Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032807 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.doc BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL 411 EAST MAIN STREETMINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 26OCTOBER 25, 2006JANUARY 24MARCH 28, 2007 - 9:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairman Andrew EppleRoss GammonAndy Epple called the meeting to order at 9:3010:050 a.m. on Wednesday, July 26October 25January 24March 28, 2007, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Jeff Ebert, District Engineer, Butte District, Montana Department of Transportation Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, Montana Department of Transportation Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition (temporary member) Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, Montana Department of Transportation Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Supervisor, Butte District, MDT Victoria Drummond, Montana State University Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commission Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman David Smith, Citizen member, City of Bozeman Chris Kukulski, City Manager, City of Bozeman (arrived at 10:25 a.m.) Staff Present: George Durkin, Road Office, Gallatin County Bob Murray, Project Engineer, City of Bozeman John VanDelinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman Sara Folger, Grants Administrator, City of Bozeman Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: David Cobb, Senator Baucus’ Field Office Carol Strizich, Planning, Montana Department of Transportation Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Jeff Ebert Rob Bukvich Doug McSpadden Jeff Krauss Lee Provance Kerry White Al VanderWey Ralph Zimmer Joe Olsen Victoria Drummond, MSU Andy Epple Bill Murdock Debbie Arkell David Smith George Durkin Bob Murray John VanDelinder Robin Sullivan Sara Folger David Cobb, Senator Baucus’ office Carol Strizich, MDT Planning Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman Christopher Scott, Gallatin County Planning Rick Hixson for Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Al Vanderwey, Urban Planning, MDT Jon Henderson, Bozeman Bicycle Advisory Board Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition (temporary member) Jeff Madden, Federal Highway Administration Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Supervisor, Butte District, MDT Jeff Ebert, District Engineer, Butte District, MDT Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commissioner Chris Kukulski, City Manager, City of Bozeman Staff Present: George Durkin, Road Office, Gallatin County John VanDelinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman Ron Brey, Assistant City Manager, City of Bozeman Tracy Oulman, Neighborhood Coordinator, City of Bozeman Rich McLane, Bozeman Police Department Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: David Cobb, Senator Baucus’ Field Office Andy Epple, Director Joe Olson, MDT Engineering Rob Buckvich, Bozeman Jon Henderson Pat A Debbi A All Vanderway, MDT for Lynn’ Christioper Scott Jeff Rupp Lee Provance Ralph Zimmer Bob Lashawy JP Pom Ross Gammon, MDT Maintenace Robin Sullivan, minutes Ted Lange____, Gallatin Valley Land TrustVLT John Vandelinder Rick Hixson George Jurdin Tracy Oulson Oug Madden Sara Folger Jeff Ebert, MDT ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker} No comment was received under this agenda item. Ted Lange, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, noted that a temporary appointment to the TCC for the Safe Trails Coalition is one of the items on the agenda. He stressed the Gallatin Valley Land Trust’s interest in participating in the process, indicating that they wish to be a part of the working group and can serve in that capacity without a temporary appointment to the TCC. Chair Andrew Epple responded that at the last TCC meeting, there was consensus that the Safe Trails Coalition should be represented on the TCC for the duration of the update process and that official action should be taken at this meeting. He then noted that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust is always welcome at these meetings and can be represented through the Safe Trails Coalition or the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board. Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition, asked if that group should meet with representatives from Gallatin County and the Montana Department of Transportation regarding the final plans for Valley Center Road, to ensure that adequate bicycle facilities are provided, particularly through the interchange. Pat Abelin encouraged Mr. McSpadden and Mr. Lange to attend the next public meeting on the interchange to look at the plans, noting that the date and place for that meeting have not yet been set. Steven Johnson, Executive Director of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, noted that agency has not been involved with the Transportation Coordinating Committee since the revision of the transportation plan five years ago. He stated that, since the GLVT is dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian initiatives, the agency would like to be of service in the new update, particularly in developing alternative plans. He noted that the Dan Burden event this month has resulted in tremendous energy, and he would like to bring forward some of those suggestions. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 26OCTOBER 25, 2006 Doug McSpadden requested that he be listed as a temporary member rather than as a guest. Jeff Ebert submitted the following corrections: Jeff Ebert – several corrections. It was moved by Lee Provance, seconded by Kerry White that the minutes of the meeting of October 25, 2006, be approved as amended. The motion carried.PRESENTATION {A presentation by consultant, Robert Peccia and Associates, to review and discuss the 2006 Transportation Plan Update} Jeff Key, Manager of the Traffic Division at Robert Peccia and Associates, distributed a copy of htheis power point presentation to those members present. He indicated that for this update Robert Peccia and Associates has two sub-consultants. ALTA Planning + Design, from Portland, Oregon, is recognized nationally as the experts in bicycle and pedestrian planning and has been retained to assist in that portion of the plan. Also, Peccia will be trying to determine if the community is ready for a different look and has retained Cambridge Systematics, Inc., to “look over their shoulders” to see if the proposed plan will be acceptable. He stressed that this Transportation Coordinating Committee is the oversight committee throughout this process; and it essential that the TCC be very engaged, informal, and talkative to make the process successful. Responding to Rob Bukvich, Mr. Key confirmed that during the last two transportation plan updates in Bozeman, Robert Peccia and Associates has retained a sub-consultant to look at the demographics. That has been determined not necessary at this time, since the statistics are readily available through the census and the City’s and County’s planning documents. He acknowledged that, while the population in 2030 can be projected, there is uncertainty about where development will occur and, as a result, a land use forecasting committee is to be created and a workshop conducted to make those determinations. Jeff Key gave a general overview of transportation plans, noting that plans are generally done on a ten-year cycle, except the three large urban areas in Montana that are required to update their plans every three to five years. He noted that a transportation plan should be used as a visionary document and a blueprint for decisions on transportation systems; and Bozeman uses it in that manner. Jeff Key reviewed the four-step process of transportation planning, which includes inventorying of existing conditions, analyzing the data, forecasting future development and land uses and modeling that information, and evaluating the results. Other factors to be considered are transportation demand management strategies, alternative travel modes, traffic calming measures, corridor preservation and access management guidelines, and roadway typical sections. Mr. Key noted that plans for the past 100 years have focused on moving cars; the plan must now be expanded to address the bicycle and pedestrian needs of the community, including intersection design. Kerry White noted the County has adopted a trails plan that includes some bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are separated from the roadways and asked if safe crossings will be identified that do not interfere with traffic flows. Jeff Key responded that trail crossings will be considered for the collectors, minor arterials and major arterials included in the transportation plan update; and some local streets may be included in that review if the consultant is asked to do so. Manager of traffic division. Have been following rans plan development in Bozeman for last several years. Have been doing trans planning here since 1981. typically ten year cycles on trans plans. Treating as introductory meeting. In scope of work to visit on monthly basis. 60 person firm and half tied to traffic. Will see Dan Nordrud at times. For this plan brought on two sub-consultants. One was requirement of your RFP. Expert in bicycle and pedestrian planning. Alta Planning and Zoning from Portland. National expert. Realize must be multi-modal plan. Elevating status in this plan is good idea. Joe Gilpin is local planner. And Cambridge Systematics. Wonder if community is ready for different look. Will be looking over shoulders. This TCC is the oversight committee. Need TCC to be very engaged, informal and talkative to make successful. Prefer input as I go through the process. Mr. Key turned his attention to traffic calming, noting that cut through traffic in local neighborhoods is a signal that there is a breakdown on the higher road system. He indicated that the consultant can make recommendations for traffic calming in certain neighborhoods if asked to do so.Rob B – last couple plans done, you’ve had sub-consultant looking at demographics. Is that important? Jeff K – the need for sub-consultant to look at demographics seems not necessary. You hve lot of planning documents. Looking at populations for 2030. numbers from census. Documents do work for us. Uncertainty is where development will occur. To that end, taken on ourselvdes to do land use forecasting committee. Can do workshop with you and figure that out. General overview of trans planning. Plans generally done on ten-year cycle. If classified as metropolitan planning area, have to do trans plan every 3 to 5 years. Those are GF, BLgs and Missoula. All other urban areas, which is 15, generally on ten year cycle. Whitefish is urban area and just now doing trans plan for them. Historically, you’ve done ten year cycle. With this update, starting into five year cycle. 1981 1993 2001 and now. So much pressure on system and growth here. Shold be used as visionary document and blueprint for decisions on transportation systems. Point to Bozeman as right way to use the document. Staff’s use on daily basis and developers use on daily basis. Use in concert with growth and zoning plans. Transportation issues get the public engaged. High profile, important project. Four-step process of transportation planning—inventory conditions, analyze data, forecast future development and land use and put in traffic model, and evaluate the results. Other things to consider – transportation demand management strategies – will be heightened in the plan. Alternative travel modes – will be expanded to roll in bike/pedestrian needs of community including intersection design. What heard loud and clear in interviews, is provide for amenities that bring peop;le here and keep them here. Focus has always been on moving cars for 100 years. In rural western communities, focus now on moving people. Most engaged people that will come out. Traffic calming measures. Kerry White – trails plan adopted by County. Some separated from roadways. To crfate beter vehicle movement, will you look at crossings that provide safe cfrossings and not interfere with traffic? Jeff will in as much as it Chirs K came into meeting at 10:25 Responding to Doug McSpadden, Jeff Key stated one of the issues to be addressed is whether the typical road sections included in the transportation plan are also the road standards.Jeff Key – as much as corsses our roads. Will look at locals if asked to. Traffic calming. Cut through traffic in local neighborhoods signal breakdown on higher road system. Can make recommendations for traffic calming in certain neighborhoods. Corridor preservation and access management will allow for more traffic without increasing roads. And roadway typical sections. May be controversial since some thing too narrow and some think should be narrower. Will review that. Doug McSpadden – road typical sections are those standards? Jeff Key – something need to figure out. Suspecgt that point to standards. Chair Andy Epple noted the current transportation plan includes six options, and staff finds it is good to be flexible and to allow a combination of road sections that works well in a specific situation. Mr. Jeff Key reviewed the project schedule, which spans eighteen months beginning with this meeting. He indicated that three series of formal public meetings are proposed, with the draft plan to be presented in June 2008 and the final plan to be presented in August 2008. The first segment of the timeline is devoted to the consultant becoming acquainted with the community, conducting traffic counts, and collecting and analyzing data on the existing system. Responding to Kerry White, Mr. Key stated the public is to be engaged early in the process in a variety of ways, including activities, press releases, and a list serve. Jeff Krauss noted there are two or three ongoing projects which reflect the City Commission’s desires for future road design and asked that the consultant review those discussions. He cited Fowler Avenue, South 19th Avenue and North 7th Avenue as examples. Bob Murray stated a discussion on road design with the City Commission is scheduled during one of its upcoming policy discussions; Jeff Krauss suggested it would be beneficial to have the consultant present for that discussion. Jeff Key noted the middle third of the timeline is where the land use forecasting and modeling are done; and the final third is putting the information together in a comprehensive package. He indicated that through the process, technical memos are drafted and are submitted as a working draft of the comprehensive plan. That information will be posted on the consultant’s website and presented during the monthly TCC meetings as well as at meetings with the County Commission and the City Commission. Jeff Key reviewed the study area boundary, noting that it is generally bounded by Penwell Bridge Road on the north, Little Bear Road on the south, River Road on the west, and Bear Canyon Road on the east. He indicated that the study will include collectors and above and will address local roadways only if requested by the public or members of the TCC. New roadways and corridors will be reviewed as well as 82 of the more important intersections in the planning area. Andy E – road sections include six options. Sometimes mix and match and good to be flexible rather than rigid. Jeff Key – developers look at road sections differently from staff. Project schedule – 18-month project. Notice to proceed today. Three series of formal public meetings. Draft plan in June 2008 and final in August 2008. and then public hearings. First segment is becoming aquainted with the community and counting and getting up to speed. Collecting data on existing system and analyzing and telling what means. Kerry W – not reaching out to public in the first third. To get public engaged in the process, some sort of outreach to have people have contact line to identify intersections not working, would that help? Jeff K – that avenue is there. Actually several activities and press releases and list serve. Will get going in April. You’re right don’t want to wait to June for first public comment. Jeff Krauss – probably two or three road projects ongoing or talked about where Commission has been involved in talking road design. Review that discussion as well. Fowler and South 19th and North 7th. Some pretty different changes in road designs. Not in the plans but expression of where community is going. Important to understand where discussion is. Bob M – road design discussion scheduled with City Commission. Jeff Krauss – would be good to have you here for that. Jeff Key stressed the importance of public participation throughout development of the plan. He reviewed those groups that have been identified for special outreach and asked the TCC members to identify possible additional groups. The additional groups identified included the Bozeman School District; Anderson School; Monforton School; the postal service; emergency services, including law enforcement, fire and the ambulance; large haulers and warehouses; and the Bozeman Deaconess Health Services.Jeff Key – middle third is where do land use forecasting and whether want to model different growth scenarios. Happening faster than expected in the current plan. Start working on that in August. Last third is put together and come up with comprehsnive package. In Kalispell had workshop lasts week where told what future looks like and doesn’t look very good. Uncontrolled growth and volumes are enormous. Told like it is and discussion went away from being great to no monies to build the roads. Discussion went to this is what situation looks like to the consultants have to plant seeds for growth management and bike/ped facilities. Today was in the newspaper. During course of process, we write technical memos. Working draft. At end of project when sitting with 2-inch document, want you to have seen a lot of it. Will be posted on website. And monthly TCC meetings. Engagements with County Commission and City Commision. Study area boundary. To Penwell Bridge Road, Little Bear Road, River Road, Bear Canyon Road. Slightly larger boundary. Existing roadwsays. Do not look at local roaways unless desire by pulic or members of this committee. Collectors and above. And health determined by those. New roadwsays and corridors.revisit and make sure make sense. And major intersections. 82 of your more important intersections in planning area. Jeff Key stated the website will be up in the next week or two and asked that the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, and the Montana Department of Transportation link to that website. He noted the City’s list serve can then be used for project updates. Also, he will be doing interviews and PSAs on the radio and television and preparing articles and press releases for the newspaper. A mass mailing is planned through the City’s utility bills, formal and informal presentations are to be made to a variety of groups, and miscellaneous fact sheets are to be prepared. Three formal public meetings are planned throughout the drafting process.Public participation is very important part of the plan. Working draft plan. Special outreach. Groups to be included in special outreach. Try to keep involved throughout the process. Bill M – add Bozeman School District. Jef Krauss – and get to not build on dead ends of local streets. Doug M – Anderson and Monforton included in the boundary and maybe Cottonwood. Kerry White – postal??? Jeff Key – typically when do land use workshop, have had postal service there because have idea of where putting in boxes. Bill M – even though planning in this group, had problem getting plan adopted because board late in process and lot of issues. Maybe more up front engagement with city and county planning boards. Jeff Key – county have any formal neighborhood groups? Lee – not other than neighborhood associations. Rob B – ask TCC members if should include visit with emergency services. Might have special concerns. Fire and ambulance and law enforcement. Jeff Krauss – large haulers or warehousrs with large trucks? Jeff Key – always call the motor carriers assn. only time taken further is if someone wanted to call the trucking companies. Interviewed over phone and routes avoid. Debbie – list of most in town. Will give you list for NE area. Concened about ability to continue driving on streets. Doug McSpadden – hospital as well. Emergency services and development doing there. Jeff Key – in pubic participation plan have communications. Will do website probably early next week. City, County and MDT should have links back to that website. Two weeks before running. City will use list serve for project updates. Interviews and PSAs on radio and television. Articles and press releases for newspaper. Mass mailings through utility bills. Informal and formal presentations. Mailing lists. Technical memos. Neighborhood organization (3) and INC two months prior to first formal public meeting. And citizen advisory boards invited to various public opportunities. And miscellaneous fact sheets. Formal public meetings – three formal with City, County and general meetings. First in June. Will be down here once a week beginning next week. Engage in early April. Mr. Jeff Key stated a number of typical recipients for the project mailing list have been identified and asked that TCC members forward any additional recipients to him. Mr. Key concluded by stating the decision has been made to collect traffic data while Montana State University is in session rather than in the summer when there is a substantial amount of tourist traffic. He then asked if there is a big difference in traffic impacts between MSU students and summer traffic; Bill Murdock responded that the traffic patterns are significantly different. Responding to suggestions by various TCC members, including the options of conducting the traffic studies on MSU graduation weekend and at the end of August when tourists are still in the area and MSU is in session, Jeff Key cautioned that those time periods would affect the timeline for the overall project. He noted that the traffic counts for the transportation plan update in Kalispell were taken in August and reflect the worst case scenario for that community, particularly since those counts are 114 percent of typical. Rob Bukvich noted that a lot of traffic counts are available and can supplement those completed by the consultant. Mr. Key indicated that data collection is scheduled to begin in April and will take eight or nine weeks to complete. He noted that they will rely on the traffic count data that has been collected by the City, the County, and MDT and will limit their counts to intersections, including turning maneuvers, the number of trucks, pedestrians and bicyclists. Responding to Mr. Key, Chair Andy Epple stated that the TCC’s regular business will be conducted at its regular meetings, and he anticipates 45 minutes to 1 hour can be devoted in each of those meetings to an update on the status of the transportation plan. He indicated that the special monthly meetings will be devoted entire to the transportation plan update process. He noted that the regular meetings are scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. while the special meetings are to begin at 10:00 a.m.Project mailing list. In addition to typical recipients, add --- Last slide. Action items to get going. Press release, website, list serv, outreach meeting, begin data collection. Made decision to collect while MSU in session. Opposite is middle of summer. Intense summer peak in Kalispell. Worst case scenario. 114% in August of what typically would see. In Bozeman, is there that big a difference between MSU and summer traffic and does it impact all intersections? Directed to do while MSU is in session. Doug McSapdden – can you do both? Two different demographics using different parts of community. Debbie – end of August with both tourists and MSU. Jeff Key – affects the timeline of the project. Jeff Krauss – use graduation week. Jeff Key – worst case or typical traffic pattern? Can’t wait until August. In Kalispell, asked to do worst case and that’s the only time seen Rob Bukvich noted that when these plan updates are done, addressing immediate issues that arise is common. He cautioned that addressing those issues may result in the need for more time to complete the plan update.Debbie – will never get accurate review with construction season. Rob B – have lot of counts available that can supplement counts. Bill M – have to do when MSU is in session. Off main highways, it’s dramatic. Jeff Key – will begin data collection in April and will take 8 to 9 weeks to complete. Lee – cords? Jeff Key – rely in City, County and MDT figures and will do counts if asked. We do count at intersections, turning maneuvers, pedestrians, bikes, trucks, etc. but not hose counters because you have good coverage and fairly up to date. Jeff Key – will review all of the plans and look at where you’re at. All I have. Rob B – as usual, if want someone from our staff to accompany to informal meetings, glad to. Jeff Key – is every monthly TCC meeting to be open like regular meeting or just for this project? Andy – way set up agendas, two non-quarterly meetings and the quarterly meetings will cover everytingin Jan, April, Ju and Oct. laid out on agenda we distributed. And thinking is that special meetings hour or two devoted to trans plan issues is what envisioned and what did in develop;ment of 2003 plan. Jeff Key – next month is quarterly meeting. Andy – yes. And would think 45 minutes to 1 hour possibly devoted to planning process and balance devoted to regular business. We fill up 9:30 to 12:00 with business. On those meetings, 45 minutes for update and status report and other meetrings strictly plan. Jeff Key – start at 9:30 ? Andy – no think 10:00 is good. And in between those meetings, if need can have subcommittee. Let’s start at 10:00. maybe half hour early today. Kerery White – at regular meetings, would be informative for you to hear what’s happening. Rob B – one of the things that drives time factor is when do these plans, ewe end up addressing immediate issues that pop up. Accident on a certain road and that will drive some of the timeframe. May be times when need more time. Chair Epple noted any member of the public may attend these TCC meetings and provide input during the public comment period. He also noted that members of the public may be invited to talk about specific issues. Andy – and any member of the public may attend these meetings and participate in publc comment period. And will invite to talk on specific issues. Bill Murdock noted that the last transportation plan updates for both Bozeman and Belgrade were completed around the same time, and he found that a benefit particularly since Belgrade is a bedroom community to Bozeman and, as a result, impacts the traffic patterns. He then asked how the impacts of traffic beyond the boundaries of the study area will be factored into the model. Al VanderWey responded that the modeling area is much larger than the study area. He indicated that the modeling area will include Three Forks, Livingston, and West Yellowstone. Doug McSpadden asked about the role of the TCC subcommittee that was recently formed. Chair Andy Epple noted the purpose of that subcommittee was to address the scope of this project and to review the contract. Since those steps have been completed, the subcommittee’s work is now done. He suggested that technical issues can be handled by staff, and the monthly TCC meetings will allow for the TCC to provide the guidance sought by the consultant. He noted that, if a special subcommittee is needed to work on a certain element of the plan for a month or so, appointments can be made at that time. The TCC members agreed. Bill M – your scope of work ends at boundaries and cut out Belgrade. Last time, Belgrade doing work at same time. And connections since bedroom community for Bozedman. They have thousands of lots beding approved beyond your boundar. All that traffic coming in. how will we incorfporate those into the model? Al – the modeling area is much larter than the planning area. Goes to Three Forsks and Livingston. Jeff K – we take the projections and even though outside boundary, have impact and put into model. Study area boundary focuses our attentions. Needs in the boundary area. Doug McSpaddem == TCC subcommittee. What’s its role? Jeff K – probably outreach activity. Andy – designed to address scope and the contract. And made their recommendations. If want subcommittee that is go to. Tend to think might be technical issues that can be handled by staff. Transitioning into monthly TCC meetings and will be welcome to meet with others and call for info. That committee’s work has ended. Thinking is that issues so important that TCC needs to be engaged rather than delegating to subcommittee. Way proceeding for now. If need as project goes on to appint special subcommittee to work on something for a month, can do that. Chair Andy Epple closed this agenda item by reminding the Committee members to mark their calendars for both the regular and the special meetings. He then noted that Project Engineer Bob Murray is serving as the contract administrator for this plan update. Jeff Key – need list of players and who they represent and get contact info. Try to get engaged with folks. Andy – lot of the players hwere went thorugh 2001 update so think will find pretty engaged and community as well. Andy – mark calendars per schedule on agenda. Reminder that contract is through Engineering office and Bob Murray is contract administrator. The list of attendees was revised to delete Pat Abelin from the list. Also, Rob Bukvich made the following revisions to the minutes of April 26: Page 8 – No. 7.b. second paragraph – change to read “Mr. Bukvich also noted that the Springhill and North 19th Avenue will now have two signals, one for the straight- away and the other a turn signal at the intersection of Springhill and US Highway 10 and the other at the intersection of Springhill and North 19th Avenue.” Page 8 – No. 8 – change to read “Mr. Bukvich stated that public meetings are continuing. HKM Engineering is doing the public outreach and preliminary design work. environmental assessment and environmental document.” Rob Buckvich, Page 8 – two signals, one at two signals in that area. One at springill and US 10 and other at Springhill Road and North 19th. No. 8. North Rouse Avenue – HKM doing environmental assessment and environmental document. Not yet to preliminary design. Say public outreach and environmental assessment. Page 9 – No. 9 – change first sentence to read “Mr. White questioned the members as to whether or not there will be a round-about at the intersection of 191 and Huffine Lane Montana 64 (Big Sky spur road) on the way to Big Sky.” Chair Epple announced the minutes are approved as amended. Ralph Zimmer requested that the pages be numbered on future minutes. Item 9 under discussion. Mr. White questioned if roundabout at 191 and Huffine. Talking 191 and MT 64. instead of Four Corners. (Big Sky spur road) Andy – declare approve as corrected. Ralph – would appreciate having pages numbered. Andy – will make sure done for next go round. ITEM 4. TCC MEMBER REPORTSNEW BUSINESS No items were raised under this agenda item. A. Transit Committee Report 1. Transit Partnership 1. Transit Committee Report - Chris Budeski 2. Transit Stop 9th and Main Andy – received request for transit stop in front of Co-o9p. Rob Buckvich – prior to the busses startingto run schedule and travel routes, it was important that be stop at Co-op bcause thought main constituency. Established stop on Babcock behind co-op. realize that those routes are somewhat in flux yet. Couldn’t put on Main. No stop and no space. Andy – stop in traffic alne is not desirable? Rob – certainly can say that. Kerry – parkikng for residents in that stp or Co-op frontage loss? Rob – don’t rcall if lost parking or not. Andy – item requested to be put on agenda. Sorry don’t have any other representation and thought process. Ralph – realize maybe no legitimate options but for sensitive options, less desirable to have stop on opposite side of street for pedestrians, particularly those with handicaps. From pedestrian standpoint, preferable to have stop on Main or side street and not on other side of Babcock. Andy – can MDT entertain that or subject to further analysis? Rob – not sure can do anything about having bus stop in traffic lane. No options for that. Routes driven by bus folks and Ralph has good point about people offloading there. But route drivers driven by avoiding left hand turns. Why didn’t want to go up 9th. Only know that drdove them and talked about htem. And how can serve. Know would be nice to have a stop there but no safe way to stop on Main because no shoulder. 1. Transit Bill – HRDC basically running system and some problem getting yellow retro busses speced out. Two bids thrown out. To have up and running for next school year, on very tight timeframe. Funding is another problem. If gets expanded to what consultant says would be best system, fundng is very dependent on state highway funding and subsidides from Bozeman, Belgrade and county. Still conversation on forming UTD and possib ly putting question of permanent funding. Right now the district not doing anything with it. Committee focused on getting splashed at bus stops and turns. No one paying attention to it right now. Committee very inactive and dormant right now. Day to day operational issues right now. Andy – is there a need to promote reactivating? Bill – yes. Andy – members? Bill – me, Steve K, Chris Budeski Lee – what’s answer to getting back on track? Should we send letter? Bill – Secrtary from County Commission office takes minutes and Stoddard his work is almost completed but committee hasn’t accepted final report. Maybe should be topic of one of the joint city/county commission 7 am meetings. Andy – such a push to get the busses up and running and was done. Bill M – ridership continues on up climb but no numbers available right now for you. Andy – maybe for spring meeting, do better job prepping reports and try to get someone here. Bill – transit system was one of the highest recommendations in last TCC area planning. Andy – suggestion that write letter, if think would be helpful. But if Mayor and County Comm willing to active. Consensus from TCC to write letter would that be helpful? Lee – lot of public funds being used and certainly we ar responsible for that. Doug McSpadden – s it being held up because not urban? Andy – not factor in this situation. Andy – I’ll draft letter on behalf of TCC to that effect. Enlist one or two of you to review and collaborate. Jeff K – time to respond to bids. Were there two bids? Bill – third one now. Jeff K. – bussle back busses $8500 more than square back. We agreed to buy six in total so have to make decision on that. Where funding coming from. Andy – who received the bids? Jeff K – the state. Rob B – transit section advertised. Bill M – invitation to Jim Kack would be in order. He would be able to do it. Lee – specifics to be included in letter – attend this meeting and attendance at meeting. Attend or get replaced. Andy – will pump up with encouragement and invite to next meeting and ask to address issues. Bob L – not on committee. Maybe would be good to include on committee now that up and running. Andy – you’re right. Chris B and David Kack were here all of the time and fixtures. Bob L – doing out of good graces and not paid for work. should encourage. Andy – get leter out and Jeff Madden Highway And Membership on enext agenda. Good to see ridership increasing. Bob L – relative to transit, MSU preparing survey for faculty and staff to test responses relative to ridership and parking on campus. Relationship but not specific. Know David working on oen for student body that hope to be out in Feb to test response on student ridership. And student demographics. And one to ask riders to fill out and leave with bus system and one at MSU to send with students. Maybe responses to those for spring meetng. Jeff Rupp presented the report on the new Streamline bus system for Chris Budeski. He stated the application has been finally approved, so the busses can now be purchased. They will not be available for this year’s service, so busses will be leased from Laidlaw, with Laidlaw employees driving those busses. He stressed that these will not be the yellow retro busses, but will be more like the para-transit busses that have been used for the Bobcat transit system. Also, busses are to be borrowed from Yellowstone Park for the summer fair and Sweet Pea. Rob Bukvich reported that during the past couple weeks, City staff and MDT staff have been working to identify stop locations for the bus system that have handicapped accessible curbs readily available. He indicated that efforts will be made to have this process completed when the new bus system is ready to run. Responding to Chair Epple, Rob Bukvich stated that a marketing agency has been retained; and MDT is currently awaiting the logo to order the signs for the bus stops. Responding to Ross Gammon, Jeff Rupp confirmed that there is initially no cost for riding the busses; however, he does not know how long that will remain in effect. Chris B not present. Jeff Rupp – recei ved final approval of application. So can now purchase. Have borrowed from Yellowstone Park for fair and sweet pea. Made commitmentment to MSU to keep open for students. Laidlaw is partner and trying to access inventory for lease for a year. Since long time getting monies for bus. Will not be yellow buses retro. Will be two or three square transit and three more like paratransit like see now. Rob B – City and MDT staff in last couple weeks involved in stop locactions and what need to make bus stops work. Handicapped accessibility curbs. Starting to work so will do what cdan to be ready when system is ready. Andy – so system will be up and running with leased buses and stops as best can. Jfefff – will use as many stops as can. Streamline. Rob B – mostly new. Not many existing that we found. Andy – how will this be marketed? Anyone developing marketing and advertising to get word out to maximize ridership. Rob B – waiting for logo to order signs for bus stop. Have a marketing agency on board. Will be marketing it. Some talk that would start running routes two weeks before taking on passengers. Andy – laidlaw employees? Jeff – yes. Debbie – if have any pull with logo, need to make signs. Andy – sounds like good progress being made. Energy to get going. And will be advertising to get going. Good. Feedback from fair? None. Gammon – part of marketing strategy is no cost for riding? Is that for first year? Jeff – don’t know how long. Andy – one of our members is sight impaired and would be good to have you introduce yourselves for Mr. Zimmer. 2. Transit Partnership B. I-90/East Belgrade Interchange Report – Pat Abelin Responding to Kerry White, Bill Murdock stated that Alaska Road will not be constructed in the five-lane format immediately, but will be a two-lane road to Valley Center Road initially with expansion to occur when it is determined necessary. Jeff Ebert stated that, while Alaska Road will be only two lanes when the new interchange opens, the right-of-way for the full five-lane facility will be in place. He then indicated the two lanes will be constructed in a manner that precludes the need to tear up any improvements for the future road expansion.Ralph Zimmer voiced concern about the construction of a two-lane road with no curbs. He also asked that the adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists be provided with the initial construction. Jeff Patton stated that facilities accommodating pedestrians and bicyclists are to be provided under the interstate and are included in the environmental assessment. Ralph Zimmer stressed that wonderful future plans for bicyclists and pedestrians are not very satisfactory if they are not available when the first vehicle travels on the roadway. Rob Bukvich stressed the importance of remembering that any plans for the connector roads are preliminary at this time and that details such as curb, gutter and sidewalk have not yet been discussed. He indicated there will be adequate time for public comment when the design reaches that point. Andy – paper trumped us with article. Pat A – our committee not very active because think probably gone into difficult phase which is where money comes from. County spearheading number of govt to govt meetings. Important that Belgrade, airport, state know contributions. About $10 millino short right now. Need to know where comes from. Working on MOU to identify what entieis will be responsible for road sections. Waiting to see what happens with negotiations. Bill M – Jeff E could add and Lee P coujld. Where we’re at. MOUs and extra money. Andy – tone of today’s article, too. Bob L – total cost? Bill M -- $47 to $48 million with connector roads. And that’s based on actual bid with escalators. Double what antivipated three years ago. Met with landowners to the south. Maybe over 3,000 prospective lots coming on line there. Marks property. In MOU with Belgrade, either thorugh annexation or county subdivision, developers will provide ROLW and building as much of that as possible. Figuring in the $17 million mix. Jeff E -- Federal and earmarked matchses around $20 million with matches. Bill M – asking for $3 millino cash from airport. And with Belgrade, looing at $4.5 to $5 million between them and county. But still $10 millino short. the EIS is currently on schedule. She noted that cooperation among agencies has been amazing, and she anticipates the final public hearing will be held within the next couple months. She stated the next issue to be addressed is links to the interchange, their locations, funding options, and who will be responsible for building them. She indicated that efforts are being made to have developers participate in the construction of these roads to the greatest extent possible. Lee Provance stated the County anticipates that it will do the lion’s share of the construction. Pat Abelin confirmed that constructing the roads to county standards would be cheaper than building to state standards. Pat – EIS moving right along. Doing ery well on original schedule. Should have final public hearing in nex Responding to questions from JP Pomnichowski, Jeff Ebert stated that Airport Manager Ted Mathis is on the committee and is supportive of the Belgrade interchange and bypass, and is helping to shepherd it through the process. Rob Bukvich indicated that the bypass study is estimated to cost $300,000, and consists of a route through the airport to Dry Creek Road to relieve pressure on Highway 10. Jon Henderson voiced a desire for adequate bicycle/pedestrian facilities through the interchange. Ted Lange reported that he and Doug McSpadden met with County Grants Administrator Larry Watson on a safe trail from Bozeman to Belgrade, and noted that Valley Center Road to Alaska Road seems to be the best alternative. As a result, the airport interchange is an extremely important link. He cited the tunnel for the linear trail along the interstate in Butte as an example of a safe trail component. Rob Bukvich stated that a separate 8-foot-wide path has been proposed for the Valley Center Road project. Responding to Lee Provance, he acknowledged that it is not the 10-foot-wide path generally required by MDT but, in this instance, the Commissioners have convinced MDT that a narrower path would be acceptable given the width of the right-of-way. He noted that, as currently proposed, the MDT would construct the project and the County would accept responsibility for its maintenance. Ralph Zimmer voiced his support for Jon Henderson’s comments, noting that the Pedestrian/ Traffic Safety Committee strongly supports adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities in conjunction with new construction. He cited a recent opportunity to walk through interchanges in Billings, where there was no provision for pedestrians; and he does not wish to have that occur in this area. C. TSM’s Report Rick Hixson stated there is nothing new to report. He stated that City staff is now waiting for the 2007 update of the transportation plan and its list of TSMs. Responding to Kerry White, Jeff Ebert stated that acquisition of the right-of-way for West College Street at South 19th Avenue will begin when the final plans are ready. D. Bozeman Area Bicycleike Advisory Board Jon Henderson stated the Board continues to work with the scoping committee and is pleased that the majority of its comments and recommendations have been included in the final scope. He reported that the Board will meet a week from today to discuss the budget and funding for the transportation plan update. He indicated the Board has become aware that around 2009, the MUSTCD will include a hybrid lane that can be shared with vehicles. He noted the Board will look at those standards as an alternative for lanes on arterial roadways. He concluded by stating the Boar has acquired a well-done 8-minute-long video on bicycle and pedestrian use of roadways produced by the department of transportation in Illinois for driver’s education. He noted a copy of the video is available on the City’s website, and the Board will carry the video to various events and promote it as much as possible. Rich McLane asked that the video be made available on the Police Department’s page as well as the Bike Board’s page. E. Other TCC Member Reports Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC). Ralph Zimmer reminded the TCC that this is a long-standing committee. He voiced concern that in recent years, the City staff and City Commission have not referred as many items to the Committee for its consideration as they might have. He noted the PTSC welcomes the opportunity to provide input and asked that they be given the opportunity to do so. He concluded by identifying the officers of the PTSC for the upcoming year, noting that request for input can be forwarded to any of the officers. Ralph Zimmer reported that the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee is working through the summer this year, and is in the process of establishing better working relationships with other groups. David Smith reported that last Friday, the Chamber talked about legislative issues and identified the need for a laundry list of other items, such as potential bond issues. He noted that the unanimous support of the group for a local option gas tax reflects the recognition of transportation infrastructure needs. He concluded the expressing the Chamber’s interest in playing a big role in the transportation plan update. Chair Andrew Epple noted that when the local option gas tax issue surfaced about a year ago, one of the County Commissioners was surprised that the option was available. David Smith characterized the local option gas tax as a user tax and, with the amount of tourism in the area, the result could be to effectively double the monies available for transportation projects. Rob Bukvich noted that the local option gas tax has not yet been utilized in Montana, suggesting that Gallatin County could be the first to do so. ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Draft Huffine Lane Access Management Plan Chair Andy Epple noted that a DVD and documentation on the project were included in the packets for this meeting. Jeff Ebert indicated that, since the traffic engineer is unable to attend this meeting, he will provide an overview of the Huffine Lane study on which the consultant, Short Hendrickson Elliott, is working. Jeff Ebert reminded the TCC that in 1998, Huffine Lane was reconstructed and, for the last several years, the MDT has been working on an access management plan in cooperation with the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County. The roadway is currently a five-lane facility with a center turn lane and no restriction on access, and this plan is looking at the issues of safety, mobility and access. The study looks at the corridor from Four Corners to the West College Street/West Main Street intersection, taking into consideration that it serves as the gateway from Bozeman to Yellowstone Park, to Norris, and to Belgrade. Jeff Ebert highlighted the access management plan determinations, which suggest a raised median through the entire corridor to restrict full access movements. Under the plan, full turning movements would be provided on a half-mile spacing, with future traffic signals being allowed at those locations, and three-quarter access at quarter-mile spacing. All other accesses would be restricted to right in/right out only. Also, U turns are to be provided about 500 feet in advance of traffic signal locations to allow traffic to change directions; however, those movements may be restricted if a crash history develops. Jeff Ebert stated a key component of the corridor is the development of an auxiliary roadway network parallel to Huffine Lane, similar to the network being developed along Jackrabbit Lane. The recommendation is that developers be required to build those internal roads in conjunction with development along the corridor. Mr. Ebert stated the intent is to get comments on the draft plan and to get TCC buy-in. He noted that the plan will preclude the “willy nilly” installation of improvements, including traffic signals, and will provide a mechanism for the City and County to collect funding for the medians. He indicated that once the TCC and the local governments have bought into the plan, it will be presented to the public for comment. He then indicated a similar access control plan has been developed for Jackrabbit Lane, and several good comments have been received regarding that plan. Responding to Lee Provance, Mr. Ebert indicated that it is anticipated the medians would preclude a number of the T bone crashes that are currently occurring along Huffine Lane. He also suggested the speeds will be slowed with the raised median. He acknowledged that some type of barrier in the center could be considered to prevent crossovers into the wrong lane. Responding to Doug McSpadden, Mr. Ebert affirmed that this access control plan would be incorporated into the transportation plan update. Further responding to Mr. McSpadden, Mr. Ebert stated that the transportation plan looks at establishing a grid system and acknowledged that that system might relieve some of the traffic at the Four Corners intersection. Responding to comments from TCC members, Rob Bukvich stated the blue lines on the renderings simply depict generalized locations for the auxiliary road system, noting the actual locations of those roads will be developer driven. He suggested that the auxiliary roads will generally tie into Jackrabbit Lane and Huffine Lane at half-mile increments. Christopher Scott noted concern has been voiced about the problems that a signal at Cobb Hill Road could create, particularly because of the grade of the hill to the east of that intersection, and suggested that lower speeds might help to address those concerns. Jeff Ebert stated that the road grades have not been considered in the access management plan to date, but should probably be included in the plan. Responding to Chair Epple, Mr. Ebert asked that TCC members identify any fatal flaws or other issues of concern. He noted that the MDT staff wanted to make this presentation to the TCC prior to scheduling a public meeting on the draft plan. Responding to Al VanderWey, Jeff Ebert stated the City and the County will be asked to create a special improvement district or a rural improvement district or to possibly earmark impact fees to assist in funding of the median. Chair Epple suggested that incorporating this access plan into the transportation plan update would allow for prioritized allocation of resources for the improvements, noting that no funding commitments will be made until the transportation plan update has been completed. Jeff Krauss noted that if this access plan is in the transportation plan and is eligible for impact fees, then those improvements can be required as development occurs along the corridor. Al VanderWey cautioned that the roads crossing Huffine Lane are not eligible for urban funding, so other sources of funding must be identified. Lee Provance stated the County is currently collecting monies for traffic signals from developers and putting them into an escrow account. He noted that any endorsement of a raised median is a political issue that must be made by the County Commission and City Commission. Christopher Scott suggested that a condition pertaining to funding of a median along Huffine Lane be incorporated into the preliminary plat approval of development along this corridor. Kerry White Kerry – on Page 3 propsoed road east/west north and future road to avoid conservation easement. Don’t recall any need to go around an easement, not precluded. Jeff E – we may have given the consultant that direction. Agree that may be able to eliminate some costs. Andy – seeing development proposals east of conservation easements. We need to know answer in next ten to twelve months. Need to know if can use grid system through conservation easements. Prefer to curvilinear arterial roads. Realize political battle. In general, comment some of the connecting roads deviate from grid pattern. In some instances, may not need to do that. Encourage off road network be a little more gridded. Sometimes inefficient uses of land. Prefer grid wherever possible. Chris Scott – suggest conversation with the trust company that oversees the conservation easement to see if roads allowed. Rob B – red flag in front of bull when went to public. Wn’t have involvement in wher that road goes, but will be through County planning. Main issue was to show connecting on both sides. Rick H – the main issue is the trans plan update. Willl show network hope everone can agree on and that everyon will adopt. Framework for peripheral road system. And can tell developer that need to build this portion of this street. Andy – think all of us are in agreement on east/west and north/south connections. And this is conceptual. And bsed on development. Jeff K – if road through easement, city or county would have to do. Bob L – this drawing shows intent is not to go through conservation easement. If want to preserve right to do, should put line straight through. If present to public this way, would be represented as original plan was to go around. Concede now or argue later. Could be problem in future. Andy – would rather see presented as big issue to resolve. Road to avoid conservation easement. If city and county endorse that, we’ll be reminded of it. Rob B – this is not a document to be formally adopted. Just to be included into trans plan update. Jeff E – agree that not adopted. And will fine tune before public meeting. Want to have recognized as future of Huffine to address safety, mobility and access. Andy – considered more detailed plan and design than typically found in trans plan. Be careful not to create conflicts. Specific plan to be referenced and coordinated in plan, maybe as appendix. And say future road may need to avoid conservation area. State is right to say need east/west connection but city and county to enact. Bob L – if want to show public have right to go through, blue line should be changed to go straight and then say could be. Rob B – maybe need to take blue line off. Chris Scott – need to talk to GVLT first and see if allowed. Steven Johnson, GVLT – happy to meet with you about our understanding of law and these easements and since trans plan drives land use, talk about land use goals for this area. Rob B – maybe having blue lines on here is going back over old ground with last update showing grid system. Maybe show grid system that says locations to be determined. Not intent to have fight again, but wanted to show would connect to future system yet to be determined. And showing lines causes to go over b attle again. Andy – introducing the area road network will detract from the road plan itself. Maybe would be better to show access points and brief narrative that roads to be determined later. Leave the trans plan street network to upcoming process and eliminate blue lines except where connect to road. General consensus from the TCC. Kerry – visionary to include. Andy – hear what saying but think better in the trans plan. This is access control study. To show roads not in trans plan is ahead of time. Lee – the portion of Monforton will be abandoned and line through new school. Considerations there. Grid needs to be drawn in the plan and agree on curvilinear thing too. Doesn’t provide well for land use or transportation. Rob B – spent time talking about blue line and the issue is buy in on traffic signals and medians. Andy – agree with that. Jeff K – will there be a speed limit reduction once start putting medians in? Jeff E – as part of any improvements to highway and development occurs, can look at engineering study on impacts. And could affect speed. Ross – with the additional development and traffic, will drive some of the speed limits down, especially with traffic signals. Lee – changing driver perception of safe speed to drive is the issue rather than throwing up signs. Jeff K – the medians might drive up the speeds. Lee – tends to slow down the speeds. Jeff K – anything that reduces speed is good. Rob B – this is just a study. No funding to do improvements right now. Kerry W – seeing large parcel improvements in that area that would span probably more than one signal. Compensation from those? Use this as basis for collecting fees? Jeff E – what would like to see. As get further and further from Huffine, don’t have access. Realize might affect two locations. Andy – traffic analyses for each development will be necessary. And may be SID included. Andy – thanks for presentation. B. North 7th Design and Connectivity Plan Andy – this plan has been finalized. Ron Brey – have been ACM since 1990 and from 1987 to 1990 in planning and 1984 to 1987 was urban planner at MDT. Throughout the planning process for the plan, were aware of the need for endorsements, etc, for this. Thinkgs in here in conflict with books and causes stress and strain were done with eyes wide open, and took with perspective of how the relationship has evolved. Had previously dealt with ridig MDT and federal. More than willing to work over last decade tohelp us to unique and different. Main Street Bozeman. For years the City butted heads to make friendly pedestrian corridor. More recently, MDT came up with design to do what City has asked for and City walked way. Maybe not best thing after all. The give and take wehave now. Won’t talk about the time and effort spent on the plan andpublic input. Impetus for this. Seeing proliferation of big box devel;pment in Bozeman and City felt identifiable economic impacts. Set up big box task force to identify impacts and if should use funding from them to help. At that time, half to affordable housing and other half to assist with infrastructure in existing Bozeman. Referenced over and over was North 7th. And West Main was also qualify. In Feb 2005 the Commission directd staff to created TIF. Now urban renewal area. Funds can be captured and reinvested. Limit on how reinvedsted and is to be toward infrasatrucutre improvements. Not totall reliant on standard sources. The Commission authorized use of big box funds. Establish character for North 7th rather than traffic oriented 1960s strip. Commercial development with big parking ltos. Want charcter and vitality of its own. Retained Winter and Associates and established planning committee. And Winter did design objectives plans for Bozeman. And sub-contrated traffic to Bob Marvin & Associates. So trans elements that causing consternations were done by someine with long history with Dept and City. Public workshops. Specific things in the plan. Consultant stayed tied with adopted provisions. Where points of contention, acknowledgement that need to be resolved. Chapter 12 01 trans plan. Passive measures – examples tree lined streets, boulevards, raised center medians, parking, pedestrian crossings, short building setbacks. Each tends to slow speed. Those were used by consultant. Principal arterial but address congestion, bicycle safety and pedestrian safety. Issues of concern from TCC. Page 8. plan for 20 mph on street. Language says slow to 20. always talking about travel speed and not posted speed limit. Less restrictions, less obstructions and more safety. Went back to speed and delay study. Data collected in 2000. average speed to mendenhall less than 15 and to tamarack 15 to 25. so if take into account when look at 20 mp in corridor, not a large adjustment. Second, roundabouts. Most dramatic element of plan. Way approaches it, first is Main and 7th. Intersection right now uses every square foot of ROW available. At 20 30 or 50 percent of volume. Bold and dramatic redesign however done. Page 10. Area A, first phase includes enhanced crosswalks, detailed engineering study to address traffic flow and esign of roundabouts. More carefully delineates traffic lanes and crosswalks. ROW takes are huge for those. Next one was signage. Page 25. lot of emphasis. Was to be design and connectivity study. Show ways this portion of the community relates to others and not just arterial corridor. Conventional signage scheme that tied with downtown MSU and other areas. No intent to get into the street. Will comply. Last one is why would plan propose street sections that don’t comply with existing standards. Can’t address 10 or 11 foot lanes. Current street doesn’t compy with existing standards and no ROW to make it. And frankly, no one involved that wanted it to look like Oak or 19th. Suggesting that through trans plan update, time for us to take look at existing arterials and what want to have happen and come up with another street standard that accommodates design intentions. Also, today heard about new tools. Possibility of opportunity for combined lane. May be opportunities from desgign standards. Bottom line, couple places in plan. Page 6, statement that community participation is imperative. Page 9 to acheve street section will require coordinateion with MDT. What’s important is that went in with eyes wide open. Want to work with MDT and federal highway admin t get the type of landscape in palce without impacting the engagement. Want tio get across the street saely. Don’t want to impact safety. Where these things are possible, becomes operating manual. In most places where doesn’t hwere need to go to work. not just street sections. Calls out parks. Where city doesn’t own parkland. Revised rout for Darigold where don’t have ROW. Advocacy document. Don’t have anything going on on North 7th to do with internal circulation on 7th. This calls for parking in rear. Interla circulation systems between private parcels. While lot impede traffic flows, additional things to assist. Plan has een received like nothing else I’ve seen in Bozeman. When presented, consultant got round of applause at Planning Baor. The approvals were unanimous although everyone acknowledged that had things to be rsolved. What everyone wanted to see for 7th. Rob B – I’ve gone through this whole thing with minimal involvement. Aisde from lane widths, don’t see anything compatible with way do business. Wil lconsider roundabouts for everything. MUSTD is state law. Want to accommodate parking and bike lanes and like landscaping. No speaks about specific traffic lane widths. Looked through plan in detail and thoughtful and lot of opportunities to look at solutions. Ron – the 10-foot lane widths were last to be resolved. If to have bike lanes, how got in. don’t know if shared lane becomes option. Jeff E – agree with Rob. When first came out, lot of misinformation given State and we reacted off the bat. Notice 10foot lanes were severe consternation with reard to corridor. One of the concerns have is use of roundabuts at Main and another. Is it the desire of this plan to. Dairgold trucks. One of our things is make sure design roadways that are under state jurisdiction can’t be designed to eliminate use of trucks. Not sure how many would use Main and 7th intersection right now. Roundabout would have to be looked at in design. Question – it specifiallly shows on page 9 area b and C over I-90. is that by design? As may know have reconstruction of that interchange in works. Heard loud and clear need provisions for bike and pededstrian on both side and travel lanes. No problems if that is specifically excluded form plan for that reason. Ron – don’t recall anything on vehicular portion of overpass. Page 17 says improvements to be considered. Jeff E – haven’t addressed with our project. Ron – bike lane continues all of the way out. And the overpass was an issue when looking at a waterslide out there. Jeff E – pretty up on plan as is. Recognize doesn’t meet what would want out there and recognize don’t want an Oak or 19th. So can shut mouths. Andy – thanks to Ron for this presentation. Bob L – do you expect trans plan update to endorse this plan or is to approved and trans plan bound to work with it? Ron – this has become adopted policy. Where doesn’t where work with sleeves rolled up begins. Trans plan is place where those issues get resolved. Want this to be vision for that street section brought to the table. Andy – North 7th plan not major focus of trans plan. It focuses on identifying new corridors, collectors, standards for new facility development. Need to work with consultant on recognition that standard for new arterial ighway not necessarily standard in developed urban setting. But anticipate plan will recognize the adopted 7th plan. Al Van – do you foresee projets we might include in the plan being identified in conjunction with oversight from connectivyt plan? Ron – we’ve adoptd an urban renewal plan for North 7th. It gives that ageny the local authority to e involved withal those kinds of plans for infrastructure and the 7th plan adoptes trans plan. Kerry – state under certain regulation they control. Looking fo new standard to be adopted to accommodate this. City needs to wrok with State in finding standard and could be incorporated as new street standards in plan and could be included for others as well. Andy – agree. And rcognition needs to be urban developed aras. Lee – attractive plan but big problem with 10-foot lane. Functionality and snow removal with 12-foot blade. And truck won’t be able to stay in the 10-foot lane so crushing cars or taking off mirrors. Type of design you have, good idea to discourage truck traffic to some degree but can’t preclude it. Area C don’t understand why 14-foot and 11-foot travel lane side by side instead of 12-foot lanes. Ron – Bob Marvin addressed that and can’t remember explanation. Semis in 10-foot lanes. Biggest trouble is south end. Had some residents and mainstays were business onwners who get merchandise from semis. And allow Darigold on 7th. Competing values. Biggest is safety. Lee – the roundabout on Baxter. 12-foot lane but trucks cannot make it around that without driving on sidewalk. Issue. Can touch curb on one side and rear tires go over sidewalk. Ron – at one point in this process, Bob was suggesting that roundabout be a full block configuration. To get work for semis, ROW take is huge. C. Other Old Business A. Status of Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update Chair Andrew Epple stated that Planning staff took the lead in putting together the request for proposals and anticipated they would manage the contract for the transportation plan update. Because of the workload in his department, however, that responsibility has been transferred to the Engineering Division; and Bob Murray will be the administrator of the project. Rick Hixson announced that the deadline for proposals has passed, and the following three proposals were received: PBS&J, Robert Peccia & Associates, and HKM Engineering. Copies of those proposals will be sent out to the selection committee for review, after which interviews will be conducted, a firm selected, and a scoping meeting held. Al Vanderwey cautioned that, before the contract for the consultant can be signed, the funding must be assured; and Gallatin County has not yet budgeted monies for it. He then cautioned that the State cannot put monies toward the plan until the contracts have been signed. Christopher Scott stated the County’s budget will be approved in mid-August, and it appears the funding is in it at this time. Chair Epple noted that once the update process begins, the TCC will probably need to meet monthly to review draft documents and make policy decisions. B. Establish Temporary Appointment to TCC to represent the Safe Trails Coalition during the 2006 Transportation Update Process Chair Andrew Epple noted that this issue was discussed at the last meeting, but no formal action could be taken at that time because it was not an agenda item. Rob Bukvich voiced his preference for charging the consultant with the requirement to meet with various pedestrian and bicycle groups, particularly since there are several unrelated groups interested in those facilities. He suggested that would be preferable to having only one or two selected groups on board for the update process. Jon Henderson agreed that having consensus within the groups would be good. Responding to questions from Chair Epple, Bob Lashaway voiced preference for making the position a voting position. It was moved by Debbie Arkell, seconded by JP Pomnichowski, that a representative from the Safe Trails Coalition be appointed to serve as a temporary voting member of the Transportation Coordinating Committee during the transportation plan update process. The motion carried. C. Other Old Business No additional business was submitted under this agenda item. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS No items were submitted under this agenda item.Final Scope of Services Andy – sub-committee is still in process of finalizing scope of services with selected engineering firm. Initial scope of services resulted in preliminary budget estimate of almost double the budget. So your committee has worked with consulting engineer to pare that down without completing gutting intent of the plan. Lot of wish list things in scope. Budget endorsed by city and county was $160,000 and engineer estimate was $360,000. committee reviewing a revised scope of services eliminating some of the things that were costly and dnow to $220,000 now for estimate. Better position to report in April. Firm is Peccia and Associates. Ralph Z – work in progress. Will it be finished in April? If so, opportune time for guidance to sub-committee. Any idea what has been cut out? Andy – didn’t bring draft with adjustments. Not prepared to present right now. Jon Henderson – one was coordination with safe routes to school. Also a couple charettes proposed in addition to initial draft. From my perspective, went through with fine tooth comb. Still very happy with outcome. Majority were fairly incidental. Bob L – sounds like lot more to cutg? Jon – discussing a week from today the possibility of funding to make up difference. BABAB interested in providing funding to help but may be additional cuts. Rob B – is there a transit element in this scope of work? Jon – nothing to analyze the system. Just accept what’s here today. Andy – will distribute final draft for TCC consideration in April. Other funding sources – state has committeed $60,000 and City/Counhty hve committed $100,000. feel diminished product if reduce much further. Don’t see getting down to $160,000 and getting project. Ralph Z – so entire TCC will be given chance to reaview before final and contract signed? Andy – yes. B. ITEM 7. PROJECT UPDATES - Discussion only as needed MSU Projects Update Bob L – nothing at this time Belgrade Projects Update – Jeff E – still working on VC ROW acqusisiont. Nothing new. CTEP Projects Andy – nothing new. Work continues on projects in works for several years. South 19th Avenue – Main Street to Kagy Boulevard Jeff E – public meeting held. Several individuals were present. Staff and Rick and Debbie. Several individuals form public. Although copeting with MSU basketball game. Overall, heard things needed to look at. Additional amenities. Making sure grandma can cross the streetRob Bukvich announced the department is in the process of advance right-of-way acquisition, in preparation for the scheduled June 2007 bidding. He indicated there are right-of-way issues involving Dr. Rogers’ property along West College Street; and if those issues can be resolved without much redesign, it should be possible to remain on schedule. Provide refuge in middle of medians to provide ability for safer crossing. Lighting. Similar to further out. At stage can’t make wholesale bunch of changes but willing to sit down. Potential meeting Feb 8 with City Commission. Bring in consultant or MDT staff. And maybe federal highways come in as well. Jeff Patton. And if can provide. Scheduled for Feb 08 letting. Acquiring ROW. Worked out issues with fire station. Put in a traffic signal to interconnect with signals. Activate to allow fire truck to get out onto 19th. Flks beginning appraisals for ROW acquisition and then negotiations will start. Ross Gammon took overcautioned that inability to successfully resolve the issues with the Dr. Rogers property could potentially be a show stopper. He noted Dr. Rogers feels the street should be realigned and that the right-of-way should be acquired from MSU. He cautioned that shifting the alignment of West College Street affects the City’s options for that street in the future. He also noted that shifting the alignment to the south will affect MSU property both east and west of South 19th Avenue. Responding to Chair Epple, Mr. Ebert stated that, whether the roadway is shifted or not, it will be necessary to acquire some right-of-way from Dr. Rogers. Responding to Debbie Arkell, Rob Bukvich stated the West College Street legs of the intersection are to include four lanes: a right turn lane, a straight through lane, a left turn lane, and a straight through lane in the opposite direction. He cautioned that these improvements are essential before South 19th Avenue can be improved between West Main Street and Kagy Boulevard. Further responding to Debbie Arkell, Jeff Ebert noted that both the West College Street and South 19th Avenue improvement projects must be designed at the same time and then constructed at essentially the same time. He indicated that the $5 million earmarked for this project is available until it is expended. He cautioned that, while Congress has earmarked those monies, it is important to remember the federal highway administration has “takedowns” that amount to approximately 12 percent, which are deducted from the amount appropriated for a specific project. Further, legislation adopted during the last legislative session provides that the State utilize the maximum amount of overhead for the processing and use of FAU monies. He cautioned that these deducts from the appropriation will result in the necessity to use more urban funds for projects. Mr. Ebert noted that the department is working hard on the improvements to the intersection of West College Street and South 19th Avenue since it has been identified as one suffering from congestion and air quality issues. The design and construction costs for this intersection have been estimated at $3 million, and he will request that additional CMAQ funds be earmarked for this project. He then estimated that the two projects will total $6 million. Sara Folger stated discussions with the head of the CTEP Bureau have revealed that after 2008, approximately 15 percent of the allocation will be taken for administration. 5. North 19th Avenue/Valley Center Project Debbie Arkell reported that this project is substantially complete and can now be removed from the list. She indicated that once all of the construction is complete, the speed limit will be set at 40 miles per hour, based on the results of a recent speed study. David Smith announced that the ribbon cutting for this project is set for August 17 at the rest area. Chair Andrew Epple noted this project has opened the doors for businesses to construct and has allowed traffic to move better. 6. Signal Projects a. Willson Avenue/ College Street Jeff – internal MDT meting. As previously misstated if put in traffic signal, will require purchasing ROW. So need to progress furthetr in design to determine what impacts are. Had the consultant from Florda to look and stated possibly could be smaller roundabout int hat location. Appeared would require more ROW to be purchased. So now looking at four different alternatives. Two with signal and two with roundabout. Will try to get design in Feb or March and back to staff within city and making recommendation on what finding with the new design. New thing is found traffic signal requies purchasing ROW so changed argument on roundabout. Need to proceed further with design. Didn’t have environmental document done. Two signal options, one where large WB50 truck and bus on how would utilize intersection. Bottom line is back to city and explain where we are at. Bob L – another round of public meetings or back to Commission? Jeff E – right now, our understanding is Commission would like roundabout. One of the drawbacks was environmental document said didn’t need ROW for singal. Have to modify environmental document. Want to do more design so when come before you know better where we are at with respect to whether have to buy ROW and how much. Also have made commitment to look at what smaller roundabout would accommodate trucks. So comparing similar items. Andy back.gave a brief history of this project, noting that Robert Peccia & Associates was hired to help with the environmental analysis, which looked at the effects of a traffic signal and a roundabout. Because of the necessity to acquire right-of-way for a roundabout, that option was deemed to have an adverse effect on the historic nature of the area. In light of that determination, the MDT made the decision, which was concurred in by the State’s Historic Preservation Office, that the traffic signal is the option to be selected. The issue now is the type of traffic signal that will meet the City’s request that it reflect the historic character of the neighborhood. He noted the City will be asked to select the design of the signal, noting the department will then use that same fixture when it updates the signals along Main Street. Responding to Commissioner Jeff Rupp, Jeff Ebert stated that the City Commission’s direction was that if a roundabout was determined to not be an option, then the department was to proceed with a traffic signal. Responding to Bob Lashaway, Jeff Ebert stated that if the Commission does not support MDT’s plan, they will walk away from the project. He cautioned, however, that if the project is stopped at any point now, the City will be responsible for paying back the costs associated with the no build option. Chair Andrew Epple asked that an estimate of the City’s obligation under the no build option be provided in conjunction with the final report, so the Commission can understand the costs involved with that decision. Rick Hixson voiced his frustration that the City was not previously informed of the costs associated with the no build option. He noted that, if that had been known, it might have affected his division’s submittal of the application for nomination. Bob Lashaway asked if the TCC should take a stand on this issue, particularly since it has been supportive of the project. Rich McLane, Bozeman Police Department, acknowledged that the residents in the immediate area do not support the installation of a traffic signal; however, many residents of the community do. Also, statistics reveal this intersection is not safe. JP Pomnichowski noted one of the area residents has indicated behind the scenes that she does support the installation of a traffic signal, particularly since it would provide an interruption in traffic flow that would allow her to safely maneuver into and out of her residence. She noted that she has been awaiting a solution at the intersection of South Willson Avenue and West College Street since she was a college student crossing the street. She suggested that a traffic signal is the most predictable system for both drivers and pedestrians, noting that she does not support the roundabout in light of the MDT’s analysis and the fact that three of the property owners do not want to give up property for its installation. Rob Bukvich noted that the no build option has always been on the table, and noted that when the Commission supported the project, that line was crossed and the requirement for payback was triggered. It was moved by Bob Lashaway, seconded by JP Pomnichowski , that the Transportation Coordinating Committee send a letter reconfirming its support for resolving safety enhancements at the intersection of South Willson Avenue and West College Street in recognition of the safety issues and lack of level of service. Responding to Christopher Scott, Rob Bukvich stated the stop sign option was rejected because of the disparity in the levels of traffic on the various legs of the intersection. Ross Gammon stressed that this is a safety issue only. He encouraged the TCC to recommend the installation of a traffic signal, if that is their preference, rather than taking a softer approach to the issue. Lee Provance voiced his concurrence, noting that the TCC should strongly support the traffic signal option if that is the only viable option to address the safety issues. Jeff Rupp stated he feels it is wise for the TCC to provide input to the City Commission. The following substitute motion was placed on the floor: It was moved by Ralph Zimmer, seconded by JP Pomnichowski, that the Transportation Coordinating Committee go on record as recommending installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of South Willson Avenue and West College Street, based on the outcome of the study of this intersection. The substitute motion was accepted by the Transportation Coordinating Committee, with Jeff Rupp abstaining. The motion on the substitute motion then carried, with Jeff Rupp abstaining. Ralph Zimmer noted that rarely does change in intersection controls totally solve a problem; rather, it often results in a different type of accidents. He cautioned that the question which a traffic engineer and the decision makers face is whether the benefits of the change outweigh its penalties. b. Other Lee – south 19th by lifeless swans, the big lights. You stalled traffic signal that doesn’t meet warrants. Three legged intersecgtion seldome used, especially in winter. Can you deactivate or put on flash on Graf red. As bad as has been for ice, would be wonderful. Jeff E – we’re under impression, last correspondene from City is would not like to see traffic signals on flash because of pedestrian death. If could get request to do that, would consider it. Was done because later on this spring, portrayed to us would meet requirements and edeveloper put signal in. and because of construction traffic in spring and then warrant. Lee – we still maintain that section. Certainly ask to deactivate until meets warrants. Rob B – issue is video detection on side lane and construction folks are parking so detected so that turns read. If could get them to not park there, would not turn red. Lee – until warranted should be deactivated because detracting from safety. noted that Lowes is being required to install a left turn arrow on the traffic signal at the intersection of North 19th Avenue and Baxter Lane. She asked if the Montana Department of Transportation would be willing to determine whether that left turn arrow can wait or if it needs to be installed before that business opens; Jeff Ebert indicated a willingness to do so. (OVER) 7. North Rouse Avenue Rob Bukvich stated there is nothing new to report at this time. Rob Bukvich reported that meetings have been held with the school district, and some of the concerns regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities are being addressed. He noted that the department is currently working through the environmental assessment process, and he anticipates another public meeting will be scheduled during the winter. Jeff Ebert noted that staff and the consultant also met with residents along North Rouse Avenue to discuss the processes and the amount of right-of-way to be acquired for the project. He noted several of the homes are located on fairly small lots, and acquisition of the right-of-way will probably result in a total taking of those sites. He indicated that almost all of the residents have voiced appreciation for their efforts to involve them in the process early. He noted that, while the five-lane option might be considered for the north end of the project, it has been dismissed as an option for the southern end. 8. Durston Road Street Improvements Rick Hixson stated he has no additional information at this time.Rick Hixson reported that the portion of Durston Road west of Hunters Way is virtually complete, and he anticipates the work between Hunters Way and North 19th Avenue will move fairly quickly. He indicated that the project is on schedule to be completed this fall. He then turned his attention to the Durston Road east project, stating that that project is also on schedule and is to be done this fall. 9. I-90 Improvements Rob Bukvich stated that this project is continuing, with chip sealing and westbound bridge replacements to be completed yet this construction season.Jeff Ebert announced that the bridges are complete; the only items left are the bridge approaches, the chip seal and final pavement markings, which will be done in the spring. 10. Huffine Lane Access Control Study 911. Jackrabbit Lane Jeff Ebert stated that reconstruction of Jackrabbit Lane to Hulbert Road is scheduled well beyond 2010, however, design of the roadway is progressing. He noted the design includes work on the south leg of the Four Corners intersection. 120. Other Main Street—Grand Avenue to Haggerty Lane. Jeff Ebert reported this project is scheduled for a May letting, with the work to be completed this season. The project will include milling and overlay of Main Street as well as the upgrading of traffic signals to the west. Main Street resurfacing. Bob Lashaway asked if the US191/Main Street resurfacing is still on schedule; the response was that the downtown street is to be resurfaced next summer with the remainder scheduled for 2010 or beyond. David Smith voiced concern about the negative impacts that the chip seal and overlay project had on businesses along North 7th Avenue earlier this summer. He suggested that the contractor be encouraged to do evening work and to keep impacts on businesses to a minimum when the downtown project is undertaken. Rob Bukvich responded that when Main Street was last improved, the work was done at night. He then indicated that input will be sought from the downtown business owners before the project is undertaken. Jeff Rupp noted the various downtown boards are well aware of the impending street project. Jeff Ebert suggested that a contractor website and weekly meetings could help to keep everyone informed on the progress of the project. He then cautioned that it is not possible to avoid the June to August time period for undertaking the work due to the area’s weather conditions. Rob Bukvich noted this is anticipated to be a week-long project, and one lane will remain open each way during the work. He then indicated that countdown timers are to be installed in the downtown core, and detector loops are to be added on the side streets with emphasis to be placed on the Main Street traffic. Responding to Jon Henderson, Rob Bukvich stated that today’s actuators are not sensitive enough to respond to a bicyclist; rather, a cyclist must use the pedestrian button. He indicated another option that could be pursued is a video actuator. Responding to Debbie Arkell, Joe Olsen stated the crosswalk treatment has not yet been determined, and assured her that the City will be involved in that process. Debbie Arkell then expressed an interest in possibly using the same crosswalk treatment on the side streets as on Main Street. Responding to Ralph Zimmer, Rob Bukvich stated the traffic signals are to be interconnected in an effort to maintain progression; however, they will be also semi-actuated through the core. Sara Folger stated the Downtown Bozeman Partnership has let the request for proposals to expand the downtown core to include the side streets between Mendenhall Street and Babcock Street. With that expansion, she suggested that CTEP monies could possibly be used to fund a portion of the costs of decorative crossings on the side streets. Detours. George Durkin asked that detours for city projects that impact county roads be better noticed. He also proposed that the contractors be required to provide dust abatement on unpaved county roads when they are used for detours, noting it is difficult enough to maintain them without the additional traffic. Valley Center Road. At Debbie Arkell’s request, Jeff Ebert provided an update on the Valley Center Road project, noting it is scheduled for 2008. He indicated the department is currently in the process of acquiring right-of-way. Responding to Doug McSpadden, Rob Bukvich stated the speed study on Valley Center Road was done by the City, but that study did not apply to the entire length of the roadway. He then indicated that the reconstruction project is divided into two pieces, with the east section to be done first and the west section to be done at a later date. ITEM 8. DISCUSSION ITEMSELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. Chair Andy Epple noted the practice has been to rotate these positions through the city and county officials, noting that he has served as Chair and Ross Gammon has served as Vice Chair for the past two years. Following a brief discussion, it was moved by Lee Provance, seconded by Kerry White, that Andy Epple continue as Chairperson and that Ross Gammon continue as Vice Chairperson for this year. The motion carried. 19th Avenue Overpass. Kerry White proposed an overpass on 19th Avenue at West Main Street. He noted that from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on any given day, traffic is backed up because both streets are very busy and there is no way to handle the current volume of traffic with a traffic signal. Chris Saunders stated some of the current Main Street congestion problems result from the closure of Durston Road. He also suggested that if Stucky Road were extended to Kagy Boulevard, many of those accessing the southwest quadrant would take that route. He stated there is a plan in place to provide the needed transportation links, but they are costly. Debbie Arkell stated that, as development is occurring, the grid system is coming into place. She cited the improvements to Flanders Mill Road and Harper Puckett Road as examples and noted that two new signals are anticipated along South 19th Avenue south of Kagy Boulevard. Gas tax/miscellaneous updates. Chris Kukulski stated that the issue of a two-cent gas tax was discussed at the last City/County meeting; the County Commission is interested, and the City Commission is definitely interested. He then indicated that, during his Wednesday morning radio talk, one of the issues raised was left turn arrows, and he attempted to explain the challenges of planning when no left turn arrow was considered in the initially installation. City Manager Kukulski noted that opening of the Fowler Lane/West Garfield Street connection will be a huge reliever for the West College Street/South 19th Avenue corridor. Setting of speed limits. Chris Kukulski suggested that steps need to be taken in becoming more proactive in setting speed limits, particularly since rural roads are significantly different from urban streets. He suggested that the designing of streets and roads should include discussion of the speeds rather than setting the speeds at the 85th percentile from speed studies done after the improvements have been made. He noted that the Durston Road improvements will solve a lot of problems; however, he anticipates the neighborhoods will be unhappy when the speed limits are set at 35 or 40 miles per hour. Lee Provance stated the same issues revolve around setting speed limits in the County. He characterized it as a hugely political issue, noting that setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile will reduce accidents and improve safety; however, that often does not match with political pressures. ITEM 95. 2006 & 2007 MEETING DATES AND AADJOURNMENT – 11:10___10 47ap.m. Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, January 24, 2007 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, it was moved by Jedff Krauss, seconded by Lee Provance, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carriedMSC.iIJP PomnichowskiJeff EbertKerry White.. Reminder of upcoming meetings. Wednesday, October 25, 2006 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, April 25, 2007 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. Standard Meeting: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. Standard Meeting: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. Standard Meeting: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 – Regular meeting at 9:30 a.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. * Special Meeting: December date to be determined due to holiday schedules. ____________________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee *Transportation Coordinating Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a special need or disability, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).