability of the transportation network.
Figure 27 displays the current MDT-reported conditions of select bridges within the MPA.
Out of a total of 55 bridges inspected by MDT within the region between 2021 and 2024, ten
are rated as being in “good” condition, 44 in “fair” condition, and one in “poor” condition. 34
of the 55 bridges inspected by MDT are owned by the state, 17 by the county, and four by
the cities of Belgrade and Bozeman. The single bridge in poor condition is located at the I-90
crossing of Bear Creek at the far eastern edge of the MPA area.
Figure 27 also shows the current condition of pavement along roadways inspected by MDT in
2024. Collected for the 2024 Montana Pavement Condition Report, MDT inspected 91 miles
of pavement within the MPA area, focusing on the MDT-designated interstate, non-interstate
National highway system, primary, and secondary roadway network. MDT collects data on
various aspects of pavement quality including ride quality, rutting, and cracking. These
aspects are combined into a single measure, Overall Performance Index (OPI), to assess the
health of individual pavement sections and of the pavement network. Observing the OPI of
pavement within the region, 31 miles of roadway were rated as having pavement in “good”
condition, 46 miles in “fair” condition, and 14 miles in “poor” condition. OPI is measured on a
0-100 scale with roads being in good condition for values 63 and above and poor condition
for values below 45.7 MDT has current plans for paving projects on North and South 19th
Avenue and North 7th Avenue in 2025 and 2026.
72024 Pavement Performance and condition report. Montana Department of Transportation, 2024.
262
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-5
Figure 27 Transportation Asset Conditions
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
263
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-6
GOODS MOVEMENT
Figure 28 displays the primary goods movement network within the MPA, comprised of
highways, railroads, and the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (BZN). Also shown
are areas currently zoned for industrial uses, representing locations of likely freight activity.
The BNSF-owned Montana Rail Link Subdivision traverses the MPA area from northwest to
southeast, passing through Downtown Belgrade and north and east Bozeman. Including two
spur lines in Belgrade and Bozeman, there are 13 at-grade railroad crossings within the MPA.
Figure 28 Goods Movement Network
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
264
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-7
Highways
The United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Draft National Multimodal
Freight Network (NMFN) includes a selection of highways and railroads that represent critical
links for the movement of goods across the country. Within the GVMPA, the NMFN includes
I-90 and the BNSF main line. Further, USDOT has designated the National Highway Freight
Network (NHFN) to strategically direct federal resources and policies to improve highway
portions of the country’s freight network. Within Montana, the NHFN is comprised of
interstate highways, including I-90.
Roadway-based goods movement through and within the MPA area primarily occurs along
key portions of the MDT system. These include roadways designated as interstate, non-
interstate National Highway System, and primary routes as listed below.
Interstate
I-90 (throughout the GVMPA)
Non-Interstate National Highway System
US 191 (Gallatin Rd)/MT 85 (Jackrabbit Ln) corridor
US 191 (Huffine Ln/Main St) corridor
Main St (Belgrade)
Airway Blvd
N 7th Ave
N 19th Ave
Primary
MT 84
MT 86
Frontage Rd
N 7th Ave
Local jurisdictions, including Gallatin County and the cities of Belgrade and Bozeman, do not
currently designate any roadways as goods movement/freight routes, though they have the
authority to do so. As the region continues to grow, local traffic interaction with freight
movement will be important to consider for safety and performance targets.
265
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-8
Railroads
BNSF operates approximately 32 trains through the at-grade crossings in the MPA during the
day and 28 at night.8 Rail crossings can impact mobility by causing congestion, diverting
traffic to other roads not meant for high traffic volumes, and delaying emergency response
while waiting for trains to cross. At-grade crossings also present safety risks with vehicles or
pedestrians attempting to cross.
Aviation
Several air cargo companies operate out of Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (BZN),
including FedEx and UPS. As reported in the airport’s 2025 Annual Financial Report, over 2.7
million pounds of cargo moved through the airport in 2025, which was a 22.2% decrease
from the 3.5 million pounds moved in 2024. Cargo movement is an important indicator of
growth as the majority of the cargo processed at the airport is off-loaded and continues to
move through the freight network on the roadway system.
Passenger traffic in BZN has continued to increase year over year and in 2025 increased by
5.4% from 2024 to over 2.6 million passengers. The increase can be attributed to several
factors, including strong demand for travel to popular destinations in the Gallatin Valley, and
population growth in Southwest Montana as a whole. As the region experiences more
seasonal growth, the MPO must balance the transportation needs of permanent residents
while supporting the area as a popular destination for visitors.
8 USDOT Federal Railroad Administration, FRA Crossing Viewer.
266
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-9
HOW PEOPLE GET AROUND
A reliable transportation system is essential for the livelihood of all residents, connecting
them to neighborhoods, commercial and recreational areas, and job centers. Understanding
how people travel will provide insight for opportunities to create a better traveling
experience for them.
As shown in Figure 29, driving alone is the primary transportation mode for 68% of area
residents who commute to work. While the overall number of residents who drive alone to
work has increased since 2019, the overall mode-share saw a 5% decrease, as more people
are working from home. A mall percentage of residents take public transportation, although
the share increased by 0.1% in 2023. Residents are more likely to carpool, walk, or ride a bike,
though each has seen a one to two percent decrease for these modes from 2019. Remote
work more than doubled in 2023, likely due to changes to commute patterns from the
COVID-19 pandemic. Commute to work data does not include travel patterns for the
Montana State University students in Bozeman.
Figure 29 Percent of Commute Modes 2019 vs. 2023
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2019 and 2023
73%
9.4%0.5%3.2%6.3%6.8%0.9%
68%
7.8%0.6%2.5%6%
14.1%
1%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
Drive Alone Carpool Public
Transit
Bicycle Walking Remote
work
Taxi,
Motorcycle,
or other
meansNumber of Commuters2019 2023
267
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-10
DRIVING IN THE GALLATIN VALLEY
Driving is the primary way people travel throughout the Gallatin Valley. The busiest corridors
are the major roadways that connect Bozeman and Belgrade, and the roadways within each
city that connect to the regional network.
As shown in Figure 30, the roadways with the most vehicle trips are along I-90, Jackrabbit
Lane, 19th Avenue, Main Street, and Huffine Lane. Each of these streets carry more than
20,000 vehicle trips per day. Other streets with high volumes include 7th Avenue, Oak Street,
and Airway Boulevard in Belgrade.
Figure 30 Annual Average Daily Trips (AADT)
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
268
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-11
Figure 31 displays roadway volume capacity (V/C) ratios in 2022 throughout the MPA. V/C is
a strong indicator of congested locations, and congestion is an important metric to evaluate
alongside AADT because it illustrates where there are excess vehicle trips beyond the road
capacity. Key corridors experiencing high congestion levels include 19th Avenue, Huffine
Lane/Main Street, and Kagy Boulevard.
Figure 31 Roadway Volume Capacity Ratios, 2022
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
269
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-12
Understanding paths of travel and where trips are starting and ending is important for
identifying regional mobility patterns and transportation gaps. Top origin-destination pairs
for travel in and out of the MPA were identified using Replica, an activity-based travel model
that simulates where residents, visitors, and commercial vehicle travel happens in an area on
a typical day. Figure 32 illustrates the most common paths of travel for the MPA, and Figure
33 details the total number of daily trips for each origin-destination pair, as well as the total
number of daily trips within the MPA boundaries. Other than intra-MPA travel, the largest
number of trips occur between the MPA and greater Gallatin County, Park County, and
Madison County. These locations include top recreational areas such as Big Sky, Bridger Bowl,
and Yellowstone National Park, which may contribute to trip generation.
Figure 32 GVMPO Origin-Destination Travel, Spring 2025
Source: Replica, MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
270
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-13
Figure 33 GVMPO Origin-Destination Trips, Spring 2025
Origin/Destination In Out
Greater Gallatin County 32,718 31,773
Park County, MT 5,771 5,430
Madison County, MT 4,637 3,973
Broadwater County, MT 1,492 1,515
Jefferson County, MT 773 760
Teton County, WY 192 437
Park County, WY 307 92
Meagher County, MT 181 182
Fremont County, ID 147 124
Intra-MPO 432,711
Source: Replica
Understanding travel patterns within the MPA is also critical to identifying local
transportation needs and gaps in service. Figure 34 and Figure 35 detail the origin-
destination trips occurring between Bozeman, Belgrade, and Four Corners. Bozeman and
Belgrade is the top origin-destination pair and has the largest number of trips on a given
day. This indicates there could be demand for more transit service beyond the current
commuter route that operates between the two cities. There is no current transit service to
Four Corners, but the trip volumes indicate that it is growing origin-destination, especially
with Bozeman.
Figure 36 shows the distribution of trips throughout the day within the MPA. There are three
distinct peaks in trips at 7 a.m., 12 p.m., and the daily peak at 3 p.m., and the majority of trips
occur between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m.
271
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-14
Figure 34 Intra-GVMPO Origin-Destination Travel, Spring 2025
Source: Replica, MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Figure 35 Intra-GVMPO Origin-Destination Trips, Spring 2025
Origin/Destination Total Trips
Bozeman - Belgrade 87,500
Four Corners - Bozeman 51,850
Belgrade - Four Corners 20,800
Source: Replica
272
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-15
Figure 36 Intra-GVMPO Trips by Time of Day, Spring 2025
Source: Replica
26,721
29,505
36,957
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a 11a 12p 1p 2p 3p 4p 5p 6p 7p 8p 9p 10p 11p 12a
273
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-16
WALKING
An accessible and complete sidewalk network is essential for people to walk or use mobility
devices to safely reach their destination. Walking and rolling represent the most affordable
way to travel and plays a part in most trips, such as walking from a parking space or getting
to a bus stop. As the region continues to grow, a complete pedestrian network will need to
be a priority to meet community mobility needs.
Figure 37 displays missing sidewalks and gaps in shared use paths throughout Bozeman,
which were identified in the Bozeman Bicycle and Pedestrian Gap Analysis study in March
2025. These gaps are defined in the study as linear gaps, which are sections of missing
sidewalks, trails, or shared use paths that create gaps between existing built facilities. Linear
gaps can be experiential, such as a section of sidewalk within a shared-use path, or planning
gaps, which are potential strategic extensions of the network.
According to the gaps analysis study, northwest Bozeman and areas south of MSU have a
high concentration of sidewalk gaps, which can make it less desirable for riders to use the
fixed-route service that operates in those areas. Filling in sidewalk gaps can make it safer and
more accessible for riders to use transit.
Complete sidewalk inventory data is not available for Belgrade or the greater MPA. The
Greater Gallatin Triangle Area Transportation Plan and Belgrade Transportation Plan note
there are sidewalks along some main streets and within residential neighborhoods in their
respective study areas, but most of the existing pedestrian infrastructure lacks connectivity.
The 2021 Triangle Trails plan proposes an expanded trails network to connect all portions of
the triangle area within the MPA. New trails and shared-use paths could be used for walking,
biking, rolling, or horseback riding and would connect to existing pedestrian infrastructure to
support regional connectivity.
274
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-17
Figure 37 Bozeman Pedestrian Network Gaps
Source: City of Bozeman
275
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-18
BIKING AND ROLLING
Providing high quality and connected bicycle facilities is essential for supporting safe,
healthy, and more affordable living in the Gallatin Valley. It also expands opportunities for
physical activity and provides more reliable options for non-drive alone trips. Figure 38
displays existing bicycle infrastructure throughout the GVMPA, which were identified in the
2023 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation Plan (PRAT) and Triangle
Transportation Plan. Bike facilities are defined as existing infrastructure that can
accommodate biking and rolling activities. Existing bike lanes in Bozeman are generally
striped lanes adjacent to general purpose lanes, while shared-used paths are concrete or
asphalt paths separated from vehicle traffic that may accommodate biking, walking, or
rolling. The natural surface trails are dirt or unpaved trails that may be used more for
recreational biking, horseback travel, or function as connector trails.
Most dedicated bike lanes are located in northwest Bozeman and around MSU, so there is
opportunity to expand the bike network into downtown Bozeman and other residential areas
to provide more mobility connections. Dedicated bike lane data is not available for Belgrade,
and existing shared-use paths and natural trails are limited, which presents another
opportunity for bike network expansion.
The 2021 Triangle Trails plan proposes an expanded off-street trails network in the southwest
triangle area of the MPA. Commuter trails would connect to the greater Gallatin Valley,
enabling more accessible biking opportunities to the urbanized areas of the region.
Connector trails would link communities within the triangle area to each other to improve
connectivity to schools, parks, and other points of interest. Neighborhood trails would
combine with parks and open spaces to allow easier access to other neighborhood
communities, parks, and schools.
Current planned bike route projects include a new 3.25-mile route from E Valley Center Road
to the Gallatin Valley Mall along the Cattail Creek Corridor, which was a key project
recommended in the 2023 PRAT plan, a new 3-mile shared-use path on Huffine Lane
between Bozeman and Four Corners, and a 2.5-mile shared-use path along Frontage Road
from Valley Center Spur to the Cherry River Access. Additionally, the City of Bozeman
development code requires shared-use path construction with all new arterial and collector
roadways.
276
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-19
Figure 38 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
277
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-20
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) maintains records on vehicle crashes.
Figure 39 displays historical crash trends within the GVMPA between 2015 and 2024. The
number of annual crashes has fluctuated throughout the ten-year period, including a high of
1,469 crashes in 2022 and a low of 1,160 crashes during reduced travel conditions during the
COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The annual number of fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes
trended downward between 2015 and 2019, but abruptly increased in 2020, continuing an
upward trajectory that peaked at 40 crashes in 2023 (Figure 40). The number of FSI crashes
decreased to 27 in 2024.
Figure 39 All Crashes, 2015-2024
Source: MDT
Figure 40 Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) Crashes, 2015-2024
Source: MDT
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
278
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-21
Figure 41 shows the count of total FSI crashes at locations throughout the GVMPA between
2015 and 2024. The following corridors experience a high concentration of FSI crashes:
Huffine Ln between Four Corners and W College St
19th Ave between W College St and I-90
W Oak St between N 19th Ave and N 7th Ave
Main St between W College St and Rouse Ave
Jackrabbit Ln between W Main St and Baxter Ln
W College St between W Main St/Huffine Ln and S 8th Ave
Frontage Rd/N 7th Ave between Airport Rd and W Main St
I-90 throughout the GVMPA
279
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-22
Figure 41 Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Locations 2015-2024
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Figure 42 shows the count of crashes involving people walking, biking, and rolling at
locations throughout the GVMPA between 2015 and 2024. Crashes involving people walking,
biking, and rolling are primarily located in areas likely seeing higher volumes of pedestrian
and bicycle activity, such as Downtown Bozeman, the Montana State University campus, and
Downtown Belgrade. Outside of these core areas, concentrations of crashes involving people
walking, biking, and rolling are observed along the 19th Ave corridor, the 7th Ave corridor,
near Gallatin Crossing, and along Jackrabbit Ln near the I-90 interchange.
280
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-23
Figure 42 Bicycle and Pedestrian Involved Crash Locations 2015-2024
Source: MDT, MPA, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Figure 43 compares the severity of crashes involving people walking, biking, or rolling to
those only involving motor vehicles between 2015 and 2024. Over this ten-year period, 254
crashes involved a person walking, biking, or rolling, while crashes involving only motor
vehicles totaled 12,816. A large difference in crash severity was observed for those involving
people walking, biking, and rolling and those only involving motor vehicles. While crashes
involving people walking, biking, or rolling only accounted for 1.9% of all crashes, they made
up 7.5% of injury crashes and 16.1% of FSI crashes. Further, over 88% of crashes involving a
281
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-24
person walking, biking, or rolling resulted in an injury, compared to just 22% of crashes
involving only motor vehicles.
Figure 43 Motorized Vehicle Only Crashes vs. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Injury Level, 2015-
2024
Source: MDT
Figure 44 show the distribution of crashes throughout the day of vehicle-only crashes and
crashes involving a bicycle or pedestrian. The time of day with the most crashes is at 5pm,
which aligns with the evening commute period when many people are leaving from work or
school. Figure 45 shows the fatal and serious injury crashes by time of day, which follow a
similar pattern to other crashes and most often occur at 5pm.
2.1%
20.5%
19.7%
68.1%
78.2%
11.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Motorized Vehicle Only (n = 12,816)
Pedestrian or Bicyclist Involved (n = 254)
Fatal and Serious Injury Minor and Possible Injury No Injury/Unknown
282
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-25
Figure 44 Crashes by Time of Day, 2015-2024
Source: MDT
Figure 45 Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) Crashes by Time of Day, 2015-2024
Source: MDT
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
12a 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a11a 12p 1p 2p 3p 4p 5p 6p 7p 8p 9p 10p11p Pedestrian/Bike InvolvedVehicle OnlyVehicle Only Pedestrian/Bike Involved
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
12a 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a 11a12p 1p 2p 3p 4p 5p 6p 7p 8p 9p 10p11p FSI CrashesTotal CrashesAll Crashes FSI Crashes
283
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-26
Most crash reports include information on factors that contributed to the crash. Crash factors
can be environmental factors, such as road conditions, or human factors, such as reckless
driving. As shown in Figure 46, the most common crash factor for crashes within the MPA is
driving in a distracted, inattentive, or careless manner. Figure 47 details the most common
crash factors for fatal and serious injury FSI) crashes, with driving under the influence of
alcohol, drugs, or other substances being the most common contributing factor in FSI
crashes.
Figure 46 Crash Factors, 2015-2024
Source: MDT
4,740
2,397
1,743
1,241
909
898
707
435
326
261
237
161
180
94
63
34
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Drove in Distracted, Inattentive or Careless Manner
Drove Too Fast For Conditions
Ran Off Roadway
Under the Influence of Medications/Drugs/Alcohol
Failed To Keep In Proper Lane
Drove in Erratic, Reckless, Negligent or Aggressive Manner
Over-Correcting/Over-Steering
Failed to Yield Right-Of-Way
Followed Too Closely
Improper Turn
Swerved or Avoided Due to Road/Weather Element
Disregarded Other Traffic Sign/Road Markings
Emotional
Asleep or Fatigued
Sick or Fainted
Physically Impaired
284
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-27
Figure 47 Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) Crash Factors, 2015-2024
Source: MDT
81
62
48
44
29
29
24
10
10
5
5
5
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Under the Influence Of Medications/Drugs/Alcohol
Drove in Erratic, Reckless, Negligent or Aggressive Manner
Ran Off Roadway
Drove in Distracted, Inattentive or Careless Manner
Failed to Keep in Proper Lane
Over-Correcting/Over-Steering
Drove Too Fast For Conditions
Exceeded Posted Speed Limit
Disregarded Other Traffic Sign/Road Markings
Asleep or Fatigued
Emotional
Sick or Fainted
Physically Impaired
285
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
4-28
KEY FINDINGS
Mode share in the Gallatin Valley has remained consistent since 2019, except for an
increase in remote work, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic which allowed more
employees to work from home.
Drive-alone trips continue to be the majority of commute trips in MPA area. Public
transit has the smallest percentage of trips at 0.6% in 2023.
I-90, Jackrabbit Lane, 19th Avenue, Main Street, and Huffine Lane are key corridors
that carry more than 20,000 vehicle trips per day.
The majority of roadway pavement is in good or fair condition, but sections of
19th Avenue and E Main Street are in poor condition.
These key corridors are also critical links for the movement of goods across the
country.
8.5% of commute trips in 2023 were walking or biking, and Gallatin Valley can expand
its active transportation networks to improve connectivity and mobility across the
region.
Planned active transportation projects such as the Cattail Creek Corridor and
Huffine Lane shared-use paths will fill in gaps for key biking and walking
connections.
Top origin-destination pairs, not within the MPA, are between the MPA and greater
Gallatin County, as well as Park County and Madison County.
Fatal and serious injury crashes had been increasing since 2019 but sharply decreased
in 2024. From 2015 to 2024, crashes involving people walking or bicycling were less
than 2% of all crashes, but 20% of crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists were FSI
crashes.
Most crashes occur between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. The top crash factors are driving
distracted or in a careless/inattentive manner, driving too fast for the conditions and
running off the roadway. The most common crash factor reported for fatal and
serious injury crashes is driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication.
286
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
5-1
5 PROJECTED CONDITIONS
The foundation of projecting future conditions is estimating 2050 travel demand on the
“Existing plus Committed (E+C)” network. The E+C network is the group of capacity
expanding projects that have been completed since the 2022 travel demand model base year
combined with capacity expanding projects that are not currently built but are either in
progress or otherwise committed to construction. The committed projects in the E+C
network are shown below in Figure 48.
Figure 48 Committed Projects
Project Name Description Source
Griffin (7th to Rouse)
This project consists of reconstructing Griffin
Drive, from the intersection of N. 7th Avenue to
Rouse Avenue, to a three-lane urban minor
arterial standard. This includes one travel lane in
each direction, bike lanes on each side, curbs,
and gutters
2017 Bozeman
Transportation Master Plan
Belgrade-South
Widen to 5-lanes, add shared use path on east
side, and add signals at Frank and Cameron
Bridge
2018 Belgrade Long Range
Transportation Plan
Slope Flattening
Belgrade
Safety project to include widened shoulders,
flatter slopes, center turn lane/turn bays
2018 Belgrade Long Range
Transportation Plan
Rouse Ave (Main to Oak) Reconstruction with added capacity to a three-
lane urban principal arterial standard
2017 Bozeman
Transportation Master Plan
Kagy Blvd (S. 19th Ave
to Willson Ave) Interim
Improvements
Improve Kagy Boulevard from approximately 500
feet west of South 11th Avenue to approximately
500 feet east of South 7th Avenue to a full three-
lane cross section with two-way left-turn lane
2017 Bozeman
Transportation Master Plan
287
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
5-2
In order to estimate future travel demand, the MPO partnered with local and regional land-
use planning teams to project housing and employment growth out to 2050. The regional
socioeconomic growth projections are allocated to small units of geography known as
Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) and are consistent with currently adopted plans,
environmental constraints, infrastructure availability, and vacant developable land. State and
federal land use agencies such as the Department of Natural Resources and Consvation
(DNRC), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, and Montana Fish, Wildlife,
and Parks (FWP) manage lands surrounding the MPA, so while they would not be affected by
growth within the MPA, they are important to acknowledge for future growth in the region.
The geographical area covered by the travel demand model is expected to add 32,300 new
households between 2022 and 2050, with most of the occuring within the MPA. Figure 49
shows the TAZ-level distribution and intensity of the projected household growth within the
MPO boundary.
Figure 49 2022-2050 New Households
Source: Travel Demand Model
288
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
5-3
The geographical area covered by the travel demand model is expected to add 55,500 new
jobs between 2022 and 2050, with most of the occuring within the MPA. Similar to the
household growth projections, the employment projections are consistent with currently
adopted plans, environmental constraints, infrastructure availability, and vacant developable
land. Figure 50 shows the TAZ-level distribution and intensity of the projected employment
growth within the MPA.
Figure 50 2022-2050 New Jobs
Source: Travel Demand Model
289
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
5-4
Figure 51 below shows how and where future travel demand (generated by the projected
growth in households and jobs) impacts the regional roadway network. The map shows the
project growth in vehicle volumes between 2022 and 2050. Not surprisingly, the map shows
that vehicle volumes are expected to grow significantly in locations where future households
and job growth is concentrated or where alternative travel routes are limited.
Figure 51 2022-2050 Growth in Vehicle Volumes
Source: Travel Demand Model
290
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
5-5
Figure 52 below shows the future vehicle volumes from Figure 51 relative to the underlying
carrying capacities of roadways segments. This map of volume-to-capacity ratios is
oftentimes used as an initial indicator of need for individual roadways or corridors. The red
segments on the map show where future needs are expected to be most acute, while the
orange segments show segments where future needs may emerge. It is important to note
that this is a depiction of need prior to the implementation of any projects or planning/policy
interventions that are intended to address needs and, as such, it represents a key data point
that will help inform the recommendations ultimately included in the long-range plan.
Figure 52 2050 Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
Source: Travel Demand Model
291
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-1
6 CONCLUSION
This report summarizes the state of the current transportation conditions in the Gallatin
Valley Metropolitan Planning area and will be the foundation for creating recommendations
for the MPO’s first Long-Range Transportation Plan. Key findings from this analysis and initial
public engagement will be used to establish the Goals & Objectives of the plan and create an
evaluation framework for assessing the potential of projects to best meet the needs of the
community within the limitations of funding available.
Few regions of its size are enjoying the same levels of activity as the MPA area. With a
booming population, expanding economy, beautiful setting, flagship state university campus,
and proximity to world-famous tourist destinations, the area faces a time of immense
opportunity. From the start of the last decade, population has risen steadily, which has been
compounded by an in-flux of high-net-worth individuals and remote workers from other
states. This has resulted in more diversification of the economy with a growing service
industry and new opportunities in technology and medicine, but wages for many are not
aligned with the rising cost of living and housing.
Ridership on both fixed-route transit service and paratransit has been slow to recover since
the Covid-19 pandemic, however seasonal variability has declined, meaning more riders are
using the service throughout the year. Bus stops with the highest daily ridership are Walmart,
the downtown transfer station, and the MSU Strand Union Building. Market assessments
indicate that trip-generators like public parks, schools, and parts of Belgrade may have latent
demand for additional service.
While remote work has grown, drive-alone trips continue to be the majority of commute trips
in the region, with key corridors like 19th Avenue, Jackrabbit Lane, Main Street, and Huffine
Lane carrying the highest volumes of traffic and freight after I-90. While walking and biking
commute mode shares have remained relatively constant (around 8.5%) there is tremendous
potential for growth in daily trip making and recreation through the delivery of recent plans
to close sidewalk network gaps throughout the MPA and expand bicycle routes and shared-
use paths to provide greater multimodal connectivity and access to destinations. There is
also the need for more low-stress facilities for travelers of all ages and abilities. While people
walking and biking made up less than two percent of crashes in the last decade, they
constitute a fifth of fatalities and severe injuries, and over 50% of these crashes occurred at
road intersections. These conditions will inform the new goals and objectives of the LRTP.
292
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-2
APPENDIX A – PLAN DOCUMENT REVIEW
293
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-3
Additional Local, State, and Regional Plans
Figure 53 Documents Reviewed with Key Projects Identified
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
City of Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, and
Active Transportation Plan
Prepared by Agency
Landscape + Planning,
Sanderson Stewart, Berry
Dunn, Alta Planning,
Groundprint, and ETC
Institute
October 2023 The Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation Plan (PRAT)
is an update to the 2007 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and
Trails Plan (PROST). It establishes a vision and goals for the
city’s parks, trails, and recreation facilities, with a focus on
creating a cohesive trail system to connect community members
to open spaces.
Key issues identified by the community are as follows:
Wide roads and high vehicular speeds make crossing to
parks difficult.
Residents and visitors love the existing trail network but want
a more connected trail and park system. There is a lack of
transitions between existing trails, shared use paths, and
bicycle lanes.
Community members want to see more investments in natural
trails, on-street bicycle lanes, and shared use paths.
Project recommendations aim to address key issues.
Refer to the Proposed Active Transportation Map on
page 83 for all proposed facilities.
Belonging in Bozeman –
Equity and Inclusion Plan
Prepared by Morten Group
2023 The goal of the Belonging in Bozeman Equity and Inclusion Plan
is to ensure that all residents, visitors, and employees can thrive
regardless of their race, identity, or life circumstance. The plan
covers multiple areas, including housing, transportation and
access, healthcare, education, childcare and youth programs,
economy, and safety. Transportation goals include:
Expand reliable public transit and paratransit services,
prioritizing services during wintertime.
Center the most vulnerable road users in transportation
infrastructure design.
Prioritize equity in parking management practices.
While recommendations in this plan need further studies,
they are relevant to inform the LRTP’s project list.
Leverage new revenue streams to support increased
frequency of fixed-route transit and paratransit
services.
Develop standards and formalize processes for ensure
bus stops are well lit, comfortable, safe for women and
girls, shaded from sun, and accessible to riders during
the winter.
Pilot a “Snow Angels” program to connect volunteers
and people with disabilities, older adults who are
unable to remove snow from their sidewalks.
Prioritize snow and ice removal at transit stops.
Retrofit bicycle lanes to separate vehicles and cyclists.
294
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-4
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Leverage expertise of the disability community to
educate design and building professionals on
accessible community design.
Develop a public outreach and education campaign
about the proper use of accessible parking spaces and
access aisles.
Bozeman Climate Plan
Prepared by Brendle Group
and Logan Simpson Group
2020 The Bozeman Climate Plan sets strategic priorities and actions
to address climate change impacts, with the goal of creating a
safe community while fostering a thriving economy and high
quality of life. The City of Bozeman aims to reduce carbon
emissions by 26% from 2008 levels by 2025, achieve 100%
clean electricity by 2030, and reach carbon neutral by 2050.
To meet these goals, the plan identifies three priorities followed
by actions:
Increase walking, bicycle, carpooling, and transit use.
Prioritize regional multimodal planning and connectivity.
Pursue innovative funding for pedestrian and bicycle
connections and network.
Improve maintenance of multimodal infrastructure.
Pursue sustainable transit funding and expansion.
Decrease direct vehicle emissions.
Support community EV roadmap development.
Collaborate to install publicly accessible EV infrastructure.
City fleet and transit EV investment.
Advocate for EV utility rates, incentives, infrastructure, and
efficiency standard.
Limit wasteful vehicle emissions.
Support EV group buy and outreach.
Improve air travel efficiency.
Build awareness of air travel impacts and alternatives.
Advocate for increased air travel efficiency.
No projects listed.
Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan
Prepared by Agency
Landscape + Planning,
Groundprint, Intrinsik
May 2019 Downtown Bozeman is experiencing rapid growth, with new
homes, offices, hotels, restaurants, and shops, attracting more
residents and jobs. To help accommodate the growth, the
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan established five
principles.
Parking
Improve and expand downtown parking by simplifying
parking requirements, adding on-street parking where
possible, and replacing the parking lot with a parking
structure at Olive Street and Black Avenue.
295
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-5
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Architecture, Leland
Consulting
The heart of a thriving Bozeman: Create connections within
downtown and surrounding districts and manage parking to
ensure balanced supply and demand.
More than a Main Street: Reinforce downtown as a city
center, through new and existing buildings and a diverse mix
of uses. Preserve the historic district and enhance
neighborhoods through context-sensitive development.
Walkable and accessible: Use streets, sidewalks, and alleys
as a safe and comfortable multimodal network and expand
transit and bicycle access.
Welcoming to everyone: Foster a place that is welcoming and
inclusive to people of all ages, incomes, abilities, and
backgrounds.
Connected to nature and culture: Ensure downtown open
spaces foster gathering, recreation, and local identity.
Highlight nature whenever possible
Wallace Avenue
Encourage mixed use development that reinforces
Wallace Avenue, Mendenhall Street, Babcock Street as
major corridors.
Encourage adaptive reuse or integration of design
elements that honor the area’s industrial heritage.
Remove parking on the eastside to minimize traffic
conflicts and pinch points.
Black Avenue
Test adding a pedestrian “scramble” intersection at
Black and Main Street that synchronizes pedestrian
walk signals in both directions at the same time.
Explore installing new traffic signals at the intersections
of Black Avenue with Babcock Street and Mendenhall
Street to reduce vehicular speeds, enhance multi-
modal functionality, and provide safer pedestrian
crossings through the center of downtown.
Grand Avenue
Enhance pedestrian intersections for easier crossings.
Introduce public art to add visual interest and
strengthen pedestrian environment.
Babcock Street
Install a two-way cycle track on Babcock Street.
Main Street
Reconfigure the roadway from four lanes to three,
removing one travel lane to create space to convert
existing parallel parking into angled parking.
Downtown circulator with a park-and-ride
Bi-directional circulator route that extends from Gallatin
County Fairgrounds to downtown Bozeman with stops
in Midtown, northeast of Bozeman Creek and connect
to the existing Bridger Park Downtown Garage and
proposed park-and-ride at the Gallatin County
Fairgrounds.
Provide better connections to Montana State University
and Bozeman Health
296
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-6
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Bozeman Community
Safety Action Plan
Prepared by Cambridge
Systematics
July 2013 The goal of the Bozeman Community Safety Action Plan is to
reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 25% by 2018.
From 2009 to 2011, Bozeman averaged one traffic fatality and
six serious injuries annually. In response, city officials and
community members convened at the Bozeman Community
Transportation Safety Summit and developed key actions
focused on reducing inattentive driving, increasing occupant
protection, and reducing bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Refer
to Table E.1 of the plan for a list of strategies.
No projects listed.
Bozeman Community Plan November 2020 The Bozeman Community Plan is a policy document that details
Bozeman’s future growth policy for land-use and development.
The goal of the plan is to guide the City’s community planning
and evaluate its actions moving forward. The plan outlines
goals, objectives, and actions relating to resilience,
neighborhoods, development, environment/parks/open lands,
mobility, economy, and regional coordination.
Future Land Use Map
Identify missing links in the multimodal system,
prioritize those most beneficial to complete, and pursue
funding for completion of those links
Revise current intersection level of service design
standards to multimodal level of service or traffic stress
for people walking, biking, and using transit
Gallatin County
Gallatin County Greater
Triangle Area
Transportation Plan
Prepared by Robert Peccia
and Associates
April 2022 The Gallatin County Greater Triangle Transportation Plan
provides recommendations to improve traffic safety,
sustainability, and multimodal connections between Bozeman,
Belgrade, Four Corners, and Gallatin Gateway. The county has
consistently outpaced the population growth of other Montana
counties, and this growth can be attributed to the evolving
economies of Bozeman and Belgrade, the continued expansion
of Montana State University, and migration patterns to the area.
Refer to Table 8 of the plan of projects with identified
funding.
Refer to Table 9 of the plan for transportation system
management improvement projects.
Refer to Table 10 of the plan for major street network
improvement projects.
Refer to Table 11 of the plan roadway system
expansion projects.
Refer to Table 12 of the plan for shared-use path
projects.
Refer to Table 13 of the plan for on-street bicycle
facilities projects.
Refer to Table 14 of the plan for spot improvements.
Gallatin Valley Sensitive
Lands Plan
December 2023 The Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan highlights sensitive
lands throughout the Gallatin Valley and identifies
recommendations to improve sensitive lands conservation and
management. Project goals include:
Secure the long-term ecological health of the region
No projects listed
297
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-7
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Create a regional model that identifies sensitive lands for
protection of clean water, wildlife connectivity, and productive
agriculture
Recommend how to protect the most sensitive resources
during unprecedented growth
Identify benefits and best practices for development in
harmony with the natural environment
Facilitate dialogue between city, county, agencies,
constituents, landowners, and developers
The plan also identifies regional transportation infrastructure
planning as a priority recommendation.
Triangle Trails Plan
Prepared by Sanderson
Stewart
November 2021 The Triangle Trails Plan aims to connect the trail system
throughout Bozeman, Belgrade, and Gallatin County while
establishing design standards for different trail types. The vision
of the trail system is to be connected, safe and welcoming, and
inclusive for all. Community members and stakeholders
consider the trail network as a highly valued community asset
that should serve travelers of all ages and abilities.
See page 24 of the plan for the map of proposed trails.
Although there is no timeline identified for new trail
construction or maintenance, the plan recommended
developing an evaluation framework to help prioritize
these efforts.
Triangle Community Plan
Prepared by Planning
Coordination Committee
July 2020 The Triangle Community Plan provides policies to coordinate
land use development patterns and community services and
infrastructure. The Triangle area’s boundaries are the Gallatin
River to the West, Frontage Road to the North, Fowler Avenue
to West Garfield Street to South 19th Avenue to the East, and
Blackwood Road to Four Corners Water and Sewer District to
the South.
Transportation policies include:
Create a network of streets that supports multimodal travel.
Improve safety for all roadway users.
Support a trail network to connect to community destinations
such as parks, schools, residential areas, and city centers;
and
Enhance transit access in underserved areas and new
development areas.
Policies in other areas that support transportation include:
Land use
Ensure infrastructure is in place prior to or is concurrent with
new development.
Separated bike pedestrian path along Huffine Lane
from Bozeman to Four Corners
298
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-8
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Reduce minimum parking requirements to support greater
housing density.
Open Space
Maintain and improve connections between open spaces.
Housing
Locate future housing near existing transportation
infrastructure.
Schools
Collaborate with schools on infrastructure and capital
projects, including complete streets, bike paths, sidewalks,
and trails.
Montana State
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
2024 Annual Report
Prepared by Montana
Department of Transportation
2024 The purpose of the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on public
roads. The 2024 annual report provides updates on the program
structure, progress in implementing highway safety
improvement projects, progress in achieving safety outcomes
and performance targets, and effectiveness of the
improvements and compliance assessment.
Roadway delineation and new pavement markings in
east Bozeman
Montana Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Deployment
Plan Update
Prepared by Montana
Department of Transportation
and Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
September 2024 The Montana Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Deployment
Plan Update builds on the 2022 EV Deployment Plan, with the
goal of creating a national network of EV chargers by 2030 that
is convenient, reliable, affordable, and accessible charging for
all EV drivers.
Four locations along I-90 in Bozeman were identified as
designated alternative fuel corridors:
31908 Frontage Road
2550 Catron Street
270 Automotive Avenue
8474 Huffine Lane
Montana Freight Plan
Prepared by Montana
Department of Transportation
2022 The Montana Freight Plan describes the state’s freight system,
highlights key issues, and sets goals to ensure a safe, efficient,
and reliable network.
The following key challenges were identified:
Commercial vehicle safety: Roads need to be maintained in a
good state of repair to move freight efficiently and safely.
Truck parking: Certain areas of Montana continue to face a
shortage of safe and secure parking facilities.
No projects listed.
299
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-9
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Infrastructure condition: Many of Montana’s older bridges are
deteriorating due to heavy or oversized freight loads and may
be unable to support heavy freight movements in the future.
Network reliability and mobility: Delays and congestion hinder
freight efficiency and movement.
The following goals were developed to enhance the freight
network:
Improve safety for freight operators.
Preserve and maintain existing transportation infrastructure.
Improve transportation project delivery and ensure system
reliability.
Promote responsible the stewardship of the built and natural
environment.
Support programs that increase the freight network’s
resilience to extreme weather and natural events.
Transportation Asset
Management Plan
Prepared by Montana
Department of Transportation
2022 The Transportation Asset Management Plan outlines how the
State of Montana evaluates and manages pavement and bridge
conditions. Montana has approximately 74,000 miles of center
lanes. About 44% of non-interstate highway roads are in fair
condition, 55% are in good condition, and 1% are in poor
condition. About 57% of interstate highways are in good
condition, 42% are in fair condition, and 1% are in poor
condition. There are 1,239 bridges across the highway network,
and 19% are in good condition, 74% are in fair condition, and
6% are in poor condition.
No projects listed.
ADA Transition Plan
Prepared by Robert Peccia
and Associates
November 2021 The Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Transition Plan provides
methods to help MDT comply with ADA regulations and remove
accessibility barriers in its communications, rights-of-way, and
buildings. The plan aims to establish a consistent approach in
delivering an accessible transportation system.
No projects listed.
Bozeman Yellowstone
International Airport Master
Plan
Prepared by Morrison Maierle
2020 The Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Master Plan
guides the growth of the airport for the next 20 years. The
airport has become the busiest airport in Montana and has built
more terminals, parking facilities, roadways, and runways to
meet demand since it was first built in the 1940s.
The following projects were recommended to meet the
demand of increased airport usage.
Runways
Extend Runway 12-30 to 10,828 feet.
Extend and widen Runway 11-29 to 8,500 feet by 150
feet.
300
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-10
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Extend Runway 3-21 to 5,100 feet.
Taxiways
Remove general aviation apron access taxiway that
aligns with connecting Taxiway A-2 to create a
staggered layout. A staggered layout will be created
with consideration of future high speed taxiway exit(s).
Extend all parallel taxiways with runway lengthening
projects or as otherwise developed (i.e. TW B planned
to be phased to accommodate north side hangar
development).
Consider addition of bypass taxiways and secondary
parallel taxiways to serve the existing runway system.
Consider addition of high-speed exits for capacity
improvement and operational efficiency.
Increase separation between Taxiway C and Runway
11-29 to 400 feet.
Resolve “hammerhead” taxiway issue at Runway 21
threshold.
Runway 12-30
Pursue improvement to the minimums of Runway 12-
30 with designation as a Category II Runway with a
Runway Visual Range (RVR) of 1,200 feet (1/4 mile).
As far as practicable, bring Runway 30 to the same
precision approach standards as Runway 12 including
the addition of ILS and approach lighting.
Runway 11-29
Pursue publication of a “sidestep maneuver” utilizing
ILS on Runway 12-30.
Reserve appropriate setbacks and RPZ dimensions for
additional future NPI RNAV/GPS approaches to
Runway 11-29.
Terminal Area
Provide for automobile parking expansion through
construction of parking garages and expansion of
parking lots for the general public, employees, and
rental car ready and return.
301
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-11
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Expand the terminal from the current 12 gates to 20
gates.
General Aviation
Add storage hangars for as many as 189 additional
storage positions, for both small and large aircraft.
Add apron space and parking positions throughout the
planning period.
Airport Support
Expand the Airport’s ARFF Building with the acquisition
of additional equipment.
Expand snow removal and equipment storage buildings
with the addition of new maintenance and snow
removal equipment, as required.
Plan for additional fuel storage facilities
Montana Comprehensive
Highway Safety Plan
Prepared by Montana
Department of Transportation
2025 The Montana Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan monitors,
analyzes, and addresses key factors that cause fatalities and
serious crashes, supporting the state’s commitment to Vision
Zero – the goal of eliminating all roadway fatalities and serious
injuries. The CHSP interim goal is to reduce fatalities and
serious injuries from 984 in 2023 to 729 by 2030. The plan
focuses on four priority areas:
Safe Roads
Emergency Response - Post-Crash Care
Safe Speeds/Safe Vehicles
Safe Road Users
To address these priorities, the CHSP outlines strategies aimed
at reducing fatal and serious injury crashes and improving safety
in each area.
No projects listed.
US 191 Corridor Study Four
Corners to Beaver Creek
Prepared by Robert Peccia
and Associates
October 2020 The US 191 Corridor Study Four Creeks to Beaver Creek
examines the intersection of Huffine Lane/Norris
Road/Jackrabbit Lane in Four Corners and the intersection of
Beaver Creek Road south of Big Sky to identify safety
improvements. Identified issues include:
Several locations in Gallatin Canyon were identified with rock
slope conditions, causing potential for rockfall events,
Refer to Table ES-1 of the plan for a list of
recommended improvements.
302
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-12
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
emergency road closures, and disruption of normal traffic
operations.
Two of the total 30 passing zones do not meet MDT design
standards.
A total of 16 horizontal curves and one vertical curve do not
meet current standards.
Traffic volumes are projected to grow at a rate of 2.4% per
year though 2040 based on historic growth trends. The Four
Corners intersection, Mill Street intersection, and MT 64
intersections are projected to experience failing operations
during AM and PM peak hours by 2040.
Wild animal, fixed object, rear-end, and rollover crashes were
the most common crash types.
Adverse road conditions, dark and not-lighted conditions, and
impaired driving were common crash factors.
Montana Pedestrian and
Bicycle Plan
Prepared by Robert Peccia
and Associates and Alta
Planning + Design
May 2019 The Montana Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan establishes a
statewide vision and goals to meet the needs of bicyclists and
pedestrians and improve safety across the region.
Reduce pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and serious injuries.
Educate, encourage, and promote safe and responsible travel
practices of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Preserve and maintain the pedestrian and bicycle
transportation system.
Improve mobility and accessibility for all.
Support walking and bicycling as important transportation
modes for access to destinations, economic vitality, and
health.
While no specific projects were identified, a list of recommended
strategies were developed to achieve the plan’s goals.
No projects listed.
Belgrade to Bozeman
Frontage Road Corridor
Study
Prepared by Robert Peccia
and Associates
May 2017 The Belgrade to Bozeman Frontage Road Corridor Study
identifies infrastructure to improve safety, mobility, and traffic
operations. Identified issues include:
Gaps in the sidewalk network
Many areas have poor drainage due to flat topography
The bridge located on RP 26.6 is in poor condition.
Refer to Table ES.1 of the plan for a list of
recommended improvements.
303
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-13
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
The intersection with Broadway Street, Oregon Street, and
Griffin Drive are projected to have failing operations in the
future.
382 crashes occurred between 2010 and 2015, in which there
were three fatal crashes.
Bridger Canyon Corridor
Planning Study
Prepared by Montana
Department of Transportation
April 2015 The Bridger Canyon Corridor Planning Study examines the
intersection of MT 86 to Story Mill Road. The corridor includes
private ranches, homes, Gallatin National Forest, the Bridger
Bowl alpine ski area, and Bohart Ranch. These destinations
attract a variety of travelers, and some roadways, like roadways
leading to ski resorts, are not designed to accommodate high
volumes of traffic. Roadways conditions are exasperated during
the winter season due to rain and snowfall.
No projects listed.
Montana Rest Area Plan
Prepared by Dowl HKM
February 2019
(partial update)
The Montana Rest Area Plan provides guidance for upgrading
aging infrastructure and addressing statewide rest area
demand. Bozeman’s rest area, located on 19th Avenue along
the I-90, permanently closed in May 2023 due to its deteriorating
condition and maintenance issues. The Three Forks Rest Area
in Wheatland, also along the I-90, opened in April 2024 and
replaced Bozeman’s rest area.
No projects listed.
Montana State Rail Plan
Prepared by Montana
Department of Transportation
December 2010 The Montana State Rail Plan describes the state of freight rail
system, provides historical and forecasted freight trends, and
ongoing efforts to expand passenger rail service throughout the
state.
State of the Freight Rail System
10 freight railroads operated 3,500 rail miles in Montana.
BNSF is the largest railroad operator in Montana, accounting
for 94% of the state’s Class I rail miles.
Union Pacific Railroad operates very little railroads but
provides a critical connection between the Port of Montana
and markets in western and southwestern US.
Other regional railroad operators include:
Dakota, Missouri Valley, and Western Railroad (DMVW)
Montana Rail Link (MRL)
Central Montana Rail (CRM)
Mission Mountain Railroad (MMT)
No projects listed.
304
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-14
Planning Document/Author Date Published Overview of the Document Key Projects from Studies
Transco Railway Products (TRRZ)
Butte, Anaconda, and Pacific Railway (BAP)
Global Rail Group (GRGL)
Alder Gulch Short Line Railroad
Historical and Forecasted Freight Trends
By 2035, total freight tonnage in Montana is projected to
increase by 101% to 216.8 million tons and by 2050 to 236
million tons
Passenger Rail Expansion
There is no passenger rail in southern Montana, but there is
a possibility of reinstating the passenger rail service along the
former North Coast Hiawatha route.
Amtrak operates the Empire Builder through northern
Montana
305
Gallatin Valley MPO LRTP Existing Conditions Report
6-1
306
Streamline/Gallatin Valley
UTD
Transit Strategic
Plan
November 2025
307
308
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
i
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
Introducing the Organizations and Plans ........................................................................................... 1-1
Organization of the Transit Strategic Plan ......................................................................................... 1-5
2 Existing Conditions....................................................................................................... 2-1
Gallatin Valley Context............................................................................................................................... 2-1
Transit Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 2-12
3 Long-Range Vision ..................................................................................................... 3-32
Current System Challenges ................................................................................................................... 3-32
Tenets of a Successful System ............................................................................................................. 3-35
Best Practices in Optimizing Transit Performance and Growing Ridership ....................... 3-37
Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................ 3-44
Long-Range Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 3-46
4 Implementation and Funding ..................................................................................... 4-1
Operations and Maintenance Costs ..................................................................................................... 4-1
Capital Costs .................................................................................................................................................. 4-2
Implementation Steps and Cost Summary ........................................................................................ 4-5
Funding Sources........................................................................................................................................... 4-5
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 MPO Boundaries ........................................................................................................................ 1-4
Figure 2 Population Growth .................................................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 3 Population Density .................................................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 4 Employment Growth ................................................................................................................ 2-4
Figure 5 Employment Density ................................................................................................................ 2-5
Figure 6 Major Employment Sectors ................................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 7 Population and Employment Density ................................................................................ 2-7
Figure 8 Median Home Listing Price in Gallatin County, 2017-2024 ...................................... 2-8
Figure 9 Renter-Occupied vs. Owner-Occupied Housing Units ................................................ 2-9
Figure 10 Transit Propensity ................................................................................................................... 2-11
Figure 11 Streamline Fixed-Route Service ........................................................................................ 2-13
Figure 12 Fixed Route Span and Frequency ..................................................................................... 2-14
309
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
ii
Figure 13 Historical Fixed-Route Ridership ...................................................................................... 2-16
Figure 14 Average Weekday Stop Ridership August 2021 – December 2022 .................... 2-16
Figure 15 Average Weekend Stop Ridership August 2021 – December 2022 .................... 2-18
Figure 16 Annual Route Ridership 2021-2023................................................................................. 2-19
Figure 17 Bus Stop Amenities ................................................................................................................ 2-20
Figure 18 Streamline Paratransit Service Area ................................................................................. 2-22
Figure 19 Historical Paratransit Ridership ......................................................................................... 2-23
Figure 20 Fixed-Route and Paratransit Fleets .................................................................................. 2-24
Figure 21 CatTracks Academic Year Routes ..................................................................................... 2-25
Figure 22 CatTracks Summer Route .................................................................................................... 2-26
Figure 23 Examples of Transit Priority Infrastructure: Bus Stops .............................................. 3-39
Figure 24 Examples of Transit Priority Infrastructure: Transit Lanes ....................................... 3-40
Figure 25 Examples of Transit Priority Infrastructure: Traffic Control ..................................... 3-41
Figure 26 Land Use Density and Recommended Transit Service ............................................. 3-42
Figure 27 Fixed Route and Paratransit Fleet Needs ...................................................................... 3-47
Figure 28 Recommended High-Frequency Transit Corridors .................................................... 3-48
Figure 29 Recommended Fixed Route Corridor Frequencies .................................................... 3-50
Figure 30 Updated Streamline Paratransit Service Area .............................................................. 3-51
Figure 31 Recommended Transfer Point Improvement Locations .......................................... 3-54
Figure 32 Recommended Belgrade On-Demand Transit Service Area .................................. 3-56
Figure 33 Recommended South Bozeman On-Demand Transit Service Area .................... 3-57
Figure 34 Recommended Four Corners On-Demand Transit Service Area .......................... 3-58
Figure 35 Recommended Late Night On-Demand Transit Service Area ............................... 3-59
Figure 36 Long-Range Vision Service Levels ....................................................................................... 4-1
Figure 37 Long-Range Recommendations Operations & Maintenance Cost Summary ... 4-2
Figure 38 Unit Costs for Capital Cost Estimation .............................................................................. 4-2
Figure 39 Long-Range Recommendations Capital Cost Summary ............................................ 4-4
Figure 40 Long-Range Implementation Steps and Cost Summary ............................................ 4-5
310
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCING THE ORGANIZATIONS
AND PLANS
Who is Streamline?
Streamline is the Gallatin Valley’s zero-fare public transportation service operator, offering
service within the cities of Bozeman and Belgrade, along with the urbanized areas of Gallatin
County. Streamline began service in 2006, following Montana State University College of
Engineering’s decade-long study of growing public transportation needs in Gallatin County.
This study culminated in the Greater Bozeman Area Transit Development Plan (TDP), which
laid the foundation for the transit system and helped facilitate a request for federal transit
funding from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT).
The Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) was selected as the organization best
suited to operate Streamline’s fixed route service, joining HRDC’s existing Galavan senior and
paratransit service. Rapid population growth in Gallatin County between 2010 and 2019 led
to a reassessment of Streamline service through the Redesign Streamline 2020 planning
process. The process resulted in a new TDP, which recommended near- and long-term
service changes. Recommended short-term service changes were implemented by Streamline
in 2021.
Continued population growth led to a change in the region’s classification from a rural area
to a small urban area during the 2020 United States Census. This reclassification meant that
non-profit agencies such as HRDC could no longer receive federal funding for operating
transit. In seeking a new agency to operate transit service in the Gallatin Valley and receive
federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5307 Urbanized
Area Formula Funding Program, local stakeholders recommended the creation of an urban
transportation district (UTD). The establishment of the Gallatin Valley Urban Transportation
District (GVUTD) was approved by voters in 2023.
311
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
1-2
Streamline’s Vision, Mission, and Values
Vision: Community connection through public transportation.
Mission: All district residents benefit from high-quality transit services that promote quality
of life and community identity.
Values:
Sustainability: Streamline is environmentally and fiscally sustainable.
Quality: Streamline provides transit services that are reliable, frequent, convenient,
safe, and comfortable.
Equity: Streamline improves equity in access to transportation and the availability of
transportation choices for all community members.
Collaboration: Streamline operates in concert with area institutions, nonprofits, local
governments, and the community.
Innovation: Streamline is creative and responsive to changing community needs,
patterns, and technologies.
Streamline’s Transit Strategic Plan
Building off the near- and long-term recommendations included in prior TDPs updated every
three to five years, Streamline’s Transit Strategic Plan is intended to be the long-range vision
for growing transit service in the Gallatin Valley. The Plan identifies current system challenges
and those observed in prior planning efforts and outlines the tenets of a successful transit
system in a Gallatin Valley context. The Plan recommends long-range transit service changes
and the needed capital infrastructure to support this growth, along with implementation
steps and potential sources of funding.
Streamline and the Gallatin Valley MPO’s Joint
Effort
The 2020 census marked an important milestone for the Bozeman area, with the population
surpassing 50,000 and launching the formation of the Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GVMPO). Federal regulations require MPOs to develop a Long-Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP), providing the opportunity for the City of Bozeman, City of
Belgrade, and urbanized areas in in Gallatin County within the MPO boundaries (shown in
Figure 1) to create a multi-decade vision for transportation infrastructure and mobility
programming. This process brings agency partners and the community to establish priorities
and shared values for the region.
312
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
1-3
The Gallatin Valley LRTP is a multi-decade plan that looks at all modes of transportation and
identifies future priorities for projects and funding. This federally required fiscally constrained
plan will help steer the community toward a healthier, safer, and more efficient future while
preserving and expanding mobility for all residents. The LRTP will build upon existing plans
and projects while identifying new opportunities to create an integrated transportation
system that meets the needs of community members. A strong transportation plan is critical
to the success of Gallatin Valley’s growth and prosperity.
In early 2025, Streamline and GVMPO partnered in engaging the services of Nelson\Nygaard
to integrate the Transit Strategic Plan into GVMPO’s first LRTP. While intended to be a
standalone document laying out the long-range vision for growing transit service in the
Gallatin Valley, the Transit Strategic Plan’s integration into the region’s first LRTP will start
transit on a strong foundation for future LRTP updates and ensure that transit is a key
component of regional mobility going into the future.
313
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
1-4
Figure 1 MPO Boundaries
Source: MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Streamline Transit Development Plan (TDP)
Streamline intends to refresh its ten-year vision for identifying transit service improvements
every three to five years through updates to the agency’s TDP. The first TDP, developed as a
result of Montana State University’s (MSU) study of growing transit needs in the region, laid
the foundation for the start of Streamline service in 2006. A TDP update focused on
maximizing access to opportunity with limited resources followed in 2020, with its near-term
recommendations being implemented in 2021. In Fall 2024, Streamline began the process of
314
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
1-5
refreshing the agency’s TDP. This update, recognizing the need for additional funding to
realize the region’s full transit potential, is intended to be the roadmap for achieving growth
in expanded service over a ten-year horizon. The TDP includes recommendations on more
frequent service to key destinations, longer hours of operation, and coverage to new areas.
Streamline plans to finalize the plan in 2025, with anticipated adoption by the GVUTD Board
in Winter 2025.
ORGANIZATION OF THE TRANSIT
STRATEGIC PLAN
This document outlines Streamline’s Transit Strategic Plan, intended to be the long-range
vision for growing transit service in the Gallatin Valley. The document is organized into the
following chapters:
Chapter 2 – Existing Conditions provides background context for the Gallatin Valley
region and describes Streamline’s existing service.
Chapter 3 – Long-Range Vision discusses the current challenges faced by transit in
the Gallatin Valley, outlines the tenets of successful transit systems, describes transit
performance best practices, and walks through the recommended components of
Streamline’s long-range vision.
Chapter 4 – Implementation and Funding outlines an estimate of the operations
and maintenance and capital funding required to realize the long-range vision
described in Chapter 3, presents a prioritized list of implementation steps for
achieving the vision, and describes potential sources of funding.
315
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-1
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter provides background context for the Gallatin Valley region and describes
Streamline’s existing service.
GALLATIN VALLEY CONTEXT
Population and Employment Growth and Trends
The data below represents trends within the Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Area
(GVMPA), referred to going forward as the study area. The study area has experienced rapid
growth over the past decade, with a compound annual growth rate of 3.3%1. As population
and employment opportunities continue to grow in the region, high-quality transportation
infrastructure and services should be a priority.
Population
Over the past decade, the population within the study area increased by 38% from 65,044
residents in 2013 to 89,855 residents in 2023 (Figure 2). Growth has slowed in recent years,
but the area has continued to add residents year over year.
1 American Community Survey, 2023
316
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-2
Figure 2 Population Growth
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023
Areas of high population density are clustered in downtown Bozeman, neighborhoods
surrounding MSU, and the River Rock development in Belgrade west of I-90, with about 8-19
people per acre. The majority of the study area has low population density with less than 2
people per acre (Figure 3).
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
317
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-3
Figure 3 Population Density
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
Employment
Jobs in the study area increased by 47% in the past decade, with a total of 56,759 jobs in
2022. The number of jobs decreased slightly in 2020, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
but have since surpassed pre-pandemic numbers (Figure 4). Major employment hubs are
concentrated in the Bozeman and Belgrade urbanized areas (Figure 5). The industries with
the most jobs are retail trade and educational services, which account for about one-quarter
318
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-4
of all jobs in the region (Figure 6). Other jobs (26.9%) include other services, waste
management, wholesale trade, finance and insurance, public administration, transportation,
and arts/entertainment, among others. As the region continues to grow, transportation
options need to be considered to connect people from where they live to where they work.
Figure 4 Employment Growth
Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2022
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
319
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-5
Figure 5 Employment Density
Source: Longitudinal Employer-House Dynamics (LEHD), 2022; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
320
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-6
Figure 6 Major Employment Sectors
Sector % of Total Employment Share
Retail Trade 13.9%
Educational Services 11.8%
Accommodation and Food Services 11.6%
Health Care and Social Assistance 10.6%
Construction 10.1%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 9.2%
Manufacturing 5.8%
Other 26.9%
Source: Longitudinal Employer-House Dynamics (LEHD), 2022
Population and Employment
Combining population and employment data can better highlight areas that are anticipated
to be more supportive of transit service. Locations with higher densities of population and
employment can benefit the most from transportation investments, and transit service is
more productive in these areas. As shown in Figure 7, the areas with the highest combined
population and employment density are concentrated in downtown Bozeman and
surrounding the university.
321
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-7
Figure 7 Population and Employment Density
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; Longitudinal Employer-House Dynamics
(LEHD), 2022; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
Changes in Affordability
Housing prices in the Gallatin Valley have risen at an exceptional pace, significantly outpacing
local wage growth and creating challenges in housing affordability. Given displacement
pressures from escalating housing costs, affordable transportation options are critical to
connect residents with jobs, schools, various services, and recreational opportunities.
322
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-8
Based on ACS 5-Year estimates for 2023, about 21% of households in the study area have an
annual income of less than $40,000. As of 2025, the official poverty rate, as defined by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $15,650 for an individual and $21,150 for a household with two
people. In 2023, 8.8% of Gallatin County residents were living below the poverty line, while
within the GVMPA, 11.2% residents live below the poverty line. Additionally, the median
home listing price in Gallatin County doubled between 2017 and 2023, posing challenges for
residents to live comfortably in the area (Figure 8). Home prices decreased in 2024 but are
still well above pre-pandemic prices and have overall increased by 68% since 2017. 55% of
study area residents own their home and 45% rent. This percentage may change in the future
if housing prices begin to rise and more people choose to rent due to the high price to
purchase a home (Figure 9). Vacant and part-time residential housing units are also an area
of focus due to Bozeman being an amenity destination during both the summer and winter
months. This impacts housing supply for full-time residents in an already constrained
market.2
Figure 8 Median Home Listing Price in Gallatin County, 2017-2024
Source: Realtor.com, 2024
2 “2025-2045 Bozeman Population and Housing Forecast.” Engage Bozeman, Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., 5 Sept. 2025.”
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
323
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-9
Figure 9 Renter-Occupied vs. Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023
Transit Propensity
Using select demographic, socioeconomic, and employment data can help determine the
overall transit need for a given area. Areas of higher propensity, or demand, are more likely
to generate ridership and support transit service that is provided.
To assess transit propensity, the following demographic and socio-economic factors were
used as individuals from these groups are more likely to use transit:
Young people between the ages of 15 to 24: Young people are less likely to have a
driver’s license or access to a vehicle and therefore have greater reliance on public
transit or other multimodal services to access their destinations. Additionally,
students at Montana State University are an important ridership base for public
transit services.
Older adults over 65 years old: People who are older than 65 years old may no
longer be able to drive due to aging-related changes in sight, hearing, and mobility.
Older adults are less able to utilize other active modal options and may rely solely on
others driving them places or public transportation. Older adult care facilities are
often located along bus routes to provide access for older adults.
People with a disability: People who are unable to drive alone or may require
additional assistance rely more heavily on public transportation, whether that be
fixed-route service or paratransit services.
Owner Occupied
55%
Renter Occupied
45%
324
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-10
Low-income households, defined as earning less than 150% of the federal
poverty level: Low-income households are more financially burdened by
transportation options and are likely to use transit due to the high costs of vehicle
ownership.
Zero-vehicle households: People without access to a vehicle are more reliant on
public transit to meet their travel needs that cannot be completed by walking, biking,
or rolling.
Minority persons: The Federal Transit Administration define a minority person as
one who self-identifies as American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African
American, Hispanic or Latino, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.3
Limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals: LEP is often an indicator of
immigrant communities, who are more likely to take transit.4
In the Gallatin Valley MPO area, using Census Journey to Work data, all seven of these
variables were associated with having a higher correlation of using transit than the overall
population. A composite transit propensity score was computed for each block group by
summing up the individual percentages of population or households in each block group
that met the given criteria. A higher composite score indicates a greater transit propensity. As
shown in Figure 10, downtown and northwest Bozeman have areas with the highest
propensity to use transit. A small portion in central Belgrade also has high transit propensity.
3 “Title VI Circular to 4702.1B.” Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration
Recipients, Federal Transit Administration, 1 Oct. 2012,
www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Title_VI_FINAL.pdf.
4 “Movement after Migration: Immigrants’ Disproportionate Reliance on Public Transportation.” Migration
Policy Institute, 21 Mar. 2021, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/movement-migration-immigrants-
public-transportation.
325
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-11
Figure 10 Transit Propensity
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, 2023; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of
Bozeman; City of Belgrade
Key Findings
The population within the GVMPA has grown steadily over the past decade,
increasing by 38 percent since 2013. The largest increase was from 2020 to 2021,
most likely due to the rise of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic and lower
cost of living.
326
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-12
Population density is concentrated in downtown Bozeman and neighborhoods
surrounding MSU. Belgrade also has a growing population.
Jobs increased by 47% in the past decade except for a slight decrease in 2020, during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Employment is concentrated in downtown Bozeman and
surrounding MSU.
The median home listing price in Gallatin County doubled between 2017 and 2023.
While listing prices have since decreased slightly, they are still well above pre-
pandemic levels.
Areas in downtown and northwest Bozeman have the highest propensity to use
transit, as well as areas of Belgrade.
TRANSIT CONDITIONS
System Overview
Fixed Route – Streamline
Streamline serves Bozeman with zero-fare connections in and around the city of Bozeman
and to Belgrade, as illustrated in Figure 11 below. Streamline offers fixed-route, commuter,
and seasonal transit service, as well as complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and senior paratransit services through Galavan. Streamline also operates a seasonal route
connecting Livingston to Bozeman from October to April. Streamline interconnects to the
Skyline Bus System for travel to and from Big Sky and Jefferson Lines Intercity Bus Service.
327
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-13
Figure 11 Streamline Fixed-Route Service
Source: Streamline; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
328
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-14
Span of Service and Frequency
On weekdays, Streamline operates four routes locally within Bozeman and one commuter
route between Bozeman and Belgrade. On weekends, four hourly local routes are available.
The Northeast Bozeman shuttle operates to provide direct service to social services, such as
the food bank and warming shelter, trails and local parks. Figure 12 provides an overview of
all Streamline routes.
Figure 12 Fixed Route Span and Frequency
Route Description Span Frequency
Alignment
Length
Number
of Stops
Weekday Blueline Serves north to south:
MSU, downtown
Bozeman, Walmart,
Smiths, Community
Health Partners, Family
Promise, and north
Bozeman shopping
center
6:45 am
- 9:45
pm
60 minutes, with
30-minute
service at peak
hours while MSU
is in session
14.2 miles 46
Weekday Goldline Connects residential
areas in west Bozeman
to the Gallatin Valley
Mall and MSU:
6:45 am
- 10:09
pm
60 minutes, with
30-minute
service at peak
hours while MSU
is in session
8.5 miles 31
Weekday Purpleline Serves east to west:
Bozeman Health,
downtown Bozeman,
Gallatin Crossing, and
Ferguson Farms
6:45 am
- 7:36
pm
60 minutes, with
30-minute
service at peak
hours
12.4 miles 39
Weekday Brownline Serves west Bozeman,
Gallatin High School,
Bozeman High School,
Bozeman Senior Social
Center, and downtown
Bozeman
6:45 am
- 6:47
pm
60 minutes 11.9 miles 52
Pinkline (Belgrade) Connects Bozeman and
Belgrade: Walmart,
downtown Belgrade,
Belgrade High School
7:04 am
-7:01
pm
Four trips in
each direction
20.4 miles 14
Livingston Seasonal service
operates between
October and April.
Serves Walmart, Ace
Hardware, Bozeman
Health, and MSU
5:50 am
-6:45
pm
One trip in the
morning and
evening
60.0 miles 6
329
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-15
Route Description Span Frequency
Alignment
Length
Number
of Stops
Late-night (not currently
operating)
Provides nighttime
service for MSU
7:55 pm
-2:25
am
30 minutes 6.6 miles 21
Weekend Blueline Serves same
destinations as
weekdays
9:13 am
- 6:13
pm
60 minutes 14.2 miles 46
Weekend Goldline Shortened line
connecting Gallatin
Crossing and MSU
9:32 am
- 5:54
pm
60 minutes 4.5 miles 31
Weekend Purpleline Shortened line
connecting Bozeman
Health, downtown
Bozeman, & Gallatin
Crossing
9:15 am
- 6:15
pm
60 minutes 8.7 miles 40
Weekend Brownline Serves same
destinations as
weekdays
9:16 am
- 6:16
pm
60 minutes 11.9 miles 52
Shuttle to Northeast
Bozeman
Connects to HRDC’s
Community Commons
campus, Market Place
building, Story Mill Park,
and Glen Lake Rotary
Park
9:35 am
-7:00
pm
Six daily trips 2.5 miles 3
Source: Streamline
330
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-16
System Ridership
Streamline has experienced a significant drop in ridership during the COVID-19 pandemic
(Figure 13). Ridership has been slow to recover, and current ridership is only at 30% of pre-
pandemic levels. 5 Several factors have contributed to this slow recovery, including staff
shortages, the inability to operate 30-minute peak services, and the suspension of the Late-
night route. Additionally, ridership is heavily influenced by the academic calendar at MSU,
with levels dropping during summer and winter breaks and rising again when classes resume.
As of September 2023, seasonal 30-minute peak service resumed on the Blueline, Goldline,
and Purpleline routes in alignment with MSU’s new semester.
Figure 13 Historical Fixed-Route Ridership
Source: Streamline
Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. and Figure 15 show the weekday and weekend
daily boardings for all bus stops in Streamline’s system from August 2021 to December
2022.6 For both weekdays and weekends, the three stops with the highest ridership are
Walmart, Mendenhall & Black (Downtown Transfer Station), and the MSU Strand Union
Building. The majority of bus stops have five or less daily weekday riders, which correlates
with the routes that have the lowest ridership overall.
5 Streamline Transit Development Plan, 2024
6 Streamline Transit Development Plan, 2024
331
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-17
Figure 14 Average Weekday Stop Ridership August 2021 – December 2022
Source: Streamline; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
332
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-18
Figure 15 Average Weekend Stop Ridership August 2021 – December 2022
Source: Streamline; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
333
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-19
As shown in Figure 16, ridership on all routes has continued to grow, with the exception of
the Brownline and Pinkline.7 Streamline implemented service improvements and route
changes in August 2021, and ridership has increased overall since then. Prior to the changes,
Streamline averaged around 9,000 riders per month in 2021, and by 2023, Streamline a
averaged nearly 11,500 riders per month. The Blueline has the highest ridership at 70,000
riders in 2023 and serves the top three bus stops. The second highest ridership route, the
Goldline, had 30,000 riders in 2023, and serves one of the top bus stops at MSU, and also the
fourth-busiest stop at Gallatin Crossing. The Purpleline has also grown since 2021, providing
service to the Gallatin Crossing and to the Downtown Transfer Station at Mendenhall &
Black, another top-three stop. Similarly, the Brownline and Pinkline only serve one of the key
ridership stops, which provides insight into their lower ridership numbers compared to the
Blueline.
Figure 16 Annual Route Ridership 2021-2023
Source: Streamline
7 Streamline Transit Development Plan, 2024
334
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-20
Bus Stops and Amenities
Streamline currently has 162 active stops in its system (Figure 17). Based on a September
2025 review of existing bus stops using Google Street View imagery, 113 stops are marked
with a pole, sign face, and route indicator. Ten of these stops have a shelter and bench, and
one has a standalone bench. The 49 stops without signage are primarily located along the
following corridors, several of which being federal-aid, MDT-maintained roadways:
7th Ave
Huffine Ln
Main St
Oak St
Rouse Ave
When installing or replacing transit stop signage along such roadways, MDT considers the
work a catalyst requiring transit agencies make ADA upgrades to fully bring the area into
compliance. While important, these improvements are often disproportionate to the scale
and cost of the signage project, substantially increasing expenses compared to installations
on local roadways. Being key mobility corridors, MDT roadways form a core part of the
network on which Streamline services operate and this requirement has a broad cost impact
on maintaining or improving transit stop signage.
Figure 17 Bus Stop Amenities
Amenity Number of Stops Percent
Signage 102 63%
No Signage 49 30%
Signage + Shelter + Bench 10 6%
Signage + Bench 1 1%
Total Bus Stops 162 100%
Source: Streamline, Google Street View
335
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-21
Paratransit – Galavan
Streamline operates complementary door-to-door paratransit service through its Galavan
program. As shown in Figure 18, the service operates within two miles of regular Streamline
fixed-routes service, which is beyond the legal minimum of ¾-mile as set by ADA
requirements. Galavan ridership has trended similarly to the fixed-route service with slow
recovery after the drop in ridership that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, and
ridership has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels (Figure 19). In 2019, Galavan averaged
about 2,400 riders each month, while in 2023, the service had about 1,600 riders per month.8
8 Streamline Transit Development Plan, 2024
336
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-22
Figure 18 Streamline Paratransit Service Area
Source: Streamline; MDT; GVMPO; Gallatin County; City of Bozeman; City of Belgrade
337
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-23
Figure 19 Historical Paratransit Ridership
Source: Streamline9
9 Streamline Transit Development Plan, 2024
338
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-24
Fleet and Facilities
Streamline has 11 vehicles in its fixed-route fleet and seven vehicles in its paratransit fleet for
Galavan services. An additional seven fixed-route vehicles and two paratransit vehicles have
been procured by the agency but are not in service as of September 2025. A detailed fleet
roster of both services with age and replacement year is show in Figure 20.
Figure 20 Fixed-Route and Paratransit Fleets
Service
Number of
Vehicles Year Make
Replacement
FY
Galavan 1 2015 Ford 2020
Fixed-Route 2 2016 GILLIG 2024
Fixed-Route 1 2017 IC Bus 2024
Galavan 1 2017 Ford 2022
Galavan 1 2017 Dodge 2028
Galavan 1 2019 Ford 2023
Galavan 1 2021 Ford 2025
Fixed-Route 4 2021 El Dorado 2029
Fixed-Route 4 2023 El Dorado 2033
Fixed-Route 4* 2023 El Dorado 2033
Galavan 1 2023 Ford 2031
Galavan 1* 2023 Ford 2031
Fixed-Route 3* 2024 El Dorado 2034
Galavan 1 2024 Ford 2031
Galavan 1* 2024 Ford 2031
Source: Streamline; vehicles marked with * are yet to be delivered to Streamline and are not currently in use
Streamline has one major transfer station, located at the Bridger Park garage in downtown
Bozeman, where riders can transfer between the Blueline, Purpleline, and Brownline. The
transfer station has capacity for two buses without independent pull-in/pull-out. An indoor
waiting area for passengers is provided within the Bridger Park garage, however the waiting
area is closed as of September 2025 due to a plumbing issue. The waiting area is expected to
reopen in 2026.
Streamline shares its operations and maintenance facility with the City of Bozeman at 1812
Rouse Avenue in northeast Bozeman. The current facility stores the paratransit vehicles for
the Galavan program and is close to reaching storage capacity.
339
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-25
Other Local and Regional Providers
CatTracks Campus Shuttle
CatTracks is pilot program that provides MSU with a parking shuttle service. The shuttles
connect MSU’s perimeter parking lots to key locations on the main campus. The service runs
every 30 minutes on weekdays from 7am to 6pm.
During the academic year, two routes operate one-way loop service: the Blue line operates
on a westbound loop, and the Gold line operates on an eastbound loop (Figure 21). From
May to August, the Summer line replaces the Blue and Gold line service with one route that
combines key destinations from both (Figure 22).
Figure 21 CatTracks Academic Year Routes
Source: Montana State University
340
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-26
Figure 22 CatTracks Summer Route
Source: Montana State University
Skyline
Skyline is the public transportation service that operates Big Sky Connect within Big Sky as
fare-free on-demand services. Skyline also operates fixed-route Link buses between Big Sky
and Bozeman seven days a week. The Link route overlaps with the Streamline Blueline at the
Walmart bus stop and the Goldline and Blueline at MSU before continuing to Four Corners
and then south to Big Sky. Fares are required on Link buses, and schedules differ between
the summer and fall seasons.
HRDC Community Commons
The Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) is the founding organization of
Streamline. In addition to Streamline’s fixed routes, shuttle service was implemented to
northeast Bozeman for riders to access the new Community Commons campus. Shuttles
operate six trips on weekdays excluding holidays. The shuttles operate from 9:30am to 7pm
and serve the downtown transfer station, Walmart, and HRDC Market Place.
341
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-27
Bridger Bowl
Streamline operates weekend seasonal bus service in partnership with Bridger Bowl to
connect visitors to the ski area with Park & Ride locations at MSU and the Gallatin County
Fairgrounds. Bridger Bowl is committed to operating their ski areas in the most socially
responsible manner possible, and partnering with Streamline to provide transportation
service significantly reduces the impact on Bridger Canyon Road during peak ski access
times. Shuttle service also helps address parking capacity issues at Bridger Bowl.
Reach
Reach is a non-profit organization that supports adults with developmental disabilities. Reach
has a fleet of 20 vehicles to provide transportation services to clients to get to work,
appointments, recreational activities, and other transportation needs. In order to receive
services, you must be eligible for Medicaid and qualify for the state’s Developmental
Disability Program (DDP).
Karst Stage
Karst Stage is a charter-bus provider that operates an airport shuttle service for passengers
going from Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport to Big Sky, West Yellowstone, and
Mammoth. The company is also the contracted provider for Streamline bus operators and
maintenance workers. Karst Stage was acquired by Jefferson Lines in April 2025.
First Student
First Student is the contracted provider for school bus service to the Bozeman school district
and surrounding area. The company also provides charter bus service for other contracted
trips in the area.
Gallatin County Rest Home
Gallatin Rest Home is a county owned and operated senior living facility in Bozeman. The
facility provides transportation services for its residents to take to medical-related
appointments in and around Bozeman.
Taxis, Shuttles, and TNCs
Taxi service throughout the area is offered by Greater Valley Taxi, Montana Yellow Cab,
DeShields Rideshare Taxi, Spartan Taxi, and Bridger Taxi. Major hotels offer shuttle service
to/from the airport, and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft
operate in the area.
342
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-28
West Yellowstone
The West Yellowstone Foundation operates on-demand roundtrip transit service from West
Yellowstone, Big Sky, Belgrade, and Bozeman every Tuesday and Thursday. Advanced
reservations are required on a first-come, first-served basis, and medical appointment
transportation requests are given priority.
Windrider Transit
Windrider Transit provides fare-free, fixed-route public and paratransit services within Park
County. Dial-A-Ride (DAR) services are available for medical appointments to Bozeman on
Tuesday and Wednesdays.
Angel Line
Angel Line provides door-to-door transportation service to residents of Livingston and the
surrounding communities. Angel Line is open to anyone 60 years of age or older and to
anyone with a doctor’s letter of disability. Angel Line is available for all trip purposes
including medical appointments, work, and recreation, on weekdays excluding holidays.
Madison County Transit
Madison County Transit currently provides a senior citizen shuttle service to Bozeman twice a
week on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and on the 4th week of each month, provides an additional
trip on Wednesdays. Riders must call the service to schedule a reservation in advance.
343
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-29
Market Assessment
A transit market assessment was completed in 2024 as part of Streamline’s in-progress
Transit Development Plan update. The market assessment analyzed key characteristics of the
physical environment and customer demand to better understand mobility needs in the
Gallatin Valley. It was comprised of four components—density, destinations, design, and
demand—using data from the US Census 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year
estimates. Because densities of key socioeconomic metrics were discussed earlier in Chapter
2, this section will review the remaining three components.
The destinations analysis reviewed existing and future land use, zoning, and major activity
generators to understand activity demand and generation throughout the region. Future
development and land use in the region will be focused on expanding mixed-use
development in key corridors, which will inform Streamline’s growth as well. Currently, major
activity generators such as MSU, Bozeman Health, and core commercial and retail districts
are served by Streamline service. Secondary trip generators such as public parks and schools
and rapidly growing parts of Belgrade are not served by current fixed routes and could be
potential markets.
The design analysis assessed how the current built environment influences people’s ability to
use transit and where transit can be most successful. Streamline’s current service is within
areas with high intersection density, which allows the buses to travel more efficiently and
pedestrians to connect to many different streets. Walkability is confined to the central areas
of both Bozeman and Belgrade and decreases at the outskirts of the cities as land uses
become less intense and street layouts move away from the traditional grid pattern
The demand analysis examined how people travel in the region as a whole as compared to
transit travel using Replica data. Replica compared 2019 to 2023 weekday travel across all
modes and saw a 33% increase, which aligns with the region’s rapid growth. Morning trips
between 6am and 7am continue to be popular, which may be an opportunity for Streamline
to grow ridership by starting service earlier than 7am. Most trips were found to be less than
four miles long and were most commonly taken for shopping, work, and school trips. The
most common origin-destination pairs in the area were between north of downtown
Bozeman and MSU and between the center of Belgrade and east of it. These are key areas
planned for more development and contain block groups with the most residents traveling
from them.
344
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-30
Phase 1 TDP Community Engagement Survey
The TDP Community Engagement Survey was conducted between August and November
2024 and gathered feedback on the needs of preferences of riders and non-riders across the
Gallatin Valley. The feedback was used to make recommendations and strategies for transit
services. Altogether, 639 responses were collected for this survey. Respondents were
categorized into transit riders, former riders, and non-riders.
Key findings across all groups include:
Participants are familiar with both Streamline and Galavan. However, college students
are more likely to only be familiar with Streamline.
Students use Streamline services more than non-students, reflecting Streamline’s
focus on serving MSU students.
Participants want more service during the morning peak hours between 6am and
7am and afternoon peak hours between 3pm and 6pm.
Participants want more transit services to the Bozeman Yellowstone International
Airport, Four Corners, the YMCA, Billings Clinic Bozeman, Livingston, and Bridger
Bowl.
Transit riders:
Transit riders use Streamline four or more times a week.
The most common trips that riders take are to the university and tech school,
personal/recreational/social activities, and work.
Most participants do not typically transfer buses to complete their trips.
Former riders:
Participants who no longer use transit are more likely to drive.
The primary reasons former riders no longer use transit include:
Infrequent or insufficient service
Inefficient routes
Lifestyle changes
Use of other modes of transportation
Non-riders:
The most common reason non-riders do not take transit is because of the lack of bus
stops near their destinations.
Participants indicated that they are more likely to take transit if bus frequency
increased and more bus stops were added.
345
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
2-31
About 40% of participants indicated that they would be more likely to ride if their
desired conditions were met.
Key Findings
Historical trend data gives insight into Streamline’s previous performance levels and
the state of the system today.
Fixed Route
Before the pandemic, ridership on the fixed-route network was variable
throughout the year with approximately 30,000 monthly boardings from October
to April and dropping as low as 15,000 during the summer months. This is likely
influenced by MSU’s academic calendar.
Ridership has been slow to recover, and while there is still seasonal variability,
there is more stability in ridership numbers month over month, which could
indicate more riders are using the service year-round.
The Blueline is the highest ridership route in the system with over 70,000 riders in
2023. The Goldline and Purpleline are the next highest ridership routes with
30,000 and 20,000 riders in 2023 respectively.
The three bus stops with the highest daily ridership are Walmart, Mendenhall &
Black (downtown Bozeman transfer station), and the MSU Strand Union Building.
The Blueline serves all three of these stops, while the other lines serve only one or
two of the highest ridership stops.
Out of 162 bus stops in the system, only 13 stops (6%) have a shelter and
seating.
The market assessment performed in the TDP identified secondary trip-
generators such as public parks, schools, and areas of Belgrade and new markets
for service. Replica data in the market assessment also identified that trips
between 6am and 7am are popular and could therefore be captured by
Streamline if service hours were expanded to earlier than 7am.
Paratransit
Galavan ridership has trended similarly to the fixed-route service with slow
recovery after the drop in ridership due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and ridership
has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels. Galavan has about 1,600 monthly
riders in 2023, while pre-pandemic ridership averaged 2,400 per month.
Community Engagement
Students use Streamline services more than non-students
346
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-32
Respondents want more morning service between 6am and 7am and more
afternoon peak service between 3pm and 6pm, as well as more service to
Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, Four Corners, the YMCA, Billings
Clinic, Livingston, and Bridger Bowl.
The most common reason non-riders do not take transit is because of lack of
service near their destinations. Former transit riders expressed similar reasons for
no longer using transit because of infrequent service and inefficient routes.
3 LONG-RANGE VISION
This chapter discusses the current challenges faced by transit in the Gallatin Valley, outlines
the tenets of successful transit systems, describes transit performance best practices, and
walks through the recommended components of Streamline’s long-range vision.
CURRENT SYSTEM CHALLENGES
The current transit network in Bozeman offers primarily coverage-based service that connects
the region’s major destinations and serves most critical transit markets but faces several
challenges. These are listed below.
Transit service in Gallatin Valley is limited and operates infrequently. Although
Streamline provides good coverage to many of the most important destinations, the service
operates infrequently, making it time-consuming to travel across town. Additionally, the
limited service makes it difficult for passengers to transfer between routes, thereby limiting
the overall access that the transit system provides.
Streamline cannot expand service because their storage facility is at capacity. The
current facility where buses are stored is unable to handle additional vehicles. Until the
facility is expanded or a new facility is identified, no additional vehicles can be purchased,
and service will not be able to expand. This prevents an increase in frequency or the addition
of new routes to the current network. Relocating the storage facility may positively impact
operating costs and bus scheduling. Streamline could consider coordinating with other
347
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-33
agencies on storage options that would provide better location for vehicles to reduce
deadheading and other operating costs.
Lack of a well-connected street network. Travel within the Gallatin Valley is not always
direct, due to a street network that is inconsistent and missing connections. This is the result
of uncoordinated development and movement away from a gridiron network.
Many streets lack pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The largest, busiest, and most
direct streets are best suited for transit service. However, often, these streets lack sidewalks,
crosswalks, and other amenities for people traveling on foot. Most of these streets were not
designed with pedestrians or transit use in mind when they were developed, and this poses
access and safety challenges for transit as well as psychological barriers for riders.
Many bus stops lack signage or accessibility. Signs indicating bus stop locations do not
exist at many stops on Streamline’s network. Additionally, many stop locations do not meet
ADA requirements and lack amenities. Investments in existing stops are not being made due
to concerns about the cost of upgrades to meet ADA requirements.
The Downtown Transfer Station is inadequate. The facility has capacity for only two buses,
and these spaces don’t allow for independent pull-in/pull-out. The Transfer Station includes
an indoor waiting area for passengers that protects them from the elements (the indoor
waiting area is temporarily closed due a plumbing issue in the parking garage but expects to
reopen in 2026). Also, the location of the bus stop buses is not visible from the indoor
waiting area, meaning riders are less likely to use the indoor area as to not miss their bus.
Major destinations lack sufficient transit signage and have insufficient routing. Gallatin
Crossing is currently one of the busiest stops in the system, however the stop locations lack
sufficient signage and amenities to indicate its presence. Transit at major destinations should
be clearly visible, and explicit that they are a place to access bus service to connect to other
parts of the community. Additionally, the stops require buses to travel through parking lots
which can add time and introduce delays. For bus routes that terminate at Gallatin Crossing,
there are no dedicated areas for drivers to take a break and use restrooms.
Transit service is not well-coordinated with MSU. MSU is the largest institution in
Bozeman and generates a significant share of the demand. MSU students are a robust transit
market, but they are not fully being served.
Transit service is not keeping pace with growth. The growth in population and jobs within
the Gallatin Valley has led to new development, and new travel patterns. However, the
region’s transit network coverage and service levels have not expanded to match that
growth. As the region continues to grow, serving new areas will continue to be a challenge.
Increased traffic congestion is requiring more time in transit schedules. As the
population increases and traffic volumes go up, there are more vehicles on the road that add
348
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-34
to traffic delays and congestion. As buses share the same streets with cars and trucks, buses
are slowed down and increasingly take a longer time to run the same routes. This increases
operating costs and can lead to reduced service without a commensurate increase in
operating hours and buses.
There are not sufficient amenities and infrastructure for operators. Bus operators take
time at the end of a trip to take breaks, and to add extra time between trips to ensure the
system operates on on-schedule. Restroom facilities are currently lacking at end-of-the lines.
349
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-35
TENETS OF A SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM
To develop a successful transit system, there are various actions and investments that cities
and transit agencies should consider. Although not every region is the same, many of these
characteristics can be scaled for larger or smaller jurisdictions.
Provide frequent transit service. Bozeman and Belgrade are small communities by area.
The size of these communities means someone can reach most destinations in a short
amount of time. At such short distances, driving is faster and easier than other modes for
most trips. With transit, for example, wait times for the bus can easily be as long as the travel
time itself. Therefore, transit can only compete if service is more frequent than hourly service.
Service every 30-minutes is a good start, but even more frequent service will be most useful
for the shortest trips and will support longer trips as well.
Make transfers easy. It is not possible for transit to connect all potential start and end
points for all trips in a city, even in small cities like Bozeman or Belgrade. Therefore, some
trips on transit will require a transfer between two or more routes. To facilitate transfers, the
transfer locations should provide good facilities, and access to services. Transfers could be
made at intersections of two routes, or at a dedicated facility like a transit center.
At intersections of two routes, there should be consideration for access and safety (including
crosswalks and traffic controls), amenities for passengers (benches for waiting,
shelters/heaters for weather protection, shade offering protection from the sun), and
proximity to key destinations such as libraries, colleges, grocery stores, and other commercial
and retail businesses.
Where routes connect at a transit center, there should be plenty of seating, access to
restrooms, signage and real-time arrival information, and weather protection with shelters or
indoor waiting areas.
Focus on serving key population groups. Some groups of people, particularly college
students and low-income workers, tend to rely on transit at much higher rates than the
general population. Although these groups are not the only market for transit, serving these
groups well is an effective way to capitalize on the transit demand that exists. However, it is
important not to isolate these groups, and to instead serve the mobility needs of all groups.
For example, university transit demand should be integrated into the systemwide transit
network. Student housing should be connected to the university, but also to other parts of
town where students may want or need to travel. These routes should also serve the demand
of residents who are not affiliated with the university.
On-demand services support lower-demand areas. Fixed-route service works best for
areas with sufficient demand to warrant consistent, all-day service. But some areas are not
dense enough to warrant service, even though some level of transit service may be needed.
350
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-36
In these instances, on-demand service may be the most cost-effective way to serve the needs
of people living in or traveling to these areas.
Provide accessible and recognizable bus stops. Bus stops serve as the front door to transit
service; if people cannot reach a bus stop, they will not use the transit network. Bus stops
should be clear and recognizable for all users, as this can also serve as a marketing tool to
indicate the presence of transit. Additionally, bus stops should be well-located to maximize
access to surrounding areas based on the street network and street crossings.
Transit and development decisions should be coordinated. As cities expand and
neighborhoods change, transit services should adjust to account for new markets and
changes in travel patterns. As cities grow, routes should be extended, especially if the growth
is high density development or includes major activity centers. Existing neighborhoods may
also change, including new infill development, or even population loss if demographics or
economics change. This requires adjusting service levels to meet overall demand across the
service area. The transit service should be focused on where it is needed most, with frequent
services connecting the most important, high-demand corridors.
Build partnerships and collaborate with regional partners. Although transit services may
be provided by a single transit agency, it requires strong relationships with other agencies
and local governments. Important partnerships include the local municipalities who maintain
the streets on which transit vehicles operate and have a lot of influence on transit speed and
reliability, bus stop locations, pedestrian access, and signal delay. Other important
partnerships are with major employers and educational institutions who may contribute to
most of the ridership and have a strong role in the success of transit.
Partnerships with universities may include coordination on scheduling to serve key times of
day, stop locations on or near campus, funding agreements to financially contribute to transit
services, and serving travel demand between student housing and the university. Community
partnerships are discussed further in the following section.
Provide service in the late evening for service workers. The busiest times of day on the
transportation network is usually in the morning and in the evening, when there is a
convergence of travel to and from work, to and from school, and for medical, social, and
other purposes. The higher travel demand and limited capacity of the roadway network tend
to result in more intensive transit service during these times of day. However, service workers
often work later in the evening and during the night, and these are times when there is
overall less service.
Providing access to jobs is an important function of transit networks, and this includes for
people who work non-traditional schedules. These transit services are particularly important
for workers in downtown or university areas, where parking is constrained and/or expensive.
351
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-37
Additionally, late evening service may also benefit other groups such as students or people
traveling to evening entertainment and can reduce impaired driving.
BEST PRACTICES IN OPTIMIZING
TRANSIT PERFORMANCE AND GROWING
RIDERSHIP
Community Partnership Opportunities
While improvements to bus and paratransit services are important opportunities to consider,
there are other transit modes and services that can help expand mobility in the region. These
services may supplement or enhance existing services and relate to broader community goals
of connectivity and mobility. The following partnerships have been discussed with
stakeholders and will be explored further.
Montana State University CatTracks
MSU’s CatTracks service is a pilot program that provides an important connector for
students, staff, and visitors to the university. There is an opportunity for Streamline to
coordinate more closely with MSU on delivering service in and around the campus area.
Currently, CatTracks service overlaps with parts of Streamline’s Blueline and Goldline routes.
Enhanced coordination could help ensure routes are not duplicative and competing for the
same riders. Resources such as bus stops, transfer stations, and layover facilities could also be
shared between the two to provide the best service to meet campus needs.
Recreation Shuttle
The GVMPO area is uniquely positioned nearby many outdoor recreation activities and
attractions, and as a result, residents and visitors need a way to reach them. Seasonal transit
services to trailheads or ski areas can not only connect people to them who do not have
access to a car but can also help alleviate problems with limited parking at recreation sites.
Streamline’s existing Bridger Bowl service could be replicated for other outdoor attractions
with partnership opportunities to help fund the service.
Some examples of recreational shuttle services currently operating are:
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority zero-fare fall transit pilot or Maroon Bells
shuttle in Aspen, CO
LINK Transit ski shuttle in Chelan County, WA
352
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-38
Cascades East Transit float shuttle in Bend, OR
Boulder County Recreational Shuttles fare free shuttles in Boulder, CO.
Micromobility Support
Micromobility refers to lightweight vehicles such as scooters and bikes meant to travel short
distances. Micromobility systems involve fleets of shared-use micromobility devices that can
be rented for point-to-point trips. These fleets can consist of e-scooters, pedal bikes, or
pedal-assist electric bikes (e-bikes), or a combination of types. Micromobility systems are
typically either dockless, where devices can be picked up or dropped off in the public right-
of-way, or station-based with designated docking stations for the devices to return to.
Transit agencies can partner with micromobility service providers to offer first- and last-mile
connections to fixed route service, extending access to transit beyond typical ¼ or ½-mile
walksheds. Priority locations for implementing micromobility alongside transit include key
transit centers and transfer facilities, transit stops along high-frequency routes, transit stops
connecting to the active transportation network (shared use paths, trails, and bike lanes), and
within activity centers such as downtown cores, university campuses, and retail centers.
Transit Priority Infrastructure
Buses operate in shared roadways with other traffic, making transit susceptible to traffic
delays and increased signal delay. Dwell time at stops also increases variability of travel time
and can make it difficult for buses to keep up with signal timing to facilitate vehicle
movement. Transit priority infrastructure focuses on improving bus delay and prioritizing bus
movements over general traffic. Figure 23 details various infrastructure improvements proven
to enhance bus speed and reliability, outlining the types of locations where an improvement
is suitable, how transit benefits from the improvement, and a high-level assessment of the
level of effort required to implement. Examples include enhancements to bus stop placement
and design, allocated space for bus travel, and traffic control methods. Coordination with
local jurisdictions would be required for implementation of this infrastructure. Specifically, if
any were planned on a federal-aid, state maintained route, additional collaboration with MDT
would be required.
353
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-39
Figure 23 Examples of Transit Priority Infrastructure: Bus Stops
Treatment Description Benefits Example Level of
Effort
Farside
Bus Stops
Farside stops are placed
after intersections, allowing
buses to clear signals before
picking up or dropping off
passengers. Suitable for
stops where the farside land
use is available for a new
stop.
Minimizes bus delay
at red lights after
pausing to pick up
or drop off
passengers
because the bus will
clear the
intersection first
Low
Bus Stop
Balancing
Stop balancing is relocating
or consolidating stops to
optimize the space between
stops. These are beneficial
for routes with several close-
together, lower ridership
stops.
Reduces dwell time
and deceleration/
acceleration time,
and more efficient
use of limited bus
stop infrastructure
Low
Curb
Extension
Curb extensions extend the
curb and sidewalk out to the
edge of the parking lane to
create an in-lane bus stop.
Suitable for local collector
roads with more pedestrian
activity.
Reduces delay from
merging into travel
lane and improves
pedestrian visibility
and safety
Medium
Transit
Island
Transit islands feature a bike
lane behind the station area
while providing an in-lane bus
stop. Best suited for locations
with higher bicycle and
pedestrian activity.
Reduces delay from
merging into travel
lane and improves
pedestrian visibility
and safety
Medium
Near-Level
Boarding
The platform is slightly below
the bus floor, with a minimal
ramp or bridge plate used to
close the gap. Typically
implemented at key stops or
transit centers with raised
curbs or specialized boarding
areas.
Improves boarding
speed, accessibility,
and service
reliability with lower
costs than full level
boarding.
High
Source: Nelson\Nygaard
354
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-40
Figure 24 Examples of Transit Priority Infrastructure: Transit Lanes
Treatment Description Benefits Example Level of
Effort
Peak Hour
Lane
Peak hour lanes are either
exclusively or primarily for
transit use during specified
hours, usually during times
of highest demand.
Suitable for high-traffic
roads where the bus
experiences the most delay
during peak hours.
Buses take
precedence over
parking and
curbside access
during hours when it
most benefits bus
operations
Medium
Bus on
Shoulder
A transit operation strategy
where buses are allowed to
use the highway shoulder
(within constraints) to
bypass traffic congestion
when traffic is moving
extremely slow, typically
under 35 MPH. Buses re-
enter the regular travel lane
when traffic speeds up.
Improves bus speed
and reliability while
using shoulders in a
cost-effective
manner.
Medium
Dedicated Bus
Lane
Dedicated bus lanes are for
exclusive use by public
transit vehicles to minimize
conflict with other vehicles.
Most suitable for arterial
roads where buses
experience high delay.
Improves bus
speeds and travel
time because buses
are separated from
mixed through traffic
and not stuck in
congestion
High
Business
Access and
Transit (BAT)
Lane
BAT lanes are primarily
dedicated for transit use
but allow some general
traffic use for turning into
driveways or intersecting
streets. Suitable for local
arterial or collector streets
with residential or
commercial use.
Maintains business
and residence
access while
prioritizing bus travel
High
355
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-41
Figure 25 Examples of Transit Priority Infrastructure: Traffic Control
Treatment Description Benefits Example Level of
Effort
Queue
Jump Signal
A queue jump signal is a
special signal phase
used to advance buses
through an intersection
before general traffic.
Suitable for locations
without a receiving lane
for buses and the bus
experiences delay when
merging into traffic.
Decreases travel
time as buses
advance ahead of
general traffic at
intersections
Medium
Bus
Movement
Exemptions
Bus movement
exemptions (right-turn-
only except bus, transit-
only access, etc.) allow
buses to make
movements that are
prohibited for other
vehicles. Best suited for
locations with existing
right turn pockets and
receiving lane space
farside of the
intersection.
Reduces travel
time because
buses can
advance ahead of
general traffic at
an intersection or
is separated from
general vehicle
traffic
Medium
Transit
Signal
Priority
(TSP)
TSP refers to signal
technologies that give
buses additional or
dedicated time for
moving through
intersections. Most
suitable for arterial roads
with high bus activity and
delay.
Reduces bus wait
time at signals,
improving travel
time and travel
time variability
High
Transit-Supportive Land Use and Design
The type and amount of transit service an area can support is largely determined by the
population and employment densities in the area. Figure 26 shows approximate population
and employment densities, their corresponding built environments, and appropriate types of
transit and frequency as applicable, based on market research performed by
Nelson\Nygaard.
356
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-42
Based on the population and employment density data discussed in Chapter 2, the GVMPA is
mainly classified by the rural/low density and mixed/suburban mixed-use neighborhoods
land use categories. Fixed-route service does not currently operate outside of the Bozeman
and Belgrade urbanized areas, and there is likely not enough demand to support it. However,
on-demand service could be appropriate to fill in gaps in the transit system in these areas.
Current densities in Downtown Bozeman indicate support for up to 15-minute transit
frequencies, which would be an improvement from current 60- and 30-minute frequencies.
Integrating land use design with transit is a coordinated effort with the cities, communities,
and transit agency. As the community grows and new development is planned, new transit
markets could be created, and it will be important to consider how people will travel to jobs
or homes in, between, and along those areas. The Gallatin County future land use map
(FLUM) was adopted in December 2024 and should be at the forefront of transit and land use
planning.10
Figure 26 Land Use Density and Recommended Transit Service
10 “Envision Gallatin.” Gallatin County Growth Policy, 10 Dec 2024, gallatingrowthpolicy_dec2024_0.pdf.
357
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-43
358
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-44
CASE STUDIES
Three systems were identified due to demographic and cultural similarities to Bozeman,
along with the presence of large universities. These systems all provide service into the
evening, all provide some service that operates at least every 30 minutes (with some routes
even more frequently), and they all provide downtown transit facilities that allow for
passenger waiting areas and transfers between multiple routes to facilitate region-wide
mobility. Two of the systems operate fare-free, and all provide service that supports the local
university and student community, while also ensuring access for residents and other parts of
the community.
The systems all have ridership and service levels that are high enough to meet federal criteria
for additional operating funds through the FTA’s Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC)
Program. STIC provides funding for operations to urbanized areas of 200,000 people or less
that meet one or more of the STIC performance factors. The funding awarded is scaled based
on the number of performance factors met, including but not limited to vehicle revenue mile
(VRM) per capita, passenger miles per VRM, or passenger trips per capita.
Flagstaff, AZ
The Mountain Line Transit Authority provides transit service to Flagstaff and surrounding
areas with nine fixed routes, on-demand microtransit service, vanpools, and ADA paratransit.
Their fixed-route service operates seven days a week from 6am to 10pm, and most routes
run at 20-30-minute frequencies, with one bus rapid transit (BRT) route running every eight
minutes. Mountain Line recently added a winter route that serves nearby snow recreation
areas to mitigate growing traffic delays during the winter.
The Downtown Connection center is Mountain Line’s central bus transfer facility near
downtown Flagstaff. It provides an off-site location for buses to layover and for passengers
to transfer between all bus lines. Mountain Line opened a new building in 2025 that includes
restrooms, customer service desk, and offices for administrative and operations support staff.
Mountain Line partnered with the Flagstaff Unified School District (FUSD) to promote
students using public transit to get to school when FUSD was faced with school bus driver
shortages. The school district supplied bus passes to students and the agency helped
educate students and families on how to use the bus system. The partnership was successful,
and FUSD has since eliminated yellow bus service for high school students within city limits,
which has added over 1,000 student riders on public transit.
Mountain Line receives funding through the FTA’s Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC)
Program. For FY2025, Mountain Line achieved five out of the six performance factors.
359
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-45
Missoula, MT
The Missoula Urban Transit District (MUTD) operates public transit in Missoula with their
Mountain Line system. Mountain Line has 12 fixed routes that operate between 6am and
9pm, and all but two routes operate seven days a week. Most routes operate on 30-to-60-
minutes frequencies, while two routes operate every 15 minutes.
Mountain Line is also a fare-free system, which contributed to a large increase in ridership
from 2015 to 2016 when it was implemented. While fixed-route ridership has not fully
recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic, it has seen significant gains in recent years due to
expansion in evening and weekend service times. Paratransit ridership has also increased by
more than 50% since 2019.
Missoula’s Downtown Transfer Center serves as a central connecting point for nearly all lines
in the system. Most routes terminate here. A second transit center is proposed near the
Southgate Mall to serve multiple routes.
Like the Flagstaff system, Missoula’s system receives funding from the STIC program and also
achieves five out of the six performance factors.
Logan, UT
The Cache Valley Transit District (CVTD) operates Connect Transit in Logan, UT and
surrounding areas. The transit system began with local bus service in Logan and has since
expanded to offer regional routes to nearby cities who are supplying funding for service.
Connect is a fare-free system across all services, including the 14 fixed routes, on-demand
service, Call-A-Ride paratransit service, and downtown loop connector.
Fixed routes operate every 30 minutes on weekdays and every 60 minutes on Saturdays, and
there is no Sunday service. The downtown loop operates every 15 to 20 minutes and
connects key destinations such as Utah State University to downtown Logan and Walmart.
There is also a commuter route that operates two trips in morning and evening between
Logan and the city of Preston. Utah State University is a major destination and employment
hub in Logan. USU operates a free campus shuttle during the academic year.
Connect Transit partners with Bear River Association of Governments (BRAG) to provide
transportation assistance to seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income households for
critical trips when no viable public transit options exist.
Connect Transit receives funding from the STIC program and achieves two of the six
performance factors.
360
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-46
LONG-RANGE RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
The Gallatin Valley has experienced rapid growth over the past decade, with further growth
likely to continue into the future. This growth has necessitated a reevaluation of transit needs
and services in the region across both the near- and long-term. While rapid growth presents
near-term challenges, it introduces an opportunity to plan for transformational long-term
changes to transit service that not only react to growth but anticipate and prepare for growth
when it occurs. This section outlines the Transit Strategic Plan’s six key long-range strategies
for growing transit service in the Gallatin Valley:
Increase bus base and facility capacity
Acquire vehicles needed to grow service
Introduce high-frequency service
Expand fixed route service
Enhance the rider experience through capital improvements
Pilot on-demand transit
Through the six recommended long-range strategies, the Gallatin Valley will see transit
service with 30-minute or better frequencies reach new areas, expanding to be within walking
distance of most residents within the GVUTD, while improving mobility for existing riders.
The recommended strategies will introduce high-frequency service to corridors connecting
key destinations, making transit a more competitive option for travel. Further, the long-range
recommendations specify the capital investments needed to support the additional transit
service and to improve the rider experience through facilities that allow for more comfortable
and convenient transfers.
Each of these strategies takes into consideration the current challenges faced by Streamline,
tenets of successful systems, and transit best practices presented in the preceding sections,
along with the region’s current and future planning context. The recommended strategies
also build upon and align with the work completed to-date for the in-progress TDP update.
An estimate of operations and maintenance and capital funding needed to implement the
long-range strategies, along with recommended implementation steps, is presented in
Chapter 4.
Increase Bus Base and Storage Facility Capacity
Prior to expanding service, Streamline requires sufficient space and capacity to store and
maintain additional vehicles. The current bus operations and maintenance facility in northern
361
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-47
Bozeman does not have the capacity to accommodate an expanded bus fleet. However, it is
important for Streamline to develop a facility that is sufficient for long-term investments,
rather than planned short-term growth. Skyline has also expressed interest in sharing
facilities and procurement with Streamline, which will require additional long-range planning
to align with the future service levels, routes, and fleet recommended in this section.
Expand the Bus Fleet
The service plan as recommended in the in-progress TDP, along with the high-frequency
service recommended in the following section, will require a significant increase in vehicles.
Based on the number of buses required in the long-range vision, as shown in Figure 27,
Streamline’s peak bus pull will be approximately 28 buses for fixed route service, three
vehicles for on-demand service, and 16 vehicles for paratransit.
Streamline should include additional vehicles set aside as spares to maintain service
continuity in case of breakdowns, maintenance and repairs. A 20% spare ratio is considered
best practice.11 Including spares, Streamline would need 34 vehicles for fixed route services,
four vehicles for on-demand, and 20 vehicles for paratransit.
Although scheduling practices and route adjustments could lower the overall fleet required
in the long-term, this quantity of vehicles is likely a reasonable starting point for Streamline
to budget and plan for future vehicle acquisition.
Figure 27 Fixed Route and Paratransit Fleet Needs
Fixed Route On-Demand Paratransit
Vehicles to operate 28 3 16
Spares (20%) 6 1 4
Total vehicles 34 4 20
Introduce High-Frequency Service
When services run frequently, riders can travel when it is convenient for them and avoid
having to set aside as much buffer time to wait on a bus arrival. Conversely, infrequent
service provides riders with little flexibility, especially for those who must transfer to another
line. Improving service frequencies from any level improves convenience and has the
potential to attract more riders.
11 The FTA requires a 20% spare ratio for agencies operating 50 or more fixed-route vehicles. Although
smaller systems, such as Streamline, are not subject to this requirement, having a set of spare vehicles is best
practice to prevent service disruptions and accommodate maintenance needs for the vehicles.
362
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-48
Based on the analysis of where transit demand is highest within the study area, two key
corridors are identified as good candidates for high-frequency, 15-minute service (see Figure
28). An east-west route from Downtown Bozeman to Gallatin Crossing would connect major
commercial areas in the city, as well as provide transfer points to many other routes in the
system. The other high-frequency corridor would connect the highest ridership stops of
Gallatin Crossing, MSU, downtown Bozeman, and Walmart with one transit line. This route
would combine portions of the Blueline and Goldline, which are the highest ridership lines in
the system, and offer transfer points to many other routes. The highlighted routes in Figure
28 establish a solid foundation that will be further refined to determine precise alignments as
the project progresses.
Figure 28 Recommended High-Frequency Transit Corridors
363
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-49
Source: Streamline, MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Expand Fixed Route Service
Development has rapidly expanded in the GVMPA and has subsequently created new
markets for transit service. Suburban jobs and lower-density suburban housing have been
traditionally difficult to serve with transit due to dispersed development patterns. However,
opportunities to improve access exist when considering population and employment density.
The recommended transit network as part of the Long-Range Plan includes adding routes to
connect key destinations, improving frequency on high-utilization routes, and expanding
transit service to areas currently without service. As shown in Figure 29, fixed route network
coverage is expanded throughout the GVMPA, and a new airport express service is
introduced.
Several Streamline routes currently run at 30-minute frequencies during the morning and
evening peak periods and every 60 minutes during the midday. The proposed network would
increase most routes to all-day 30-minute service, with two key corridor routes having 15-
minute service. The proposed Grayline and Airport Express would operate every 60 minutes.
Along several key corridors, overlapping service between routes further introduces additional
high-frequency service.
364
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-50
Figure 29 Recommended Fixed Route Corridor Frequencies
Source: Streamline, MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Paratransit Impacts
With the proposed expansion of Streamline fixed-route network, the paratransit service that
operates within two miles of the fixed routes will also expand to match this coverage (Figure
30). This expansion will require growth in the paratransit fleet, including additional vehicles,
operators, and scheduling resources, to maintain service quality and ADA compliance. The
larger service area will also cover approximately 8,900 additional people, representing a 15%
increase compared to the current service area, resulting in greater access for seniors,
individuals with disabilities, and others who rely on accessible transportation.
365
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-51
Senior Van Program
Streamline could consider offering a senior van program to offer a mobility option for seniors
other than Galavan. Senior van programs are complementary to paratransit programs and
can typically be operated with minivans and operators with less specialized training, which
have lower operating costs than dedicated paratransit vehicles. These programs often have
better response times and increased flexibility for scheduling trips, which could make it a
desirable option for riders. Galavan will continue to provide dedicated paratransit service for
eligible riders, and a senior van program could help reduce Galavan’s capital and operating
expenditures.
Figure 30 Updated Streamline Paratransit Service Area
366
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-52
Source: Streamline, MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Enhance the Rider Experience through Capital
Investments
Although frequency of service is a critical component of addressing passenger needs and
increasing ridership, other factors can improve passenger experience and facilitate transit
use, particularly capital investments. Many of these capital investments can be categorized
into passenger improvements or operational investments. One-time capital investments can
create long-term ridership dividends through attracting new riders and retaining current
riders.
Passenger Improvements
Passenger improvements are capital investments that make it easier for people to access and
use transit and improve the experience for passengers.
Bus Stop Signage
Signs provide clear information for both passengers and operators about where buses stop
to pick up and drop off passengers and present information on which routes serve the
location. This signage also can act as a marketing tool that informs the public about the
presence and availability of transit.
First- and Last-Mile Access Improvements
Every transit trip starts and ends by traveling by foot or other mobility device between a
transit stop and a destination. The availability of sidewalks and crosswalks is important in
providing these connections and ensuring residents can access the service.
Transfer Locations
Several locations in the transit network provide critical connections between two or more
routes. These are also areas that typically have higher transit demand or support major
destinations. These locations should have a higher level of investment, including more robust
seating, weather protection, and real-time arrival information. The locations are shown in
Figure 31 and listed below:
Montana State University
Gallatin Crossing
Walmart
367
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-53
Downtown Bozeman transfer facility
Station Area Enhancements
Station areas shape how riders understand and experience the system. Enhancing these areas
improves comfort, and clarity. Amenities such as lighting, signage, seating, routing, and real-
time information make stops more visible, accessible, and welcoming. Strengthening these
spaces supports both rider experience and overall system performance. Smaller stations
could provide 1-2 elements, while larger ones could offer ten or more.
368
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-54
Figure 31 Recommended Transfer Point Improvement Locations
Source: Streamline, MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
Operational Investments
Operational investments improve and facilitate bus service and maintain reliability.
Layover/Recovery Areas
Designated areas for bus operators to wait between trips is important for both operational
performance (service reliability and on-time performance) and workplace safety. Operators
369
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-55
need breaks between trips to rest and relax. But the time also ensures reliability by adding
extra time between trips that can be used to ensure on-time departures on the next trips.
Operator Facilities
At the beginning and end of routes, operator facilities provide locations for operators to take
breaks and use restrooms.
Transit Priority Infrastructure
Buses operate in shared roadways with other traffic, making transit susceptible to traffic
delays and increased signal delay. Transit priority infrastructure focuses on improving bus
on-time reliability and prioritizing bus movements over general traffic. Transit priority
infrastructure is detailed in a preceding section of Chapter 3, with examples of infrastructure
improvements presented in Figure 23. It is important to note that implementing transit
priority infrastructure would be a multi-jurisdictional effort within the MPA to modify roads,
signals, and bus facilities owned and operated by the cities, county, or state.
Pilot On-Demand Transit
Microtransit, also referred to as on-demand transit (ODT), is a form of demand-responsive,
shared-ride public transit system that uses software technology to request trips. Unlike a
fixed-route system, microtransit has variable routes and schedules based on when and where
rides are requested. Microtransit is typically implemented in areas with lower transit demand,
areas with lower population and employment densities, or areas with circuitous and/or
disconnected road networks that make fixed-route transit less efficient. Microtransit services
can use vehicles with a variety of sizes such as shuttles, vans, sedans, or standard buses.
Riders can typically book trips through a smartphone app, website, kiosk, or calling a
customer service representative, depending on the transit system.
Many areas within the GVMPA are not currently served by transit and have population and
employment levels that are not high enough to justify fixed-route service. However, there are
still mobility needs in these areas. Microtransit could fill in the gaps in the current transit
network and provide first-/last-mile connections to fixed-route service.
The long-range plan proposes four on-demand transit zones throughout the study area to
complement the fixed-route service. The Belgrade zone would cover the city, including the
Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (Figure 32). The South Bozeman zone would span
the area south of MSU’s campus from Fowler Lane to the Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, with
an extension to cover Gallatin College as well (Figure 33). The Four Corners zone would
capture most residential areas and provide connection to the proposed Purpleline extension
(Figure 34). The new Late-Night zone would replace the Latenight Streamline fixed-route
370
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-56
service and would cover the majority of the recommended Streamline network when fixed
routes are not operating (Figure 35). The Belgrade, South Bozeman, and Four Corners zones
would operate each day from 6am to 8pm, while the Late-Night zone would operate from
10pm to 1am on weekdays, 7pm to 1am on Saturdays, and 7pm to 10pm on Sundays.
Figure 32 Recommended Belgrade On-Demand Transit Service Area
Source: Streamline, MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
371
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-57
Figure 33 Recommended South Bozeman On-Demand Transit Service Area
Source: Streamline, MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
372
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-58
Figure 34 Recommended Four Corners On-Demand Transit Service Area
Source: Streamline, MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
373
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
3-59
Figure 35 Recommended Late Night On-Demand Transit Service Area
Source: Streamline, MDT, GVMPO, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade
374
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
4-1
4 IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING
This chapter outlines an estimate of the operations and maintenance costs and capital
funding required to realize the long-range vision described in Chapter 3, presents a
prioritized list of implementation steps for achieving the vision, and describes potential
sources of funding.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS
The long-range vision for fixed route service is expected to require approximately 89,000
annual service hours, or an increase of approximately 270% from current service levels of
approximately 24,300 annual service hours (see Figure 36). Based on a cost of approximately
$99.57 per service hour12, the increased fixed route service would cost approximately $6.5
million per year.
Figure 36 Long-Range Vision Service Levels
Service
Existing
Annual Service
Hours
Long Range Vision
Annual Service
Hours Change % Change
Weekday Annual 19,285 76,420 +57,135 +296%
Saturday Annual 3,115 6,370 +3,255 +104%
Sunday Annual 1,920 6,350 +4,430 +231%
Annual Total 24,320 89,140 +64,820 +267%
On-demand service will require 5,100 annual hours for each of the three on-demand zones,
and 4,400 annual hours for the evening on-demand zone. This represents 19,700 annual
12 NTD 2023. HRDC Agency Profile.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2023/80235.pdf
375
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
4-2
hours. Assuming a cost of $61.37 per service hour13, this would cost approximately $1.2
million each year.
Future paratransit costs are estimated based on the size of the service area. Today, Galavan
operates across an area of approximately 32 square miles. The future service area will be
approximately 51 square miles. Assuming a proportionate increase in operating costs (or
59% increase), service will increase from approximately $755,000 annually today to $1.2
million with the future vision.
The total annual cost to operate the long-range vision is approximately $9 million. As shown
in Figure 37, this includes the cost for fixed route services, paratransit, and on-demand
services.
Figure 37 Long-Range Recommendations Operations & Maintenance Cost Summary
Service Annual Cost Estimate
(2025 $)
Fixed route $6.5 million
Paratransit $1.2 million
On-demand $1.2 million
Total $8.9 million
Note: Cost values are estimates and will vary significantly based on many factors.
CAPITAL COSTS
In addition to operations and maintenance expenses, Streamline will need to invest in its
fleet, infrastructure and various capital improvements to operate the service and improve
passenger amenities. This includes additional vehicles, a new operations & maintenance
facility, investments in the transfer locations recommended in Chapter 3, and bus stop
amenity improvements.
Unit costs for various capital improvements are included in Figure 38. These costs only
account for the purchase and capital cost of each improvement, and don’t account for land
acquisition, planning, design, engineering, or installation/construction.
Figure 38 Unit Costs for Capital Cost Estimation
Item or Improvement Cost Estimate
(2025 $)
Fixed Route Vehicles
40-foot Diesel bus $520,000
13 Ibid. Hourly cost of paratransit service assumed to represent hourly on-demand service cost.
376
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
4-3
Item or Improvement Cost Estimate
(2025 $)
40-foot CNG bus $620,000
40-foot Hybrid bus $870,000
40-foot Electric bus $1,080,000
Paratransit Vehicles
Accessible Van $75-98k
Accessible Van (Low Floor) $152-155k
Light Transit Vehicle $105-123k
Light Transit Vehicle (Narrow) $118-123k
Light Transit Vehicle (Low Floor) $159-210k
On-Demand Vehicles
Modified Minivan $71,000
Accessible Van $75-98k
Accessible Van (Low Floor) $152-155k
Operations & Maintenance Facility
Operations & Maintenance Facility $30-80 million
Transfer Facility
Transfer Facility $22 million14
Real Time Arrival Signage $7,000-9,000
Bus Stops
Bus stop sign $400-900
ADA boarding pad $800-2,000
Small bench $800-1,000
Standard bench $1,500
Shelter (no amenities) $9,000
Shelter with seating $10-20k
Note: Cost values are estimates and will vary significantly based on many factors.
The fixed-route fleet will increase by approximately 16 buses above the 18 buses in
Streamline’s current fleet. These additional buses are likely to cost approximately $13.9
million in 2025 dollars, assuming a cost of $870,000 for each new Hybrid 40-foot bus. This
14 Based on approximate cost of $3.2 million per bay. Assumes seven bus bays for a single transfer facility,
which should accommodate demand at each of the planned transfer locations.
377
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
4-4
represents a higher end of investment and could be lower with less expensive propulsion
types.
The paratransit fleet will increase by approximately 11 vehicles above the nine vehicles in the
current Galavan fleet. This additional set of vehicles is likely to cost approximately $1.2 to
$1.4 million in 2025 dollars, assuming a cost of $105,000 to $123,000 for each new Light
Transit Vehicle.
The on-demand fleet will include 4 new vehicles, which is likely to cost $300,000 to $392,000
in 2025 dollars, assuming $75,000 to $98,000 for each new Accessible Van.
The long-range vision also assumes:
Four new transfer facilities, at $22 million each, for $88 million total
250 new bus stops spaced approximately every one-fifth mile, with all stops having a
sign and ADA boarding pad, for $300,000 to $725,000 total.
An annual capital program to install amenities at 10 stops each year, to slowly
expand bus stop amenities throughout the system:
Five stops with new shelters and integrated seating
Five stops with new benches
A summary of the capital costs is shown in Figure 39. Note that the fleet costs only account
for the new vehicles necessary to expand beyond the current size of the fleet. Additional bus
purchases will be necessary to replace buses after they reach the end of their life, usually
after 12-15 years of operation. Additionally, the annual bus stop amenity program cost is for
a single year and should be an ongoing expenditure.
Figure 39 Long-Range Recommendations Capital Cost Summary
Capital Item or Improvement Cost Estimate
(2025 $)
Fixed route fleet $13.9 million
Paratransit fleet $1.2-1.4 million
On-demand fleet $300-392k
Operations & maintenance facility $30-80 million
Transfer facilities $88 million
Bus stops $300-725k
Bus stop shelters and benches annual program $56-108k
Total $134-185 million
Note: Cost values are estimates and will vary significantly based on many factors.
378
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
4-5
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS AND COST
SUMMARY
Aligning with the recommended long-range strategies outlined in Chapter 3, Figure 40
displays the prioritized implementation steps that Streamline should undertake to achieve
the long-range vision. A full summary of associated operations and maintenance costs and
capital costs are also provided.
Figure 40 Long-Range Implementation Steps and Cost Summary
Strategy Cost Estimate (2025 $)
Priority 1: Increase Bus Base and Maintenance Facility Capacity
Operations & maintenance facility (capital costs) $30-80 million
Priority 2: Acquire Vehicles Needed to Grow Service
Fixed route fleet (capital costs) $13.9 million
Paratransit fleet (capital costs) $1.2-1.4 million
Priorities 3 and 4: Introduce High-Frequency Service and Expand Fixed
Route Service
Fixed route (operations & maintenance costs) $6.5 million
Paratransit (operations & maintenance costs) $1.2 million
Priority 5: Enhance the Rider Experience through Capital Improvements
Transfer facilities (capital costs) $88 million
Bus stops (capital costs) $300-725k
Bus stop shelters and benches annual program (capital costs) $56-108k
Priority 6: Pilot On-Demand Transit
On-demand fleet (capital costs) $300-392k
On-demand (operations & maintenance costs) $1.2 million
Total Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs $8.9 million
Total Capital Costs $134-185 million
Note: Cost values are estimates and will vary significantly based on many factors.
FUNDING SOURCES
This section outlines potential sources of funding, beyond Streamline’s current federal
formula funding, local contribution, and partner support mix, that the agency should
consider pursuing in working towards implementing the long-range vision outlined in
Chapters 3 and 4.
379
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
4-6
FTA Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC) funding: STIC funding is a part of the FTA
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program makes funding available for
transit capital and operating assistance and transportation-related planning in
urbanized areas. For urbanized areas of 50,000 to 199,999 in population, Section
5307 funding is allocated by formula based on population, low-income population,
and population density. Beyond this formula funding, small urbanized areas are
eligible to receive STIC funding if transit service provided in the urbanized area meets
or exceeds the following six STIC performance criteria. For each criterion, the
performance of the small urbanized area is compared against the average
performance of urbanized areas with a population between 200,000 and 999,999.
1. Passenger miles per vehicle revenue mile
2. Passenger miles per vehicle revenue hour
3. Vehicle revenue mile per capita
4. Vehicle revenue hour per capita
5. Passenger miles per capita
6. Passenger trips per capita
FTA Areas of Persistent Poverty Program: Provides funding to transit agencies for
planning, engineering, or development of technical or financing plans for projects
that will assist “Areas of Persistent Poverty” or “Historically Disadvantaged
Communities”. Eligible activities include planning, engineering, or development of
technical or financing plans for improved transit services; new transit routes;
engineering for transit facilities and improvements to existing facilities; innovative
technologies; planning for low or no emission buses; planning for a new bus facility
or intermodal center that supports transit services; integrated fare collections
systems; or coordinated public transit human service transportation plans to improve
transit service in an Area of Persistent Poverty or Historically Disadvantaged
Community, or to provide new service such as transportation for services to address
the opioid epidemic, as well as increase access to environmental justice populations,
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change.
FTA 5339 Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Formula Program: Provides funding
to states and transit agencies through a statutory formula to replace, rehabilitate and
purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. In
addition to the formula allocation, the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities program (49
U.S.C. 5339) includes two competitive components: the Bus and Bus Facilities
Competitive Program and the Low or No Emissions Bus Vehicle Program.
FTA Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility (ICAM) Program: Provides
funding to transit agencies to improve access to public transportation by building
partnerships among health, transportation and other service providers. The program
380
Streamline/Gallatin Valley UTD Transit Strategic Plan
4-7
provides competitive funding to support innovative projects for the transportation
disadvantaged that will improve the coordination of transportation services and non-
emergency medical transportation services.
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program: Provides funding to
agencies to support transportation initiatives and improvements aimed at preventing
roadway fatalities and serious injuries. The SS4A program provides funding for
Planning and Demonstration Grants and Implementation Grants. Planning and
Demonstration Grants are used to develop, complete, or supplement an action plan,
while Implementation Grants are used to implement projects that are consistent with
an existing action plan to address a roadway safety problem. Streamline could
partner with other SS4A applicants when creating a safety plan.
381
2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
NHPP (3) - $8,978,186 $17,794,865 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $29,023,051 $3,318,570 $63,052,830 $92,075,881 $29,867,130 $33,185,700
IM - $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 $1,510,197 $28,693,743 $29,943,743 $13,591,773 $15,101,970
NH - $8,728,186 $17,544,865 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $27,773,051 $1,808,373 $34,359,087 $62,132,138 $16,275,357 $18,083,730
NHFP - - - - - - - - - - - -
STP (3) $24,594,567 $3,853,906 $7,631,092 $2,622,504 $7,663,569 $2,434,020 $24,205,091 $3,165,696 $60,148,224 $108,947,882 $28,491,264 $31,656,960
STPU $13,445,204 $368,335 $1,045,888 $1,530,046 $1,530,046 $1,530,046 $6,004,361 $1,530,046 $29,070,874 $48,520,439 $13,770,414 $15,300,460
STPX, STPS, SFCN $9,533,466 $87,485 $5,482,531 - - - $5,570,016 $579,596 $11,012,324 $26,115,806 $5,216,364 $5,795,960
UPP - $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 $191,135 $3,631,565 $6,131,565 $1,720,215 $1,911,350
TA (Statewide) (4) - $2,494,112 $198,699 $188,484 $5,229,549 - $8,110,844 $460,945 $8,757,955 $16,868,799 $4,148,505 $4,609,450
TA (MPO) (5) $1,615,897 $403,974 $403,974 $403,974 $403,974 $403,974 $2,019,870 $403,974 $7,675,506 $11,311,273 $3,635,766 $4,039,740
BR - $17,845 $2,438,885 $2,617,434 - - $5,074,164 $878,931 $16,699,685 $21,773,849 $7,910,377 $8,789,308
HSIP - $480,629 $6,868,744 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $7,949,373 $420,854 $7,996,226 $15,945,599 $3,787,686 $4,208,540
MACI (CMAQ) (11) - $1,992,388 $3,451,600 - - - $5,443,988 $347,528 $6,603,030 $12,047,018 $3,127,751 $3,475,279
CR (6) $1,125,353 $579,613 - - - - $579,613 - - $1,704,966 - -
FTA (3) $380,421 $3,101,410 $2,857,133 $2,857,133 $2,857,133 $2,857,133 $14,529,942 $1,833,011 $34,827,209 $49,737,572 $16,497,099 $18,330,110
FTA 5307 - $2,760,633 $2,760,633 $2,760,633 $2,760,633 $2,760,633 $13,803,165 $1,492,234 $28,352,446 $42,155,611 $13,430,106 $14,922,340
FTA 5339 - Formula (7) $380,421 $96,500 $96,500 $96,500 $96,500 $96,500 $482,500 $96,500 $1,833,500 $2,696,421 $868,500 $965,000
FTA 5339 - Discretionary (8) - - - - - - - - - - - -
FTA 5310 - $244,277 - - - - $244,277 $244,277 $4,641,263 $4,885,540 $2,198,493 $2,442,770
Grants (9) - $17,341,405 $25,000,000 - - - $42,341,405 $1,600,000 $30,400,000 $72,741,405 $14,400,000 $16,000,000
FWP - $125,000 - - - - $125,000 $25,000 $475,000 $600,000 $225,000 $250,000
RRS - - - - - - - $50,000 $950,000 $950,000 $450,000 $500,000
TransADE - $115,658 $115,658 $115,658 $115,658 $115,658 $578,290 $115,658 $2,197,502 $2,775,792 $1,040,922 $1,156,580
Operations and Maintenance - $1,507,353 $1,507,353 $1,507,353 $1,507,353 $1,507,353 $7,536,765 $1,507,353 $28,639,706 $36,176,471 $13,566,176 $15,073,529
Fuel Tax (3) - $3,397,031 $3,397,031 $3,397,031 $3,397,031 $3,397,031 $16,985,154 $3,397,031 $64,543,584 $81,528,738 $30,573,277 $33,970,307
Fuel Tax - City of Belgrade (10) - $495,383 $495,383 $495,383 $495,383 $495,383 $2,476,916 $495,383 $9,412,282 $11,889,199 $4,458,450 $4,953,833
Fuel Tax - City of Bozeman (10) - $2,063,369 $2,063,369 $2,063,369 $2,063,369 $2,063,369 $10,316,847 $2,063,369 $39,204,020 $49,520,868 $18,570,325 $20,633,695
Fuel Tax - County (10) - $838,278 $838,278 $838,278 $838,278 $838,278 $4,191,390 $838,278 $15,927,281 $20,118,671 $7,544,502 $8,382,780
TOTAL $26,100,341 $41,490,424 $71,062,361 $14,067,113 $16,490,744 $11,261,195 $154,371,835 $16,659,631 $316,532,996 $497,005,172 $149,936,682 $166,596,314
Note: NEVI (National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure) funding is not included because the GVMPO Financial Plan notes NEVI funding does not apply to newly-designated MPOs.
Note: NHFP (National Highway Freight Program) appears only as a category heading in the draft TIP's Projects sheet with no projects or dollar figures programmed for GVMPO in this TIP cycle. All values are shown as zero pending future project identification.
Note: The draft TIP and GVMPO Financial Plan report CMAQ funding for this MPO under a single MACI line with no further split into "Guaranteed" vs. "Discretionary" portions.
(7) FTA 5339 - Formula 2032-2050 annual projected funding reflects the GVMPO Financial Plan estimate. The draft TIP has only programmed this funding in FFY2027 pending future project identification.
Note: FTA 5307 and FTA 5310 figures combine the federal share and required local match into a single total funding amount for each year, consistent with how other federal programs (STPU, IM, NH, SFCN, HSIP, BR, UPP, MACI) already report combined federal-plus-match totals per the source TIP.
(11) Pure CMAQ funds that come to Montana based on the federal formula and are directed to Missoula, Montana's only moderate CO non-attainment area. Projects are prioritized through the MPO process.
Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) Discretionary Program: Projects using MACI discretionary funds are selected through a proposal process administered by the Transportation Planning Division of MDT. Projects are prioritized and selected amongst all eligible areas based on air quality benefits.
Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) Guaranteed Program: MACI guaranteed funds are distributed to Billings and Great Falls at a level equivalent to what Missoula receives each year in CMAQ funds. Projects are prioritized through the MPO planning process.
(10) Fuel Tax revenues are received by the City of Belgrade, City of Bozeman, and Gallatin County and are primarily used for routine operations and maintenance. Excess funds are prioritized for capital expenditures based on need and priority. The draft TIP's REVENUE sheet and GVMPO Financial Plan
both label this revenue "Gas Tax" internally; it is shown here as "Fuel Tax", since the tax applies to both gasoline and diesel. The draft TIP's REVENUE sheet reports only a combined City total (Belgrade + Bozeman) for FFY2027-2031; the Belgrade/Bozeman figures above prorate that combined total using
each city's share of the GVMPO Financial Plan's individual city estimates. 2032-2050 annual averages use the Financial Plan's city-specific and county estimates directly.
(9) Grants reflects competitively awarded federal discretionary grants (e.g., BUILD, RAISE, SS4A) rather than a recurring formula funding source, currently consisting of the Belgrade Urban Improvements grant ($25,000,000, FFY2027) and Gallatin County SS4A grant ($13.9 million). The 2032-2050 annual
amount is a simplified projection equal to the FFY2027-2031 total divided evenly across 5 years and held constant for the outyears; this is a modeling assumption only and is not a guaranteed or expected revenue stream. The annual projected average for grants was initially set at $5 million per year, but after
direction from MDT, it has been adjusted to $1.6 million per year.
(8) FTA 5339 - Discretionary is a competitive federal program; no recurring annual amount is assumed for 2032-2050 given its non-formula, competitive nature.
(6) Carbon Reduction Program (CR) shows $0 for the 2032-2050 horizon projection. MDT does not anticipate any further CR funding following the expiration of the Continuing Resolution.
(5) TA (MPO) reflects the Gallatin Valley MPO's direct population-based sub-allocation of Transportation Alternatives funding under STP, separate from the statewide competitive TA pool but still part of the same STP set-aside.
(4) TA (Statewide) and TA (MPO) are both components of the STP roll-up above, since Transportation Alternatives is a federally-mandated set-aside of the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) that splits into a statewide competitive pool and a direct MPO suballocation. TA (Statewide) funding
is competitive and not guaranteed.
(3) NHPP, STP, FTA, and Fuel Tax are roll-up totals computed as the sum of their component rows directly below them.
(2) Projected Funding for 2032-2050 is estimated using the GVMPO Financial Plan (per-project/per-year annualized averages prepared by MDT) and is the best information available at this time. There is no guarantee that funding will be available in the future.
(1) Based on funding information provided by the Montana Department of Transportation regarding the DRAFT FFY2027-2031 GVMPO TIP.
Mid-Term Funding
(2032-2040)
Long-Term Funding
(2041-2050)
FEDERAL
STATE AND LOCAL
Projected Funding by Funding Source (Estimated) – Gallatin Valley MPO
Source: Montana Department of Transportation, GVMPO Financial Plan and Draft FFY2027-2031 GVMPO TIP
Funding Source
FFY 2027
Beginning
Balance
Committed Funding (1)2027-2031
Committed
Funding
2032-2050
Annual
Projected
Funding Average
(2)
2032-2050 Total
Projected
Funding
Total Funding
(2027-2050)
382
Appendix B Community Involvement Summary
Introduction
The Gallatin Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization was tasked with
establishing a Long Range Transportation Plan for areas across Bozeman,
Belgrade and portions of Gallatin County. A comprehensive and multifaceted
outreach approach was implemented to engage the Gallatin Valley community in
this planning effort. Multiple engagement methods were used to gather
meaningful community feedback, including tabling events, a community survey,
and stakeholder meetings. Outreach activities were conducted in three phases,
each designed to collect and incorporate public feedback into transportation
strategies for the Gallatin Valley. This comprehensive process ensured that the
plan reflects a wide range of perspectives from residents, stakeholders, and
community partners.
Phase I: Listen and Learn
Timeframe: August to December 2025
The first phase of engagement focused on listening to the community’s needs, goals,
and objectives for the future of transportation in the Gallatin Valley. This phase aimed to
raise awareness of the planning efforts, gather preliminary information, and lay the
foundation for subsequent engagement. Several key activities were conducted, ranging
from initial project material development, tabling events, a community survey, a virtual
public meeting, and the formation of the Community Advisory Panel (CAP).
Engagement Activities:
Tabling Events: Tabling activities were conducted in both Bozeman and
Belgrade. The Bozeman Farmers Market and Belgrade Albertsons provided an
excellent setting to engage with community members across the project area.
Project team members were available to answer questions and receive
comments regarding transportation challenges.
Printed & Digital Materials: Postcards, maps, and display boards were used to
increase the project's visibility and for tabling events.
Community Survey: A survey was provided at tabling events and on the plan
website to collect information about how residents and visitors get around the
Gallatin Valley and their transportation concerns and priorities. This survey was
available in a paper and digital version.
383
Virtual Community Meeting: An online public meeting was held on December
18 via Teams. Members of the project team provided an update on existing
conditions and community engagement to date. Attendees participated in a goals
and objectives activity and time was reserved at the end of the meeting for
questions. A recording of the meeting and the goals and objectives of the
activities were available on the plan web page for community members who were
unable to attend the meeting but were interested in learning more and sharing
ideas.
Community Advisory Panel: The CAP was formed during this phase to bring
together representatives of different communities, interests, and perspectives
across the Gallatin Valley. The panel held its first meeting on November 5, 2025,
beginning a series of milestone-based
meetings throughout development of the LRTP. Discussions at this first meeting
focused on transportation needs and priorities, helping develop and refine the
plan’s vision, goals, and objectives, as well as completing a Mentimeter exercise.
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
Community engagement in Phase I revealed several themes, including the need for
improved transit options to places like the airport and Gallatin College and a desire for
improved bike and pedestrian access, particularly on the frontage road and between
Bozeman and Four Corners.
FIGURES 1-4: TABLING EVENTS AND PRINTED AND DIGITAL MATERIALS
384
Phase II: Create and Apply
Timeframe: January – April 2026
The purpose of this engagement phase was to build on the feedback gathered from the
community during Phase One and incorporate those insights into project development.
This phase helped refine our understanding of community priorities regarding proposed
projects, while also increasing awareness of how projects are evaluated, prioritized,
selected, and ultimately funded.
Engagement Activities:
Community Advisory Panel: The CAP reconvened on April 1, 206 to review
draft materials and activities for the spring public workshops and provide
feedback on emerging project concepts. The panel provided input, helped refine
the engagement approach, and improved the activities before the public
workshops.
Workshop Activities: In-person community workshops were held in three
project areas: Belgrade, Bozeman, and Four Corners. Each workshop provided
attendees with the opportunity to participate in multiple engagement activities
designed to generate insights, ideas, and conversations around transportation
across the Gallatin Valley.
385
FIGURE 5: SPRING WORKSHOP FLYER
Activity 1: “This or That” Transportation Alternatives
Attendees were asked to indicate their preferences between two improvement options
that address a transportation concern. Five scenarios were provided, each providing
improvement alternatives. The goal of this activity is to demonstrate the limitations in
choices available and explore tradeoffs. Attendees were asked to drop a provided pom-
pom into the jar that represented their preference for each scenario. The activity
provided the project team with useful information on which improvements are preferred
by residents and helped attendees understand how various treatments can address
transportation concerns. The results for this activity in Four Corners were inconclusive.
TABLE 1: ACTIVITY ONE SCENARIOS AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
Scenario “This” (or) “That”
“There’s limited funding for
roads and maintenance. Do we
prioritize new roads and trails or
maintain and repair what we
have?”
New Roadways and Trails:
Expand the road and trail
network to accommodate new
growth.
Maintenance and System
Repair: Keep existing sidewalks,
roads, and bridges in good
shape through resurfacing or
repairs.
“Bus ridership trends are
increasing. Do we expand the
Expand Bus Route Network:
includes improving bus service
Increase Bus Frequency:
Improves the bus service by
386
bus route network or increase
bus frequency one existing
routes?”
by expanding the hours of
service or adding bus routes to
serve new parts of the region.
increasing how often the bus
arrives and making trips easier
to plan.
“We have more cyclists on the
streets. Do we add more bike
lanes on the roads or build out
separated shared-use routes?”
Separated Shared-Use Routes:
Off-street paths for people
walking and cycling separate
from vehicle traffic. They
provide safe travel options for
people of all ages and abilities.
Bike Lanes: Located on the
street but provides dedicated
space for people on bikes along
the roadway to make it easier to
do day-to-day activities.
“There are more cars and
pedestrians using the roads. Do
we invest in more mobility for
cars or access for pedestrians?”
Roadway Improvements:
Includes widening, left turn
lanes, or new signals that help
keep traffic moving and
improving safety.
Intersection Improvements:
Make it safer for people walking
and biking to cross the street by
adding crosswalks, curb ramps,
and flashing beacons to improve
visibility.
“You need to add lanes to
accommodate new growth.
Should you add a new
connection or widen busy
roads?”
New Connection: Create new
roads or extend facilities to link
more destinations with the
transportation network.
Added Capacity: Expands
current roadways to
accommodate more traffic with
additional lanes or wider roads.
Belgrade
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Participants emphasized:
Expanding the bus route network
Bike lanes
Intersection improvements
TABLE 2: ACTIVITY ONE SUMMARY FOR BELGRADE
Priority Votes Share of Total Priority
Expand Bus Route Network 7 18.9% High
Bike Lanes 7 18.9% High
Intersection Improvements 5 13.5% High
New Connections 4 10.8% Medium
Maintenance and System Repair 4 10.8% Medium
Separated Shared Use Facilities 3 8.1% Medium
New Roadways and Trails 3 8.1% Medium
Roadway Improvements 3 8.1% Medium
Added Capacity 1 3% Low
Increase Bus Frequency 0 0% Low
Bozeman
KEY TAKEAWAYS
387
Participants emphasized:
Safer intersections
Better connectivity
Shared-use facilities
Maintaining existing infrastructure
TABLE 3: ACTIVITY ONE SUMMARY FOR BOZEMAN
Priority Votes Share of Total Priority
Intersection Improvements 8 18% High
Separated Shared Use 7 16% High
New Connection 7 16% High
Maintenance and System Repair 6 14% High
New Roadways and Trails 5 11% Medium
Expand Bus Route Network 4 9% Medium
Increase Bus Frequency 4 9% Medium
Bike Lanes 2 5% Low
Added Capacity 1 2% Low
Roadway Improvements 0 0% Low
Activity 2: Budgets, Benefits, and Trade-Offs
Attendees were given $100 ‘Transportation Dollars’ and asked to use that money to
fund the improvements based on their priorities. Multiple transportation improvements
were offered as options, and information was provided about each improvement,
including cost, benefits, and trade-offs. Corresponding jars were available for
participants to add their money as they divided their available funds. This activity not
only provided valuable insight about how residents prioritize transportation improvement
but also gave participants a better understanding of improvement costs and the
challenges of fiscal constraint.
TABLE 4: BUDGETING ACTIVITY: IMPROVEMENTS, COSTS, BENEFITS, AND TRADE-OFFS
Improvement Cost Benefits Trade-Offs
On-Street Parking Lane $35 Provides parking for vehicles and
buffers sidewalk from travel lanes
Convenience vs
throughput
Painted bike lane $20 Space for biking Lower safety vs less
space
Bus only lane $45 Increase reliability of transit service
and makes boarding easier
Transit vs vehicle
delay
Roadway Reconfiguration $45 Improve safety and provide space for
sharing road between modes
Lower speed vs
increase safety for
all modes
Add a travel lane $75 Adds vehicle capacity Increases vehicle
traffic vs reduces
388
space for other
modes
Improved bus stops and
amenities
$20 Enhances rider comfort and
information for riding transit
Transit vs vehicle
delay
Remove street trees and
obstacles
$15 Allow for faster vehicle travel and
removes obstacle car could crash into
Pedestrian safety vs
vehicle speed
Add street trees,
landscaping, and
beautification
$15 Shade, buffer, and beautification
between travel lanes and sidewalk
May reduce width
of roadway or
sidewalk
Wider sidewalks and ADA
improvements
$25 More space for walking and rolling
comfortably
May reduce width
of roadway
Shared-Use Path $40 Highest level of comfort and safety for
walking
High cost of
implementation
Increase speed limit $5 Allow for faster vehicle travel Safety vs vehicle
speed
Reduce speed limit $5 Reduce crash severity Safety vs vehicle
delay
Enhance pedestrian
crossing
$30 Easier and safer pedestrian crossings.
Can include crosswalk signs, refuges,
and extended curb ramps
Safety vs vehicle
delay
Add Off-Street Parking $50 Allows for more parking, may require
demolishing buildings or taking up
downtown space
Convenience vs
space
Grade-Separated Railway
Crossing
$1000 Eliminates conflicts between trains
and traveling public
High cost and
complexity vs
improved
movement
Belgrade
KEY TAKEAWAY
Participants strongly favored:
Shared-use paths
Bicycle facilities
Pedestrian crossing improvements
Parking improvements
Community beautification
Transit-only improvements received minimal support.
TABLE 5: ACTIVITY TWO SUMMARY FOR BELGRADE
Budgeting Menu Contribution ($) Votes Priority
Add street trees, landscaping, and
beautification
75 5 High
Painted bike lane 80 4 High
389
Enhance pedestrian crossing 90 3 Medium
Shared-Use Path 120 3 Medium
Add Off-Street Parking 100 2 Low
Increase speed limit 10 2 Low
Reduce speed limit 10 2 Low
Add a travel lane 75 1 Low
Improved bus stops and amenities 20 1 Low
On-Street Parking Lane 35 1 Low
Wider sidewalks and ADA
improvements
25 1 Low
Roadway Reconfiguration 45 1 Low
Grade Separated Railway Crossing 0 0 Low
Bus only lane 0 0 Low
Remove street trees and obstacles 0 0 Low
Bozeman
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Participants strongly prioritized:
Shared-use paths and trail infrastructure
Pedestrian crossing improvements
Reconfiguring roadways for better functionality and safety
There was very little support for:
Additional parking
Bus-only facilities
Speed-limit changes
TABLE 6: ACTIVITY TWO SUMMARY FOR BOZEMAN
Budgeting Menu Contribution ($) Votes Priority
Enhance pedestrian crossing 195 6.5 High
Add street trees, landscaping, and
beautification
95 6.3333333 High
Shared-Use Path 210 5.25 High
Roadway Reconfiguration 175 3.88888889 High
Reduce speed limit 15 3 Medium
Wider sidewalks and ADA
improvements
75 3 Medium
Painted bike lane 25 1.25 Low
Add a travel lane 75 1 Low
Improved bus stops and amenities 10 0.5 Low
Grade Separated Railway Crossing 45 0.045 Low
On-Street Parking Lane 5 0.14285714 Low
Bus only lane 0 0 Low
Remove street trees and obstacles 0 0 Low
390
Increase speed limit 0 0 Low
Add Off-Street Parking 0 0 Low
Four Corners
KEY TAKEAWAY
Participants prioritized:
Shared-use paths and trail infrastructure
Pedestrian improvements
Bicycle facilities
Parking improvements
Community beautification
Transit-focused investments received minimal support.
TABLE 7: ACTIVITY TWO SUMMARY FOR FOUR CORNERS
Budgeting Menu Contribution ($) Votes Priority
Add street trees, landscaping, and
beautification
75 5 High
Painted bike lane 80 4 High
Shared-Use Path 120 3 Medium
Enhance pedestrian crossing 90 3 Medium
Grade Separated Railway Crossing 0 0 Low
Bus only lane 0 0 Low
Roadway Reconfiguration 45 1 Low
Add a travel lane 75 1 Low
Improved bus stops and amenities 20 1 Low
Remove street trees and obstacles 0 0 Low
On-Street Parking Lane 35 1 Low
Wider sidewalks and ADA
improvements
25 1 Low
Increase speed limit 10 2 Low
Reduce speed limit 10 2 Low
Add Off-Street Parking 100 2 Low
Activity 3: Existing Planned Projects
A display board outlined multiple planned and proposed projects within the planning
area. Participants were provided with stickers to indicate their top three priorities. This
activity allowed attendees to learn about potential projects to address transportation
concerns in the planning area and share their priorities among the listed projects.
FIGURE 6: ACTIVITY THREE EXISTING PLANNED PROJECTS WORKSHOP MAP
391
Belgrade
KEY TAKEAWAY
Project A-85 emerged as the clear favorite, receiving over one-third of all project votes.
Two additional projects, S-71 and R-24/R-26, formed a second tier of support.
TABLE 8: ACTIVITY THREE SUMMARY FOR BELGRADE
Project Votes Share of Total Priority
A-85 6 27% High
S-71 3 14% High
R-24/R-26 3 14% High
A-86 2 9% Medium
S-72 2 9% Medium
A-10 1 5% Low
A-48 1 5% Low
A-113 1 5% Low
A-114 1 5% Low
A-115 1 5% Low
S-65 1 5% Low
A-47 0 0% Low
A-79 0 0% Low
R-44 0 0% Low
392
Bozeman
KEY TAKEAWAY
Support was concentrated among a small group of projects, with A-85 and A-114
emerging as the clear leaders.
TABLE 9: ACTIVITY THREE SUMMARY FOR BOZEMAN
Project Votes Share of Total Priority
A-85 4 17% High
A-114 4 17% High
A-113 3 13% High
S-71 3 13% High
A-86 2 9% Medium
R-24/R-26 2 9% Medium
A-47 1 4% Low
A-48 1 4% Low
A-79 1 4% Low
A-115 1 4% Low
S-65 1 4% Low
R-44 1 4% Low
A-10 0 0% Low
S-72 0 0% Low
Four Corners
KEY TAKEAWAY
Project A-85 was the clear favorite, receiving more than one-third of all votes. S-71 and
R-24/R-26 formed a second tier of support.
TABLE 10: ACTIVITY THREE SUMMARY FOR FOUR CORNERS
Project Votes Share of Total Priority
A-85 6 29% High
S-71 3 14% High
R-24/R-26 3 14% High
A-86 2 10% Medium
S-72 2 10% Medium
A-10 1 5% Low
A-113 1 5% Low
A-114 1 5% Low
A-115 1 5% Low
S-65 1 5% Low
393
A-47 0 0% Low
A-79 0 0% Low
R-44 0 0% Low
A-48 0 0% Low
Activity 4: The Sky’s the Limit
A map of the planning area was available for attendees to identify areas of concern and
share ideas for improvements that could address current conditions. Sticky string was
available for participants to add roads, trails and bike lanes where they don’t currently
exist and stickers were provided to add things like beautification (trees, bushes, flowers,
etc), lighting, pedestrian crossings, safety enhancements, and signal improvements.
This activity did not limit participant engagement to the currently proposed projects or
budget but allowed them to share solutions if there were no budgetary or logistical
constraints. The station provided the project team with an understanding of challenges
and possible solutions that may not have previously been considered.
FIGURE 7: ACTIVITY FOUR CONSOLIDATED MAP FROM ALL WORKSHOP LOCATIONS
NOTABLE PATTERNS
394
Trail improvements were the most common recommendation across all
workshops.
Four Corners showed the strongest emphasis on trails, with over 50,000 units of
trail length proposed.
Lighting was suggested across Huffine between Gooch Hill Rd and Fowler Ave.
COMMON PARTICIPANT COMMENTS
Several line features included notes indicating priorities such as:
Better trail connectivity
New trails in Belgrade
Connections to existing regional paths
Improved roadway design and safety
Truck route considerations
Redesign of roadway interchanges/cloverleafs
Exit from Belgrade to Bozeman
Empty lot near One11 Apartments
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Workshop participants overwhelmingly prioritized active transportation infrastructure,
particularly trails and bike lanes, over roadway expansions. The strongest recurring
theme was improving connectivity between communities, neighborhoods, and existing
trail systems.
Activity 5: Online Map and Mentimeter Survey
An online map of the planning area was made available to workshop attendees and
others who could not attend the workshop but wished to contribute thoughts and ideas.
The map and survey provided participants with the options to indicate specific areas of
concern and add comments and ideas for transportation improvements.
Summary of Online Public Comments
Community members shared 102 public comments related to transportation, mobility, and
infrastructure planning. The comments reveal strong support for improving safety and expanding
multimodal transportation options throughout the region.
TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comments Location (nearest intersection / cross
streets)
direct road connecting Melissa Way to frontage Rd Melissa Way to Frontage Rd
A sidewalk from thorp-Amsterdam intersection to jackrabbit-
Amsterdam intersection would be really great and help connect River
rock to Belgrade
Amsterdam Rd between Thorpe Rd and Jackrabbit
Ln; pin near the I-90 crossing
395
Crosswalks and bus stop N Rouse Ave near Bridger Center Dr (Glen Lake trail
access)
Improved/safe crossing for the gallagator trail please! S Willson Ave at the Gallagator Trail crossing, near
W Mason St
The LRTP is a great opportunity to re-enagage with the MOR about
continuing the Gallagator trail through. This is a key gap in a corridor
that connects thousands of existing and future homes to downtown.
Gallagator Trail gap at Museum of the Rockies,
south of W Kagy Blvd
reconstruct Church Street to modern standards and finish the grid -
connect to Lincoln and Garfield (the ROW exists, just needs to be
built). Making this street fully functional is a far better idea than
widening Highland Blvd.
S Church Ave near Lincoln St; proposed
connections to Lincoln and Garfield St
remove on street parking and create buffered bike lanes.
Peach/Durston is a critical E/W biking corridor.
W Peach St near N Black Ave (Peach–Durston
corridor)
complete shared use path to Belgrade Frontage Rd (MT 205), near Lake Dr, northwest of E
Valley Center Rd
Create a trail along South 19th for bikers and walkers, 19th is highly
used by bikers and runners going south from town to Hyalite Canyon..
Pin near Blackwood Rd west of Gooch Hill Rd
Flashing crosswalk light to and from park please S Fowler Ave & Laredo Dr (Bozeman Pond Park
access)
This stretch of road towards Fowler is very congested. Can you place
signs that state Slow Down, Pedestrian Crossing?
Laramie Dr near Golden Valley Dr, west of S Fowler
Ave
Please widen Durston Road between Love Lane and the Bozeman City
limit to allow for a shoulder or bike lane on each side of the road.
Durston is a major east-west bicycle commuting route within
Bozeman, but the risk for cyclists increases exponentially west of the
city limit due to the road narrowing and the speed limit increasing!
Durston Rd between Love Ln and the western city
limit, near Westgate Ave
Speed bumps before and after this crosswalk and a light up pedestrian
sign
Ravalli St & Treasure Ave
Better crosswalk infrastructure in Ferguson. Either painted crosswalks
on the road, pedestrian signs, a middle stop point or something for
pedestrians to feel safer crossing at Ravalli, Granite, and Babcock
S Ferguson Ave & Ravalli St; also Granite Ave and
W Babcock St crossings
Stop light at this intersection E Valley Center Rd & Davis Ln
Bike path that connects Fowler bike path and then continues along
Garfield until the university
W Garfield St & S Fowler Ave; connection east
toward MSU
Bike path that connects Fowler and college without cutting through
the mall parking lot
Harmon Stream Blvd near Huffine Ln / W College St
(mall trail connection)
There needs to be a wide bike path/sidewalk on the north side of
college
W College St near S 12th Ave
Stop sign on north/south intersection for ravalli Ravalli St & Yellowstone Ave
Please please please PLEASE add a light or roundabout at this
intersection! I commute from Bozeman to Belgrade for work and this
intersection is horrendous during rush hours.
E Valley Center Rd & Love Ln
Please please please PLEASE add a light or roundabout at this
intersection! I commute from Bozeman to Belgrade for work and this
intersection is horrendous during rush hours.
E Valley Center Rd & S Alaska Rd
Please do something to widen, straighten or provide better sight-line
at this curve in the road. It is dangerous, especially for those of us who
live on Westgate Ave. and have to turn onto Durston here every single
day. Vehicles heading east are FLYING around this curve and it's so
hard to see them coming. It would also be great to have better signage
to help remind drivers to slow down well before this curve.
Durston Rd at the curve near Westgate Ave
Completing this section of the Gallagator trail and providing a safe
crossing on Kagy would make this a fantastic route for Sacajawea
students (and other trail users)
W Kagy Blvd at the Gallagator Trail gap, near
Museum of the Rockies
396
Debris in the bike lanes on Babcock between 19th and 11th is so bad
as to make bike lanes unusable
W Babcock St between S 19th Ave and S 11th Ave;
pin near S 15th Ave
11th and Babcock crossing is challenging and unprotected for both
bikers and walkers, but fairly key to accessing the high school and
swim center.
W Babcock St & S 11th Ave
Surely there should be a way to connect bikes to the bike park? McIlhattan Rd at the bike park access, north of St
Andrews Dr
If changes to Main St are impossible, are the alternative options for
creating E/W corridors for bike that would parallel Main? Wide bike
lanes on Babcock and Mendenhall?
Downtown Main St corridor; parallel routes on W
Babcock St and W Mendenhall St
This section of Rouse is miserable to ride on or walk along, but a key
connection for parks, bike kitchen, HRDC, etc. Is the railroad dirt path
an option for access?
N Rouse Ave between Bond St and Bryant St, north
of I-90
Is this section likely to connect to the new E/W bike path between L st
and Rouse?
N Bozeman Ave near E Tamarack St (trail
connection toward L St / N Rouse Ave)
Crossing directly at trail. Why redirect down the block? W Graf St at the trail crossing near Macnab St, east
of S 11th Ave
Connect the middle schools with the bus system. Get the kids started
on public transportation early!
Sacajawea Middle School, near S 3rd Ave &
Cambridge Dr
Connect the middle schools with the bus system. Get the kids started
on public transportation early!
Chief Joseph Middle School, near Kimberwicke St &
Milkhouse Ave
Koch is a very natural E/W corridor for bikes, but could use additional
infrastructure and signage to emphasize its role
W Koch St near S 12th Ave (east–west bicycle
corridor)
Make 15th into a major N/S bike corridor. Separated bike lanes and
protected intersections
N 15th Ave near Juniper St
Can this trail be continued N/S to Baxter? Cattail St near Thomas Dr; proposed trail
connection south toward Baxter Ln
Continue Shady Lane Trail...a great way to travel Shady Lane Trail near S 19th Ave & W Graf St
This pedestrian crossing is scary, especially with little kids, but
increasingly used by preschoolers at Mountain Meadows at Hope
Lutheran. Can additional flashing lights or pedestrian island be added
to improve visibility and safety?
S 19th Ave & W Graf St (Hope Lutheran crossing)
possible to gain access for bike/pedestrian path away from 19th? West of S 19th Ave near the Remington Way
alignment, north of Stucky Rd
Improve pedestrian crossing S 19th Ave & Blackwood Rd
Flashy lights? Useful connection to Glen Lake trails N Rouse Ave near Bridger Center Dr (Glen Lake trail
access)
More frequent bus access with stops at Glen Lake and Story Mill Griffin Dr near Manley Rd; transit access to Glen
Lake and Story Mill
Pedestrian highway crossing connecting Griffin with 15th trails I-90 crossing near Mandeville Ln, between Griffin
Dr and N 15th Ave trails
Sidewalks? Protection of any kind for pedestrians and bikers
connection Pete's Hill and Ice Pond Rd
S Church Ave near Ice Pond Rd / the south end of
Peets Hill
Protected bike lane on Graf W Graf St near S 3rd Ave & Fieldstone Dr
Continue sidewalk at least to Westridge S 3rd Ave between W Kagy Blvd and Westridge Dr
Roundabout S Willson Ave & W College St
Widening sidewalk, remove parking from S side of street to improve
bus stop visibility.
W Babcock St & S Black Ave (bus stop area)
Purpleline stop W Main St near N 9th Ave (Purpleline stop)
either improve timing for this crossing signal or get rid of it. It takes SO
LONG to change that it's basically useless! why??!
W Main St pedestrian crossing near N 13th Ave /
Bozeman High School
397
Loop Airport Rd to Frontage on Pinkline Airway Blvd near Gallatin Field Rd (airport
approach); comment proposes Airport Rd–
Frontage loop
We need a traffic light at Kagy and Sourdough. Many bikers and
runners come through this intersection, and it’s getting busier and
busier with cars,
E Kagy Blvd & Sourdough Rd
BIG need for safe biking route to go east/west across the Valley.
Stucky is the logical route, but, we need road shoulders for safe biking.
Also traffic speed calming. Especially true for Stucky just west of 19th.
best Discovery Ln.
Stucky Rd near Fowler Ln; corridor west of S 19th
Ave, including Discovery Dr
The intersection of Jackrabbit and Huffine is a death trap for
pedestrians and bicyclists trying to cross the road. Please plan for
strong pedestrian and bicycle safety features.
Huffine Ln & Jackrabbit Ln / US 191 (Four Corners)
There is a huge gap here where the shared use path does not exist due
to a conservation easement. This needs to be completed for the
system to be safe for people walking and biking.
Huffine Ln shared-use path gap west of Gooch Hill
Rd, near Middle Creek
slow the speed limit on Huffine Lane to 45MPH Huffine Ln & Red Mountain Dr
This section of Huffine Lane needs to have a slower speed so that
safety is increased for all people using the roadway and noise is
reduced for residents.
Huffine Ln near Biondi Way / War Bonnet Trl
This is a residential area, but there are no safe crossings within 3/4 of
a mile. Please add a stop light or RRFB.
Huffine Ln & Shed Horn Dr / Arrowhead Trl
There should be an extension of the shared use path here. Huffine Ln between S Fowler Ave and S Ferguson
Ave
There is no safe way for children who live west of here to get to
Monforton School. A shared use path and safe crossings are essential
to their wellbeing and social drivers of health.
US 191 / Gallatin Rd near Fourth St, south of
Huffine Ln
These intersections are dangerous for all roadway users. Reduce
speed and use traffic calming approaches to change the engineering
so that it reduces speed.
W Oak St near N Ferguson Ave & New Sun Way
This area is next to a park, but built as a raceway. Reduce to one lane
with chicanes to slow traffic and protect people walking and biking.
W Oak St & Meagher Ave (west side of park)
This area is inhospitable for people walking and biking. Our
community needs to control operations on this roadway so that safe
crossings can be established, speed reduced, and it can be more
prosperous of a commercial area. We deserve better performance
metrics that prioritize people in our community over moving metal
boxes as fast as possible.
W Main St near Professional Dr / W College St
don't waste money on widening this road. Invest that money into
pedestrian and bicycle safety features and transit.
W Kagy Blvd between S 19th Ave and S 17th Ave
This intersection of the shared use path and roadway is very
dangerous for pedestrians. drivers turning onto Huffine will only look
west and do not see people traveling west. Drivers turning off of
Huffine are too concerned with oncoming traffic and do not see
people walking biking. Please increase safety here.
Huffine Ln / W College St & Harmon Stream Blvd
Lead pedestrian intervals would help to make sure drivers yielded to
pedestrians at this intersection. Why can they have lead pedestrian
intervals in Washington DC, but not Bozeman Montana? Also, the
crossing time is too fast for people (children, older adults, people with
disability) walking to get across safely.?
Huffine Ln & S Fowler Ave
Was this road purposefully built for speed? So many students
crossing, but the 85th percentile is above 35 MPH. Narrowing the
lanes and building curb extensions with in-road yielding signs would
make this much safer. Is safety the priority, or LOS?
S 11th Ave between W Kagy Blvd and Stucky Rd /
Campus Blvd
398
Why are we waiting for developers to make this safer? It's time to put
the transportation budget where they community continually says
they want it... pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
S Church Ave between E Kagy Blvd and Lincoln St,
near Arcola Dr
The Gallagator is an example of success and should be emulated
across the county.
Gallagator Trail near S Black Ave & E Cleveland St
Another example of prioritizing safety for people over car LOS. Thank
you for creating spaces for other modes of transportation!
Grant St near Bobcat Cir (MSU campus)
Fund streamline! Each jurisdiction needs to invest more money into
Streamline. It is ridiculous that we do not have a fully functioning
transit system, but we can continue to build, widen, and maintain
roadways for personal automobile use. Widening Kagy would't even
be needed if the government entities invested their money into
transit. But instead, we continue paving paradise.
Grant St near S 7th Ave (MSU); comment concerns
regional Streamline funding
Tax funds are used to plow city streets for cars to move around, but it
is the property owner's responsibility to plow sidewalks? Think of the
mode share changes that would occur if the priority was on walking
and bicycling maintenance first. What is the point of all the climate
action planning if we continue to prioritize the use of personal
automobile? Change the code to reflect the values the community
continually asks for.. Maintain walking/biking infrastructure before
automobile infrastructure.
W College St near S 20th Ave; comment concerns
citywide sidewalk maintenance
Please DO NOT widen Dursten road. Do add a shared use path and
reduce speed.
Durston Rd west of Westgate Ave, toward Love Ln
The current crossing is an example of how our city is not prioritizing
people over cars. There is no reason we cant have a direct crossing for
people rather than redirecting them to an intersection. Nobody goes
to the intersection anyway. build a crossing here.
W Graf St at the trail crossing near Macnab St, east
of S 11th Ave
it's obvious that there needs to be a mid-block crossing here. Each
jurisdiction points blame at the other, but they both refuse to create a
solution that prioritizes safety for people walking across the street.
Put up a mid-block crossing!
S 11th Ave just south of Lincoln Rd, near Bobcat Cir
MDT should not be allowed to rip through our community. Take over
jurisdiction from the state and make this safer for people and more
productive commercially.
N 7th Ave near Birch St, south of W Oak St
Why is this the only intersection on Main without a traffic light? It is
difficult for pedestrians to cross safely. Flashing beacon at least.
W Main St & S 3rd Ave
Get the trucks off of Main Street. E Main St near N Rouse Ave (downtown truck
route)
For speed control and better business, this should be a two way street. W Mendenhall St near N Willson Ave
More profit for businesses would come from slower speeds and two
way roads.
W Babcock St between S 3rd Ave and S Willson Ave
Why do we subsidize automobile storage when we don't subsidize any
other personal property storage. Bring back paid parking downtown.
Invest the proceeds into Streamline, bikeshare, and sidewalk snow
removal.
Main St near Black Ave; comment concerns
downtown parking
Lots of high schoolers need to cross here. There could be more safety
improvements such as lead pedestrian intervals, wider and more
vibrant crosswalks.
W Main St & N/S 11th Ave
This is not a healthy place for people. The way built, people can only
exist in metal boxes.
Jackrabbit Ln & Alaska Frontage Rd, just south of I-
90
I love the shared use path here! Nice work!! Let's do this kind of
multi-modal safety throughout the county!
Alaska Frontage Rd east of Yukon Ln, south of I-90
I appreciate that the county plows the snow from the shared use path
in Four Corners and along Jackrabbit. This type of investment in
pedestrian facility maintenance should be prioritized throughout the
planning area. Thank you Gallatin County!
Huffine Ln near Sundance Trl (Four Corners shared-
use path)
399
Thank you for this shared use path to the M. Can we have more of
this type of people prioritizing?
Bridger Dr near Creekwood Ln (shared-use path
toward the M)
Do not put a parking lot here. invest that money into a shared use
path to have people ride their bikes to the park.
McIlhattan Rd at the bike park access, north of St
Andrews Dr
Did you know you can ride a bike from Four Corners to the airport on
protected path/bike lanes? It's amazing! We need more of this
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity!
Airway Blvd & Frontage Rd (airport bicycle
connection)
There is clearly a need to transit in Four Corners, but our community
did not prioritize funding Streamline. Now, people are stuck walking
along Huffine lane to get to Bozeman. Fund streamline!
Huffine Ln & Shed Horn Dr / Arrowhead Trl (Four
Corners transit access)
Someone moved in here and closed off the connecting "cowpath"
that allowed neighbors to travel to schutz ln. Now there is no safe
connection. Could we get some trail easements to increase mobility in
Four Corners?
South end of Big Chief Trl; former connection
toward Schultz Ln
A trail easement to get children to Monforton school without having
to travel along Huffine would be a good investment.
East of Jackrabbit Ln near Forkhorn Dr; proposed
connection toward Monforton School
We know from research that unprotected left hand turns are a major
safety threat to pedestrians. Can we please separate pedestrians at
this intersection through time and space? A protected left hand turn
off of Huffine would help a whole lot.
Huffine Ln & S Ferguson Ave
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures Can
we just apply these all across the county rather than nit picking the map.
Plan safety in from the beginning.
Huffine Ln west of S Cottonwood Rd; comment
requests countywide safety measures
Adopt an MPO wide complete streets policy. Stucky Rd & S Cottonwood Rd; comment requests
an MPO-wide Complete Streets policy
Please adopt an MPO wide policy that removes all parking minimums.
Automobile storage is part of the transportation system and should be
regulated as such. If we are actually interested in environmental
protections, we wouldn't be subsidizing storage of personal property on
public spaces.
Love Ln south of Hulbert Rd; comment requests
MPO-wide removal of parking minimums
Unsafe and overcrowded mouth of intersection due to newly allowed
daycare centers "by-right." No sidewalks, no curb, and no parking for
clientele. Terrible planning; this should have required an SUP like the
previous regulations did. Childcare center started operating without an
approved SUP and did so with notice to the City and they just let it slide
with arbitrary and capricious code enforcement. Congratulations.
Durston Rd & N 17th Ave
Lower speed limits as they get in the canyon from 70 MPH to at
maximum 55MPH
Pin near Violet Rd
Convert the one way streets to two-way traffic for pedestrian safety. W Mendenhall St near N 5th Ave
Grind down the high spots on the sidewalks and see if you have a
change in the number of people who are falling down and getting hurt.
E Main St between Black Ave and Bozeman Ave
(downtown sidewalks)
Please look in to bike path along rolling hills to connect sypes cnyn to
the M trails!! would make a great loop
Pin near Old Farm Rd
please monitor scale and massing of development in this area to
maintain walkability and bikeability for all
Front St near Ida Ave / E Aspen St
As a wildlife advocacy organization, the Gallatin Wildlife Association
would like to work with the city to emphasize the need for wildlife
infrastructure on I-90 near Bozeman Pass or at the mouth of the canyon
near the Bear Creek exit. We realize that moving eastward from this exit
lies outside the city limits, but the city's support for such action could
prove valuable. There has been some discussion concerning the
possibility of an overpass west of this location for elk and possible other
I-90 near Bear Canyon Rd, Exit 313; comment also
references Bozeman Pass
400
unglulates as well. Please contact the Gallatin Wildlife Association for
further details, Clint Nagel at 406-600-1792.
Major Themes
1. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (MOST FREQUENT THEME)
Approximately one-third of comments focused on safety concerns, including:
Safer pedestrian crossings and crosswalks
Reduced vehicle speeds
Better intersection design
Improved visibility for pedestrians and cyclists
Traffic calming measures in residential and school areas
Examples:
Requests for lead pedestrian intervals at signals
Calls for lower speed limits on major corridors
Concerns about dangerous crossings and high-speed traffic
2. BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Many commenters advocated for:
Protected bike lanes
East-west and north-south bicycle connections
Wider road shoulders for cyclists
Better separation between vehicles and bicycles
Representative requests included:
Protected bike lanes on key streets
Safe regional bike routes across the valley
Improved connections between existing bicycle facilities
3. TRAIL AND SHARED-USE PATH EXPANSION
Trail connectivity was one of the strongest recurring themes.
Residents requested:
401
New shared-use paths
Extension of existing trails
Connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, and commercial areas
Improved regional trail networks
Several comments specifically mentioned:
Gallagator Trail improvements
Shady Lane Trail extensions
Multi-use paths as alternatives to driving
4. ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Comments included requests for:
Intersection redesigns
Additional roadway connections
Roundabouts and signal improvements
Better traffic flow management
Some commenters also emphasized balancing vehicle mobility with pedestrian and bicycle safety.
5. PUBLIC TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Transit-related comments included:
Expanded bus service
Better connections to schools
Increased transit accessibility
Encouraging public transportation use among younger residents
6. CONNECTIVITY AND MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION
A recurring message throughout the comments was the desire for a transportation system that
supports:
Walking
Biking
Transit
Driving
Many residents emphasized reducing dependence on automobiles and creating a more connected
transportation network.
ADDITIONAL THEMES
402
Several comments also addressed:
Wildlife crossings and environmental considerations
Parking policies and parking minimums
Access to parks and recreation areas
Growth management and transportation planning
Accessibility for all users
OVERALL TAKEAWAY
The public feedback strongly favors a safer, more connected, multimodal transportation system. The
most common priorities were:
1. Improved pedestrian safety
2. Expanded bicycle infrastructure
3. More trails and shared-use paths
4. Better connectivity between destinations
5. Enhanced transit options
Overall, residents appear to support investments that reduce reliance on automobiles while improving
safety and accessibility for people walking, biking, and using transit.
Phase III: Integrate and Refine
Timeframe: August to December 2026
Engagement Activities:
Community Advisory Panel: At its third meeting, held on August 25, 2026, the
CAP reviewed and provided input on the draft Policies, Programs, and Practices
chapter. Members worked collaboratively with MPO staff to refine proposed
strategies and implementation considerations. The CAP was also briefed on the
top scoring projects that emerged from the evaluation process. We’re planning to
meet again in late October 2026.
Community Events: We anticipate presenting a final draft of the LRTP during
the months of November and December by taking advantage of local events
such as the farmer's market and other community events.
403
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 1
Gallatin Valley MPO Long Range Transportation
Plan Project and Program Evaluation Criteria
This document describes how the evaluation approach was developed to help screen, score,
and prioritize projects for funding and implementation for the GVMPO’s first Long Range
Transportation Plan. (LRTP) through the horizon year 2050. This assessment builds off
community input and consensus building conducted during public engagement events, uses
local plans’ recommended projects as a starting point, and assesses the benefits of each
potential project through the Evaluation Framework as follows:
1. Collection – Gathered proposed and potential capital transportation projects through
a call for projects with partner agencies and the public.
2. Screening – Reviewed and updated project list and submitted projects to revise
project extents and map inputs, confirm project descriptions, and combine or remove
duplicative, completed, or ineligible projects.
3. Scoring – Identify top scoring projects based on location and project type when
scored against 21 quantitative metrics developed to advance the objectives for the
six GVMPO LRTP goals.
4. Alternatives – Use the regional travel demand model to test network performance.
5. Prioritizing and Recommending – Identify recommended projects to be implemented
and funded through a phased implementation approach based on adopted goals,
performance, and feedback collected throughout Summer 2026.
404
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 2
Collection
Projects were collected in two phases. First, existing projects named in local and regional
plans were collected and filtered for relevancy. Next, an agency call for projects was held for
MPO partners to submit their relevant project concepts to be considered for inclusion in the
LRTP. Additionally, new project concepts from the public outreach were also included.
Screening
Over 900 potential projects were submitted for evaluation. The projects were then screened
for eligibility and filtered into one of four project types:
Safety: Projects aimed at reducing or eliminating conflicts at intersections and key
corridors and improving safety for people using non-motorized modes. Types of
projects include:
Traffic signals and roundabouts
New or upgraded pedestrian crossings
Curb extensions and lane configurations
Signal phasing improvements
Active Transportation: Projects aimed at providing dedicated space for people to
walk, bike, or roll to destinations throughout the region. Types of projects include:
Constructing new sidewalks or filling in sidewalk gaps
Pedestrian/bicycle tunnels and overpasses
Dedicated bike lanes and shared-used paths/trails
Roadways: Projects designed to increase vehicle connectivity and enhance the
roadway system through creation, redesign, and reconstruction of streets and
bridges. Types of projects include:
Reconstructing or widening to upgrade road classification
Restriping and reconfiguring lanes
New extensions for network connectivity
Maintenance: Projects designed to preserve the roadway system through
maintenance efforts. Types of projects include:
Bridge maintenance or replacement
Pavement seal, mill, and overlay
Streetscape improvements
405
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 3
Scoring
The project team developed scoring criteria using 21 quantitative metrics based on project goals to identify the top-ranking projects in the GVMPO.
The quantitative metrics focus on geographic criteria, which makes it possible to evaluate many projects quickly and adjust weighting of goals or
criteria as needed. Projects were assigned tiers based on an aggregate score out of 29 available points.
Goal Desired Outcomes Criteria
1. Support Safe
Travel Across All
Modes
1. Eliminate all traffic-related fatalities and serious
injuries across all transportation modes
2. Improve safety outcomes and reduce barriers for
non-motorized travel
3. Improve safety performance on high-injury corridors
and intersections
4. Improve accessibility and safety by reducing existing
facility gaps and ADA deficiencies
5. Reduce conflicts and barriers that undermine safety,
comfort, and personal security
6. Maintain safe and secure conditions for transit riders
and operators
7. Strengthen partnerships to support reaching Vision
Zero goals
Crash Reduction
1 point – Project is located within 500ft of a corridor with 2 or more crashes on average per
year resulting in serious or fatal injury of any mode
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
1 point – Project will improve bicycle/pedestrian safety within 500ft of a corridor with 2 or
more crashes on average per year involving a pedestrian or cyclist
Accessibility
1 point – Project contributes to or closes a gap in the ADA network
2. Ensure a Well-
Maintained
Transportation
System
1. Maintain a state of good repair for roadway, bridge,
and transit assets
2. Maintain reliable travel times across the
transportation system
3. Improve pedestrian conditions to and within pre-
1980s neighborhoods, activity centers, and transit
stops
4. Improve long-term system performance through
preservation-focused investment decisions
Facility Preservation
1 point – Project improves pavement, bridge, or transit facility with fair condition rating
2 points – Project improves pavement, bridge, or transit facility with poor condition rating
Pedestrian Conditions
1 point – Project repairs, restores, or improves pedestrian conditions in pre-1980s
neighborhoods, including sidewalks, curb ramps, crossings, pedestrian gaps, lighting,
furnishings, or other elements that improve pedestrian access, comfort, or perceived safety
406
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 4
Goal Desired Outcomes Criteria
3. Expand Mobility
Choices
Throughout the
Region
1. Improve access between schools, jobs, services,
and key destinations
2. Improve street and pathway connectivity to support
more direct multimodal travel
3. Expand transportation infrastructure to support trips
made by not driving alone
4. Improve access, comfort, and safety to and at transit
stops and transfer locations
5. Expand access to everyday non-driving travel
options that lower household costs
6. Improve continuity and comfort by filling missing
gaps in the pedestrian network
7. Establish a regional bike network connecting key
destinations for all ages and abilities
Access to Essential Services
1 point – Project improves multimodal access within ½ mile of schools and hospitals
2 points – Project directly connects to or expands multimodal access to schools and
hospitals
Access to Jobs
1 point – Improves access to some employment centers
2 points – Improves access to many key commercial and industrial employment centers
Route Choice
1 point – Project improves network access and connectivity by increasing intersection
density, which may result in shorter block lengths, connected block patterns, and/or four-
way intersections
Transit Access
1 point – Project closes a gap, removes a barrier, or improves transit operations within ½
mile of a Streamline bus route or stop
Active Transportation Network
1 point – Project contributes to or fills a gap in the pedestrian or bicycle network
2 points – Project completes a continuous low-stress walking or bicycling connection with
separate facilities from general traffic
407
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 5
Goal Desired Outcomes Criteria
4. Enhance Health,
Quality of Life, and
Preserve Regional
Character
1. Improve access to non-motorized facilities that
support active travel options
2. Improve transportation access to parks, trails, and
recreation areas
3. Reduce wildlife-vehicle conflicts and improve safe
wildlife movement across corridors
4. Reduce transportation-related impacts on
environmentally sensitive areas
5. Reduce per capita air emissions from the
transportation system
Access to Recreational and Active Facilities
1 point – Project provides multimodal access within ½ mile of a public recreation facility,
park, or trail
2 points – Project directly connects to or expands multimodal access to a public recreation
facility, park, or trail
Wildlife
1 point – Project does not negatively impact a moderate sensitivity or moderate use wildlife
corridor
2 points – Project does not negatively impact a high sensitivity or high use wildlife corridor
Natural Preservation
1 point – Project is outside of environmentally sensitive areas
Emissions
1 point – Project will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), single-occupancy vehicle (SOV)
trips, or carbon emissions
408
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 6
Goal Desired Outcomes Criteria
5. Enhance
Transportation and
Land Use Planning
Coordination
1. Align transportation system and network decisions
with adopted growth plans
2. Encourage land use decisions consistent with
transportation investments and policies
3. Align transportation system design to support
walkable, human-centered, and well-connected places
4. Support placemaking, economic vitality, and access
in centers
5. Prioritize year-round needs to avoid overbuilding
driven by season travel demand
6. Reduce speed-related conflicts through context-
sensitive design
Connectivity to Destinations
1 point – Project adds a connection within a half mile of 2 or more key destinations
2 points – Project adds a connection between 2 or more neighborhoods and/or urban
renewal districts
Growth Plans
1 point – Project is within a Moderately Suitable area (as identified in the Gallatin Valley
FLUM) or a TAZ projected to have growth
2 points – Project is within a Most Suitable area (as identified in the Gallatin Valley FLUM)
-1 point – Project is inconsistent with an adopted formal plan or primarily supports
unplanned outward expansion
Walkable Place Support
1 point – Project improves pedestrian access and provides a more complete, comfortable,
and place-supportive walking environment
Complete Streets Design
1 point – Project supports slower operating speeds through Complete Streets design
features that better align the street or road with surrounding land use, access needs, and
multimodal activity
6. Improve
Transportation
System Resilience
1. Improve the adaptability, flexibility, and resilience of
the transportation network design
2. Maintain and enhance system design for the reliable
movement of people and goods
3. Maintain a transportation system that can
accommodate emerging technologies
4. Strengthen coordination, cooperation, and
preparedness among transportation partners to support
mobility, access, and logistics during emergency
response and recovery
Freight Reliability and Access
1 point – Project is located on a Freight Flow Corridor or is located within ½ mile of a
trucking area
Network Redundancy
1 point – Project improves route options, parallel circulation, emergency access, or system
redundancy
Transit Reliability and Access
1 point – Project advances the Transit Strategic Plan recommendations or improves reliable
transit operations
409
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 7
Alternative Futures Analysis
The project team compiled alternatives that combine projects based on scoring results,
geography, and project types. The alternatives were developed in partnership with MPO staff,
and TTAC. It was expected there would be three future land use alternatives to evaluate
against the metrics developed to support the project goals. However, the project team chose
to evaluate alternatives based on connectivity to better understand if additional connectivity
or increased capacity on existing road segments would best improve network performance.
Alternatives were tested within the regional travel demand model to assess future network
performance and other outcomes for 2050.
Prioritizing and Recommending
After scoring the projects and developing alternatives, the project team conducted a work
session with the MPO staff and TTAC to determine which projects are highest priority. This
final round of prioritization review included public feedback collected throughout the life of
the project and future revenue projections. A fiscally-constrained list of projects was
produced based on the outcome of this work session. The final recommended projects will
have the greatest implementable return on investment for the community and are expected
to advance GVMPO’s goals and network performance.
The prioritization questions are listed below.
Prioritization Questions
Does the project have any committed or partial funding?
Does the project have any major feasibility constraints for design?
Does the project have strong support or concerns from the public?
Does the project depend on significant future development or increase in traffic volumes to warrant investment?
Is the project in an advanced state of shovel readiness (i.e. preliminary design or engineering)?
Will the project significantly increase future costs for roadway preservation, maintenance, and snow removal?
Does the project address an area or population experiencing transportation barriers, safety burdens, limited
access, or other documented mobility needs?
Does the project support infill development or affordable housing for areas identified as priority for regional growth?
Is there anything missing from the project description that could materially change the scores?
410
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 8
Scoring Results
Project
ID Name Description Sub-Category Score Tier
A-137 Peach St Complete Street Improvements Improve sidewalks, crosswalks, and bicycle facility on Peach St between N 7th and N
Rouse in the city of Bozeman. Sidewalks 25 Tier 1
R-130 Mendenhall & Babcock Streetscape Complete streetscape improvements along Mendenhall Street and Babcock Street to
include curb bulb-outs, landscaping and crossing enhancements. Road Construction 25 Tier 1
R-90 Oak St: 7th to 19th Safety Improvement Redesign Oak St from 7th to 19th in the City of Bozeman to improve safety and access
control. Road Construction 23 Tier 1
R-38 Church (Main St to Kagy Blvd) Reconstruct Church Street from the intersection with Main Street south to the
intersection with Kagy Boulevard to a two-lane urban "collector" standard. Road Construction 23 Tier 1
A-133 Madison Ave/Broadway St - Jackrabbit Ln
to Main St
Bike lane; bike-ped route and connector; Reconstruct to urban minor arterial standards
to include on-street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalks, bike lanes Shared Use Path 21 Tier 1
S-85 Streamline Downtown Transfer Station
Improvements Repairs bus pull through lane and improved ADA compliance. Transit 21 Tier 1
R-22 Main Street (North Quaw Boulevard to
Gallatin Field Road)
Reconstruct to urban principal arterial standards to include 8-foot shoulder/parking,
center turn lane/turn bays, curbs, and gutters; Non motorized facilities should be
constructed
Road Construction 21 Tier 1
R-125 Bozeman Trail/Haggerty Ln (Main St to
Kagy Blvd)
Bozeman Trail should be reconstructed to a three-lane urban "minor arterial" roadway
from the intersection with Kagy Boulevard north to the intersection with Haggerty Lane.
Haggerty Lane should also be upgraded to a three-lane urban "minor arterial" roadway
Road Construction 21 Tier 1
A-123 Airway Blvd - Gallatin Field Rd to E Frank
Rd Bike lane or shared use path; partial commuter. Shared Use Path 20 Tier 1
A-134 Jackrabbit Ln - Frontage Rd to Amsterdam
Rd/Alaska Frontage Rd Bike lane; bike-ped route and connector. Shared Use Path 20 Tier 1
R-54 Amsterdam Rd - Thorpe Rd to Jackrabbit Ln Reconstruct to 5-lane urban minor arterial standards with appropriate non-motorized
accommodation like parallel multi-use path. Road Construction 20 Tier 1
A-84 Bozeman to Belgrade Shared Use Path
Shared use path recommended in the 2007 PROST Plan; has robust public support.
Locate to the north of existing Frontage Road and east of North 7th Avenue. Only
includes portion of path between Bozeman (I-90) and TMP study area boundary (~5
miles in length).
Shared Use Path 19 Tier 1
411
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 9
Project
ID Name Description Sub-Category Score Tier
A-131 Amsterdam Rd - Clovehitch Rd to
Jackrabbit Ln Shared use path; commuter. Shared Use Path 19 Tier 1
R-57 Jackrabbit Ln Overpass (Amsterdam Rd to
Colorado St)
Widen/replace overpass to accommodate additional lanes and non-motorized
accommodations; reconstruct off-ramp to increase capacity. Road Construction 19 Tier 1
M-16 Lamme St Bridge Rehabilitation Rehabilitate or replace the existing structure on Lamme St between N Bozeman and N
Rouse in the city of Bozeman to improve structure condition and hydraulic capacity. Bridge 19 Tier 1
R-128 Highland (Main to Kagy)
Street improvements on Highland Boulevard from the intersection with Main Street to
the intersection with Ellis Street, upgrading to a two-lane urban "minor arterial" arterial
standard, and from the intersection with Ellis Street south to the intersection with Kagy
Road Construction 19 Tier 1
R-60 Frontage Rd - Bolinger Rd to Jackrabbit Ln Reconstruct to urban minor arterial standards to include widened shoulders, sidewalks
on north side, center turn lane/turn bays. Road Construction 19 Tier 1
R-102 N 19th Ave (Interstate 90 to Springhill Rd)
Widen N. 19th Avenue from Interstate 90 to the intersection with Springhill Road to a 5-
lane urban arterial standard. This project includes widening the I-90 overpass along N.
19th Avenue.
Road Construction 19 Tier 1
M-19 Downtown Bozeman Creek Structure
Rehabilitation
Bozeman Creek traverses downtown Bozeman through a series of three tunnels under
Olive St, Rouse Ave, Babcock St, and Main St. for a total length of approximately 700
LF. This infrastructure is critical for the function of urban, primary, and NHS routes. The
tunnel system is approaching the end of its useful life and requires rehabilitation,
replacement, and hydraulic capacity improvements to manage flooding.
Road Preservation 19 Tier 1
R-113 Ferguson (Huffine to Johnson) - Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 19 Tier 1
R-91 Fowler Lane: Garfield to Stucky This project will construct Fowler Lane from Garfield to Stucky as a 2-lane minor
arterial in the city of Bozeman to provide an alternate N/S route to S 19th. Road Construction 18 Tier 1
R-108 Harper Puckett (Deadman's Gulch / Cattail
St to Valley Center) - Principal Arterial Recommended Extension - Principal Arterial Road Construction 18 Tier 1
A-86 Huffine Lane Shared Use Path Complete the shared use path between Circle F Trail and Bozeman City Limits to
create a continuous non-motorized route between Four Corners and Bozeman. Shared Use Path 17 Tier 2
R-59 Frontage Rd - Airway Blvd to City Limits Reconstruct to urban street standards. Road Construction 17 Tier 2
R-56 Jackrabbit Ln - Mayfair Dr to Frontage Rd Reconstruct to urban minor arterial standards to be consistent with southern portion of
the corridor; realign side streets. Road Construction 17 Tier 2
412
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 10
Project
ID Name Description Sub-Category Score Tier
R-20 S 3rd Ave (Graf St to Kagy Blvd)
This project consists of reconstructing S. 3rd Avenue from the intersection with Graf
Street to the intersection with Kagy Boulevard to a three-lane urban "collector"
roadway. This includes one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, and
curbs
Road Construction 17 Tier 2
R-97 Garfield (Fowler to Ferguson) - Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 17 Tier 2
S-60 US 191 Improvements
Complete safety recommendations from MDT’s 2020 US 191 Corridor Study, including:
modifying lanes and intersections, adding pedestrian crossings, installing curve
warning signs, bridge maintenance, and improving intersection/roadway lighting
Road Construction 17 Tier 2
S-73 Jackrabbit Ln/Driveway Tunnel under Jackrabbit Ln Pedestrian
Tunnel/Bridge 16 Tier 2
R-106 I-90 Overpass/Underpass New overpass/underpass across I-90 Road Construction 16 Tier 2
R-58 Amsterdam Rd - Countryside Ln/Royal Rd
to Thorpe Rd
Reconstruct to 5-lane urban minor arterial standards with appropriate non-motorized
accommodations. Road Construction 16 Tier 2
S-63 Belgrade to Bozeman Frontage Road
Improvements
Evaluate and modify existing passing and no-passing signing and striping to meet
current standards; Construct centerline rumble strips along the rural portions of the
corridor as appropriate; develop a path between Bozeman and Belgrade; Reconstruct
the corridor to include one travel lane in each direction, center left-turn lane (where
appropriate), and eight-foot shoulders
Road Construction 16 Tier 2
R-37 Valley Center (Valley Center Spur to 27th
Ave)
This project consists of upgrading Valley Center Drive from the intersection with the
Valley Center Underpass to the intersection with N. 27th Avenue to a three-lane urban
arterial standard complete with one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
side.
Road Construction 16 Tier 2
R-155 Stucky Road (S 19th Avenue to Gooch Hill
Road) Reconstruct roadway to urban collector standards Road Construction 16 Tier 2
R-122 Davis (Baxter to Valley Center)
This project consists of upgrading Davis from the intersection with Baxter to the
intersection with Valley Center Road to a five-lane urban "minor arterial" standard. This
includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curbs, and gutters.
Road Construction 16 Tier 2
R-110 Catamount St (Davis Ln to Love Lane) -
Minor Arterial Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial Road Construction 16 Tier 2
413
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 11
Project
ID Name Description Sub-Category Score Tier
R-120 Kagy Boulevard (Willson Avenue to
Highland Boulevard)
This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard, from the intersection of S. 19th
Avenue to Willson Avenue, to a four-lane urban principal arterial standard. This
includes two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curb and gutter.
Road Construction 16 Tier 2
R-121 Cottonwood (Baxter Ln to Deadman's Gulch
/ Cattail St)
Complete the construction of Cottonwood Road, from Baxter Lane to Deadman's
Gulch / Cattail Street, to a five-lane urban "principal arterial" standard. This includes
two travel lanes in each direction, bike lanes on each side, curbs, and gutters.
Road Construction 16 Tier 2
R-165 N 19th Interchange Modifications
This project would construct modifications to the N 19th Interchange with I-90
(westbound exit ramp) to support street infrastructure for the North Park development
currently under MDT Systems Impact review.
Road Construction 15 Tier 2
R-96 S 11th Ave (Blackwood to Goldenstein) -
Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 15 Tier 2
R-117 Baxter (Cottonwood to MPA Boundary) -
Minor Arterial Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial Road Construction 15 Tier 2
R-118 Laurel Parkway (Valley Center to Oak) -
Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 15 Tier 2
R-148 Cameron Bridge Road (Alaska Road South
to Jackrabbit Lane) Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards Road Construction 15 Tier 2
A-57 Frontage Road Connector Shared path connecting northeast I-90 Frontage Rd to E Valley Center Shared Use Path 14 Tier 3
A-79 Gallatin Road (Four Corners to Gallatin
Gateway) Extend existing shared use path Shared Use Path 14 Tier 3
A-136 Valley Center Spur Multimodal Connection
This project will construct a multimodal connection along Valley Center Spur between
the existing Frontage Rd shared use path and E Valley Center. Detailed planning and
design will determine facility type. Signal modifications at each existing intersection are
anticipated.
Shared Use Path 14 Tier 3
S-77 Jackrabbit Ln/I-90 Grade-separated crossing. Pedestrian
Tunnel/Bridge 14 Tier 3
R-23 Frontage Road (Weaver Road to Bolinger
Road)
Reconstruct to rural minor arterial standards to include widened shoulders, recoverable
side slopes, center turn lane/turn bays. Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-143 Baxter Lane (Harper Puckett Road to
Jackrabbit Lane) Reconstruct roadway to rural minor arterial standards Road Construction 14 Tier 3
414
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 12
Project
ID Name Description Sub-Category Score Tier
R-152 Cottonwood Road (Oak Street to Hulbert
Road) Reconstruct roadway to urban principal arterial standards Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-46 S. 19th Avenue (Kagy Blvd to Hyalite
Canyon Road)
Reconstruct roadway to urban principal standards from Kagy Blvd to Goldenstein
Road, rural principal arterial standards from Goldenstein Road to Johnson Road, and
minor arterial standards to Hyalite Canyon Road
Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-164 Stucky Rd: Fowler to S 19th
This project will reconstruct Stucky Rd to a 2-lane urban collector from Fowler Ln to S
19th including constructing a roundabout (preferred) or traffic signal at the intersection
of Stucky Rd and Fowler Ln to improve safety and manage increasing traffic volumes.
Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-36 Cottonwood Rd (Loyal Drive to Graf St)
Reconstruct Cottonwood Road, from the intersection of Loyal Drive to Graf Street, to a
three-lane urban "principal arterial" standard. This includes one travel lanes in each
direction, bike lanes on each side, curbs, and gutters.
Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-149 Cameron Bridge Road (Harper Puckett
Road to Alaska Road South) Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-126 Cattail St (Ferguson to Cottonwood Rd)
This project consists of upgrading Cattail Street from the intersection with Davis west
of its current termini point to a three-lane urban "collector" roadway. A new link
between the current western termini point of Cattail Street and Cottonwood Road sho
Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-109 Kagy Blvd (Cottonwood to S 27th Ave) -
Principal Arterial Recommended Extension - Principal Arterial Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-115 Graf St (Cottonwood to S 31st) - Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-119 Babcock (Water Lily to Love Ln) - Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 14 Tier 3
R-161 Alaska Road South (Frank Road to E Valley
Center Road) Reconstruct roadway to rural minor arterial standards Road Construction 13 Tier 3
A-59 Amsterdam Road (Royal Road to Fishing
Access)
Extend the existing shared use path from Royal Road to Erwin Bridge Fishing Access
Site. Shared Use Path 13 Tier 3
R-150 Harper Puckett Road / Gooch Hill Road
(Cameron Bridge Road to Durston Road)
Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards, complete connection between
Durston Road and Harper Puckett Road. Road Construction 13 Tier 3
A-91 Cottonwood Rd Shared Use Path
(Northbound) Proposed Shared Use Path on Cottonwood between Farmers Canal and Stucky Shared Use Path 13 Tier 3
R-74 New Roadway (Future) - Happy Ln to Dry
Creek Rd New roadway. Road Construction 13 Tier 3
415
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 13
Project
ID Name Description Sub-Category Score Tier
S-48 S 3rd Ave and Graf St Installation of a traffic signal or roundabout at the intersection of South 3rd Ave, W Graf
St, and Wagonwheel Dr.
Intersection
Improvements 13 Tier 3
A-14 W. Valley Center Road (Jackrabbit Lane to
Path)
Construct approximately 100 feet of shared use path to connect existing facilities at the
intersection. Shared Use Path 13 Tier 3
R-142 Love Lane (Huffine Lane to E Valley Center
Road) Reconstruct roadway to rural principal arterial standards Road Construction 13 Tier 3
R-145 Oak Street (Cottonwood Road to Love
Lane)
Reconstruct roadway to urban principal arterial standards, complete connection
between Forest Glen Drive and Love Lane Road Construction 13 Tier 3
R-33 Kagy Blvd (Highland to Bozeman Trail)
This project consists of widening Kagy Boulevard from the intersection with Highland
Boulevard to the intersection with Bozeman Trail to a three-lane urban "principal
arterial" standard complete with one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each
Road Construction 13 Tier 3
R-114 S 27th Ave (Blackwood to Patterson) -
Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 13 Tier 3
R-116 Deadman's Gulch/Cattail St (Cottonwood to
Study Area Boundary) - Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 13 Tier 3
R-151 Gooch Hill Road (Durston Road to Huffine
Lane) Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards Road Construction 13 Tier 3
R-67 Kingston Rd (Future) - Collins Rd to Dry
Creek Rd New collector roadway. Road Construction 12 Tier 4
R-72 E Valley Center Rd - Alaska Rd to Love Ln Upgrade to minor arterial; maintain shared use path. Road Construction 12 Tier 4
S-76 Madison Ave/I-90 Construct underpass. Pedestrian
Tunnel/Bridge 12 Tier 4
R-137 Frank Road (Jackrabbit Lane to Alaska
Road South) Reconstruct and extend to urban minor arterial standards Road Construction 12 Tier 4
R-135 Story Mill N / Mcllhattan Rd (Boyland Rd to
Landfill)
This project consists of reconstructing Story Mill Road north to Mcllhattan, and
Mcllhattan northwest to the Landfill, to a two-lane urban "collector" road standard. This
would include one travel lane in each direction, bike lanes on each side, and curb.
Road Construction 12 Tier 4
R-144 Durston Road (Gooch Hill Road to
Jackrabbit Lane)
Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards (Gooch Hill Road to Love Lane)
and rural minor arterial standards (Love Lane to Jackrabbit Lane), complete connection
between Parklands Trail and Jackrabbit Lane.
Road Construction 12 Tier 4
416
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 14
Project
ID Name Description Sub-Category Score Tier
R-107 Oak Street (West Terminii to Love Ln) -
Principal Arterial Recommended Extension - Principal Arterial Road Construction 12 Tier 4
R-112 Gooch Hill (Durston to Harper Puckett) -
Minor Arterial Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial Road Construction 12 Tier 4
R-95 Blackwood Road (Fowler to S 31st Ave) -
Collector Recommended Extension - Collector Road Construction 12 Tier 4
R-15 Cruiser Lane (Dry Creek Road to Westwood
Circle) Reconstruct to Urban major collector standard Road Construction 11 Tier 4
R-53 Frontage Rd - Thorpe Rd to Bolinger Rd Reconstruct to urban typical standard. Road Construction 11 Tier 4
R-65 E Cameron Bridge Rd - Alaska Rd to
Harper Puckett Rd Upgrade from minor collector to major collector. Road Construction 11 Tier 4
R-71 Tarmac Trail (New Airport Rd) - Jetway Dr
to Frontage Rd New roadway. Road Construction 11 Tier 4
R-77 W Frank Rd - Thorpe Rd to Jackrabbit Ln Reconstruct to collector standards. Road Construction 11 Tier 4
M-17 E Griffin Bridge Replacement This project will replace the existing Bozeman Creek bridge on E Griffin Dr between N
Rouse and Story Mill Rd. Bridge 11 Tier 4
R-153 Cobb Hill Road / Elk Lane (Gallatin Road to
Red Mountain Drive) Reconstruct roadway to rural minor arterial standards Road Construction 11 Tier 4
R-103 Harper Puckett (Gooch Hill Rd to E Valley
Center Road) Reconstruct to a 3-lane urban minor arterial Road Construction 11 Tier 4
R-159 Oak Street (Forest Glen Road to Love
Lane) Principal Arterial Road Construction 11 Tier 4
R-146 Hulbert Road (Love Lane to Jackrabbit
Lane) Reconstruct roadway to rural minor arterial standards Road Construction 10 Tier 4
R-162 Gooch Hill Road (Huffine Lane to Stucky
Road) Reconstruct roadway to urban minor arterial standards Road Construction 10 Tier 4
R-64 Spooner Rd - Weaver Rd to Cruiser Ln Roadway improvements. Road Construction 10 Tier 4
R-66 Harper Puckett Rd - E Cameron Bridge Rd
to E Valley Center Rd Roadway improvements. Road Construction 10 Tier 4
417
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 15
Project
ID Name Description Sub-Category Score Tier
R-76 Bolinger Rd - Weaver Rd to Cruiser Ln Reconstruct to minor collector standards. Road Construction 10 Tier 4
R-156 Durston Road (Parklands Trail to Monforton
Drive) Minor Arterial Road Construction 10 Tier 4
R-98 Durston (Gooch Hill Rd to Study Area
Boundary) - Minor Arterial Recommended Extension - Minor Arterial Road Construction 10 Tier 4
R-73 Weaver Rd - West Of Thorpe Rd to Dry
Creek Rd Upgrade to 4-lane arterial with center median. Road Construction 9 Tier 4
M-18 Story Mill Bridge Replacement Replace the existing Bridger Creek bridge on Story Mill Rd in Bozeman with improved
structural capacity and shared use path on or adjacent to the bridge Bridge 9 Tier 4
R-160 Elk Lane (Red Mountain Drive to Gooch Hill
Road) Minor Arterial Road Construction 9 Tier 4
R-147 Hulbert Road (Harper Puckett Road to Love
Lane) Construct roadway to urban minor arterial standards Road Construction 8 Tier 4
R-154 Stucky Road (Gooch Hill Road to Elk Lane) Extend Stucky Road between Gooch Hill Road and Elk Lane / Red Mountain Drive
intersection as rural minor arterial. Road Construction 8 Tier 4
R-158 Gooch Hill Road (Durston Road to Hulbert
Road) Minor Arterial Road Construction 8 Tier 4
R-63 Thorpe Rd - Planning Area Boundary to
Royal Rd Roadway improvements if western interchange occurs. Road Construction 6 Tier 4
418
Evaluation Criteria Memo
Gallatin Valley MPO
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 16
419