Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062707 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.doc BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL 411 EAST MAIN STREETMINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 26OCTOBER 25, 2006APRIL 25JUNE 27MAY 23, 2007 - 9:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairrman Andrew EppleRoss GammonAndy Epple called the meeting to order at 9:4010:065 a.m. on Wednesday, July 26October 25April 25May 23June 27, 2007, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Jeff Patten Joe Olsen Al Vanderwey Doug McSpadden Rob Bukvich Ross Gammon Kerry White Pat Abelin Jeff Ebert Chris Scott Jon Henderson Bob Lashaway Ralph Zimmer Andy Epple Bill Murdock Lee Provance Jeff Krauss David Smith Andy Epple, Planniing 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 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 VanderWwey, Urban Planning, MDT Jon Henderson, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition (temporary member) Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Supervisor, Butte District, MDT Jeff Ebert, District Engineer, Butte District, MDT David Smith, Citizen Member, City of Bozeman Bill Murdock, County Commissioner Jeff Patten, Federal Highway Administration JP Pomnichowski, Planning Board, City of Bozeman Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Taylor Lonsdale, Alternate, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Staff Present: Bob Murray, Project Engineer, City of Bozeman , Assistant Planning Director, City of Bozeman George Durkin, Road Office, Gallatin County Mike Harris, Gallatin County Open Lands and Recreation Coordinator John VanDelinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman , Grants Administrator, City of Bozeman Rick Hixson Rick Hixson, City Engineer, City of Bozeman Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Dan Norderud, Robert Peccia and Associates Phil Weisbach, Short, Elliott, Henderson , Four Corners , Bozeman residentJohn LeeperFourCLisa Ballard, Streamline Jessica Roberts, ALTA Joe Gilpin, ALTA Todd Hortsmaozeman Amy Kelley, Bozeman resident Gary Vodenhal, Gallatin Valley Land Trust Chris Naumann, Downtown Bozeman Partnership Lisa Danzl-Scott, Parking Commission Tamzin Brown Carol Strizich, MDT Steve White, County Commissioner, Gallatin County Guedst Jeff Key, Peccia Carol Strizich Lisa Danzl Scott Bob Murray Rick Hixson Sara Folger James Goehrung Robin Sullivan Chris Saunders Pamzen Brown 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 ZimmerRich McLane Bob Lashawy JP Pom Ross Gammon, MDT Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board David Smith, Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commission Bob Lashaway, Facilities Services, MSU (arrived late) Maintenace Robin Sullivan, minutes Ted Lange____, Gallatin Valley Land TrustVLT John Vandelinder Rick Hixson George Jurdin Tracy Oulson Oug Madden Steven Johnson, Executive Director, Gallatin Valley Land Trust MSU professor and students in traffic engineering class 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. Va commended the TCC for emphasis on alternative means of transportation in the plan update. She encouraged the Committee to look at trails as not just good for bikers, walkers and runners, but to make the trails ten feet wide so they can be used by skiers as well. She also noted that a trail system extending from Bozeman to Three Forks would do wonders for Gallatin County’s image and its transportation needs. Amy Kelley stated that she is interested in the biking aspect of the plan. She commutes to work in the downtown on a daily basis, and has found it an unsafe way to commute. Chair Epple responded that a lot of effort is being made to make the community more bicycle and pedestrian friendly under this plan update. – commend you for emphasis in new plan on alternative means of transportation. Hope will look at trails as not only good for bikers, walkers and runners but make 10 feet wide so skiers can use also. If can get system going all way to Three Forks will do wonders for Gallatin County’s image and trans needs. Amy Kelly – not involved in process. Here interested in biking aspect also. Commute by bicycle and work downtown. Pretty unsafe to commute that way. Encourage you don’t know what line is. Andy – have a coupole peop;le of the bike board and trails coalition here. Trying to figure out how to make more bike and pedesgtrian friendly. Putting lot of energy into. 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. ITEM 3. TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE {Items for review and discussion by consultant, Robert Peccia & Associates} Jeff Key distributed copies of his power point presentation and handout on the plan update, noting this is the fourth of eighteen meetings scheduled during the transportation plan update. He briefly touched on the issues to be covered during this meeting, which include a summary of public outreach to date, a discussion on roundabouts, and an overview of tonight’s public meeting. Public outreach to date. 1. Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates, highlighted the outreach activities for the past month, which include meetings with City and County planning and engineering staffs, the Chamber of Commerce, Montana State University, and various advisory bodies of the City and County. He noted that the first public meeting is scheduled for this evening. Mr. Key stated that County staff found the roadway sections need a little work, voicing concern about the 11-foot-wide lane widths and recognizing that whatever is built within the county must complement potential expansion of the city. The County staff also wants a product that can be turned into design standards, including specifications. They also identified the importance of establishing where future corridors lie and acknowledged that the network standards must also accommodate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The staff voiced concern about raised medians and how they might impact maintenance efforts. The County staff further asked that transit stops be identified and requested that the consultant do an outreach meeting with the Four Corners and Gallatin Gateway groups. He concluded by noting the County staff stressed that rural issues are different from urban issues. Mr. Key stated that issues raised during his meeting with City staff included identifying where 10-foot-wide shared use or side paths should be located and concerns about medians and the impacts they may have on access, maintenance and costs. At the Chamber of Commerce meeting, he heard that business owners have concerns with raised medians. Also, roundabouts were a hot topic, with various potential locations where they might be appropriate being discussed. Jessica Roberts, ALTA, reported that she is working on the bicycle and pedestrian issues in the transportation plan update. To date, she has met with five different groups, and gave a brief report on each one. She met with one of the planners working on the MSU Tomorrow Plan and noted it was a good opportunity for both of them to learn about the other’s efforts. Issues discussed included bike/pedestrian facilities connecting to and through campus, major entrances to the campus, bicycled parking, and connecting the campus to residential expansion to the west. She also met with the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC);, and their concerns included safe routes to schools and sidewalks, inconsistent application of development guidelines for construction of new subdivisions, working with the County to gracefully manage the interfacing of infrastructure as the City annexes properties, and adequate maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. During her meeting with the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB), the issues of infrastructure, maintenance of the infrastructure, and bicycle parking arose as important. She noted that Board is working on outreach and education programs; and is concerned that, while the policies surrounding bicycles are good, they are not applied consistently. The Board also wants to be more involved, and the members want more technical training to make sure their recommendations are sound and promote safety. Jessica Roberts reported that she met with the Safe Trails Coalition, and they had some big picture concerns. Those include ensuring that the transportation plan coordinates with the City and County growth plans, and making sure the bicycle and pedestrian issues are integrated into the philosophy throughout the transportation plan update. She noted the Coalition sometimes has trouble tracking projects, and they would like to ensure their concerns about big projects, such as North Rouse Avenue and Jackrabbit Lane, are voiced, particularly since they wish to ensureare interested in bicycle and pedestrian safety. Jessica indicated that she also met with the Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT), and they identified wide roads as an area of concern. They wish to make sure the plan is not primarily a trails plan, but want to see pedestrian and bicycle facilities integrated with the regional park. They also support the idea of wider sidewalks and boulevard setbacks on major streets, to ensure a high level of safe and comfortable pedestrian travel. The GVLT also requested that steps be taken to ensure trail crossings at mid-block are safe. Jeff Key reported that he met with the Transit Stakeholders’ Committee, and their concerns included identifying steps to heighten awareness of the transit system, identifying how bus stop locations and orientations should be determined, and having a typical section for a street with a bus pullout in the plan. Mr. Key concluded this portion of the update by encouraging all interested persons to attend the public meeting tonight at 6:30 p.m. at the Bozeman High School cafeteria. Roundabouts. Jeff Key noted the Federal Highway Administration manual on roundabouts provides specifications for various types of roundabouts. He noted there are six different types of roundabouts, and briefly highlighted each of them and their characteristics. They include the mini roundabout, the urban compact, the urban single lane, the urban double lane, the rural single lane, and the rural double lane. The inscribed diameters range from 45 feet to 200 feet, depending on the type of roundabout, and can accommodate entry speeds from 15 to 30 miles per hour. Jeff Key stated that modern roundabouts have proven an effective means of reducing intersection crashes, with a 90 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 76 percent reduction in injury crashes. This decrease, in large part, is due to the reduction in potential conflict points. Advantages of a roundabout include decreased conflict points, slower speeds, increased safety, less delay, higher capacities, no restrictive stop control, less area for turn lanes, and less cost for pavement. Disadvantages include user acceptance, user education, larger right-of-way, and less experience with design and construction, and costs of maintaining traffic during construction. Chair Epple noted that Grand Junction, Colorado, has begun to use roundabouts extensively; however, he stated no pedestrians or bicyclists were using them when he sat and monitored their use. He noted that planners have been “vilified for designing commercial and residential developments that make the automobile happy” and stated they are now looking for standards that “make people happy”. Jeff Key responded that is an issue he will take into consideration when looking at roundabout designs. Responding to Christopher Scott, Jeff Key stated if drivers are not comfortable with a roundabout and the volume through it, they will seek alternative routes; and that results in higher volumes on adjacent streets. He then stated roundabouts work best where all legs of the intersection have similar volumes. He then indicated that the transportation plan will probably include a view of a roundabout and possibly a recommended intersection where one may be tried. Mr. Key showed a video on roundabouts entitled “Rules of the Road” prepared by the Washington State Department of Transportation. He cautioned that the video shows a double lane urban roundabout, which is complex and probably not needed in Bozeman at this time. He then indicated he hopes to broach this subject with both the City and County Planning Boards some time next month. Joe Gilpin, ALTA, stated he does not know if roundabouts discourage pedestrian and bicycle travel, but he noted the design can be tweaked for better results. He suggested that a modern roundabout or a mini-roundabout could be used as a traffic calming device or a small traffic control device in the future. He stated that, to make a roundabout work for pedestrians, it needs to have slow speeds, be a single lane facility, have well-defined crossings, and have splitter islands for pedestrian refuge areas. He noted a constrained entry will slow traffic, and limited visibility will make it safer for all modes of transportation. He noted it is not good to have a bicycle lane in a roundabout; rather, it is better to encourage those who are comfortable in doing so to use the roundabout as vehicles do and to encourage those who are not to use an escape ramp to a wider sidewalk designed to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. Responding to questions from TCC members, Mr. Gilpin stated many states have updated the federal highway administration standards and adjusted them to meet their specific needs. He then indicated it is important to provide easily identified paths for pedestrians and bicyclists to follow when maneuvering through a roundabout. Jeff Krauss noted the centers of the roundabouts in the video are inviting while those he has seen are ugly and have a series of signs leading up to them that can be confusing and extremely ugly. Rick Hixson cautioned that a roundabout takes a large amount of right-of-way and, as a result, he does not foresee them being constructed within the current road system in the City. He noted that it may be possible to acquire adequate right-of-way “in the hinterlands”; however, he cautioned it may be extremely difficult to extract the needed amount from a developer. Bob Lashaway stated he feels there are places on campus where a modified single-lane urban roundabout would work well for traffic calming. George Durkin noted that yesterday a major subdivision with a roundabout in the county was approved. Taylor Lonsdale encouraged everyone to look at how other cities are addressing the installation of roundabouts and work their way through issues rather than dismissing the idea of using them. Phil Weisbach, Short, Elliott, Henderson, suggested that the TCC members check with Avon, Colorado, where they just installed five traffic circles instead of lights. Responding to Doug McSpadden, Mr. Key stated there will be more information in the transportation plan on lane widths and other issues, noting that he can give a power point presentation on what other communities are doing at one of the upcoming updates. Jeff Krauss noted it is important to go through a deliberative public process, addressing the issues of public policy and potential outcomes, as this update process moves forward. He stated that this body can help the governing bodies reach a reasoned decision without the process being inflammatory. Update on Huffine Lane access management plan. Phil Weisbach, Short, Elliott, Henderson, stated this access managemente plan is for the Huffine Lane corridor, extending from Jackrabbit Lane to West College Street. It is a Montana Department of Transportation project, with the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County and Federal Highway Administration also being involved. The purpose of the plan is to balance the competing needs of safety, mobility and access, in that order. He noted this primary gateway to Bozeman and Yellowstone National Park must be managed to preserve its safety and functional integrity. He stated that Huffine Lane is an arterial street and, as a result, direct access is to be limited. He highlighted some of the components of the access management plan which include traffic signals at least a half mile apart, fewer access points, possibly raised medians, and a supporting street system. Phil Weisbach reviewed the various alternatives that have been prepared, as follows. Alternative 1 maximizes access and includes the existing two-way left turn lane and some restrictions on the number and location of accesses. Alternative 2 maximizes safety and includes a raised median with half-mile breaks that allow all turning. Alternative 3 maximizes safety but allows additional turning maneuvers at quarter-mile intervals, including three-fourths turns and U turns in advance of traffic signals. He noted the recommended plan is Alternative 3, which provides the best balance between access, safety and mobility. Mr. Weisbach reported that a public meeting on this plan as well as the Jackrabbit Lane access management plan was held at Monforton School last night. Fifteen to twenty citizens attended and provided input. He heard nothing that would cause the Montana Department of Transportation to change the fundamental elements of the plan, although the installation of medians will not occur for some time since there are no monies to fund construction. The immediate implication is that all new access requests must comply with the plan and right-of-way dedications must comply with the standards for the roadway, which include a 120-foot right-of-way. Jeff Krauss noted that the east end of the plan area is at least a mile within city limits, and the City’s interests are substantially different from those of the Montana Department of Transportation. He suggested that the plan area end at city limits rather than possibly impacting the City’s decisions. Rob Bukvich stated that Huffine Lane is a highway, no matter where the city limits are; and it is important to keep traffic moving at a reasonable speed along that roadway. Jeff Krauss stated he does not believe the speed limit on Huffine Lane will remain at 45 miles per hour, but will be lowered as additional development occurs. Chair Epple noted this corridor study is based on the idea of moving traffic into the more urbanized area of the town; and he does not think of the suburbanized areas on the west side in the same way he thinks of the downtown. Lisa Ballard asked that consideration be given to the installation of a traffic signal on Huffine Lane at Gooch Hill Road, particularly to help get pedestrians across the road. Responding to Pat Abelin, Rob Bukvich stated he believes developers can be required to pay for medians and traffic signals as a condition of granting them access to the road. Christopher Scott stated it would be preferable to have a fund established so the improvements could be done all at once rather than having developers do the work on a piecemeal basis. Phil Weisbach noted it is important to have the complementary roadway system as complete as possible when the medians are constructed. Chair Epple concluded this agenda item by thanking the consultants for their presentations. He then reminded the Committee that next month’s meeting is a regular meeting, which will start at 9:30 a.m. and include an update on the transportation plan along with the regular business items. Review “Roadway Capacity” technical memorandum 2. Status of public outreach activities 3. Issues/concerns expressed to date 4. Miscellaneous existing transportation system graphics Chair Epple stated the first issue to be resolved is a technical issue involving impact fees and the transportation plan update. That will be the first item discussed, with representatives from Tindale Oliver being involved via teleconference. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders noted that during the last meeting, there was some discussion on capacities and, as a result of that discussion, the TCC members expressed a desire to have coordination between the street impact fee update and the transportation plan update. To accomplish that coordination, a teleconference has been scheduled. Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates, noted all transportation plans which impacts,stanoindic likely planning ,ue on,and identifitstate, and,tablestabletable all”“ ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS No items were raised under this agenda item. stated two consultants have been retained to prepare the Jackrabbit Lane access management plan and the Huffine Lane access management plan. He noted that public meetings on those documents will be scheduled within the next couple of months and indicated that they will be scheduled close to a TCC meeting if at all possible. He indicated that a plan update will be provided to the TCC prior to the public meeting if scheduling allows. – will try to have publc meeting associated with Jackrabbit/huffine management plans. Two consultants for that. Had talked abouot having meeting May 31 but notice on calendar that cancelled. Talked possibly of tying in with public meeting and at TCC for that. Not sure if this next plan update meeting would be potential or July meeting. Something working on with Peccia and SCH out of Denver. To give heads up that public eeting upcoming in next couple of months. Andy – those are critical to Four Corners area. Chris Scott is go to guy on this. Jeff Key – Jackrabbit will probably be me since our firm is doing it. Can belend in to next meeting. ITEM 5. 2007 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT – 11:5720 a.m. There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, Chair Epple adjourned the meeting. it was moved by Kerry White, seconded by Lee Provance, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried. Moved by Kerry White, seconded by that adjourned at 11:20 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 ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 26JANUARY 24 AND MARCH 28, 2007, 2006 Jeff Ebert – point out on members present ¾ way, Jeff Patten It was moved by Jeff Ebert, seconded by Ross Gammon, that the minutes of the meeting of January 24, 2007, be approved as amended. The motion carried. Andy approved as submitted March 28 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 REPORTS A. Transit Committee Report No member present. Lee Provance – did we send letter? Andy – communicated verbally but not by letter. Bob Lashaway – $9,000 or $10,000 short on purchase with slope back. County agreed to cover half. MSU extended formal offer to cover other half of that piece. Haven’t heard where going or if will accept it. B ut MSU has extended that. Andy – will get letter out to transit committee and emphasize the need to move ahead and communicate with us. 1. Transit Committee Report - Chris Budeski 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 Pat Abelin – very good meeting on Monday. Number of people there. In process of trying to get MOU signed with County/B elgrade/airport. Moving past what giving heartburn. Relook at some of the road pieces that will be part of project. Al do additional modeling. What will try to do is take some of the raod pieces out of the federal id project. Alaska Frontage road to Valley Center and est Belgrde process. Don’t have to build to federal aid standards and look like more what can do and timing is critical. County and airport funds. If have to have before interchange, puts back. Looking at taking a couple sectors out and actually looks like everyone on same page and moving forward. Rob – good summary. Kerry – think read in paper about funding could revert back to County if not completed? Rob – when accept federal aid funds and move toward project, expectation will be done if funds expended and project not finished for a rason other than no build option picked during preliminary assessment in environmental document or some other good reason we have to pay back federal funds expended. Provision in draft MOU with locals that said if for some reason project didn’t forward, that would repay federal funds expended. For the $8 million. Was sticking point and understand we have committed to repay if that happens. MDT. State funds. Lee – would assume that I was at that meeting and was caught off guard that state pick up tab if project not completed. Would affect county’s ability to fund projects in county wouldn’t it? Dip into our funds? Jeff – would not. We couldn’t use federal funds to pay back federal funds. Would be out of state special revenue which is monies would have to match other types of projects. Major hit to us should it happen. Kerry – wouldn’t affect any other matching funds to go to another project in Gallagin County? Rob – would affect everyting because hav e to put state frunds to match federal. If short, would affect ability to expend federal funds. Not necessarily Gallatin County but statewide. Jeff – money earmkared $8 million can only be used for the interchange. Monies would revert back to federal govt and can do whatever they want. Available until expended but if go no build, somebody else gets that money. Proba bly not even in Montana. So big loss. Ralph – comment to not meet federal aid dedsign requirements, would likie to emphasize that from pedestrian standpoint, very important ade quate provision be made for that. Route people will go and need to make provision for them. Jon – exactly right. Identified I-90 as major barfrier for any pedestrians cfrossing north to south. Few opportunities. Interchange wonderful opportunity to move across interstate with facility. Jeff E – interchange itself will have pedestrian amenities asked for. Connection south to Valley Center on Alaska Road believe intent to design to pedestrian facilities. Issue is b y bing in environmental document, required state on hook for building a county road. That is the issue. Ensure connections not required at full build out when completed. Not necessarily five lane but should be three with pedestrian and bicycle amenities. 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 – ones underway are te remaining few from 2001 plan and hopefully new plan will have a list of new priorities for us. Andy – community made good progress on addressing the TSMs identified and thoses not done will be reeavaluated in this update. D. Bozeman Area Bicycleike Advisory Board Jon Henderson – gearing up for bike to school work wee. May 11-18. flyers posted next week. Breakrfast at various coffee shops around town for commuters. Successful in getting five businesses to donate services, coffee and bagesl. Another opportunity to be visible in community. Usually beautifuyl weather. Also couple of workshops planned in evenings for bicycle repair and maintnenace and deaconess safety rodeo on Saturday. Dondate free helmets t children and demonstrate safety. Also in process of inventorying all of existing bike lanes in town. Lot of reports over years of markings fading or signs missing or gravel on lanes. Working with street dept to make sure bike lanes are swept before May 15 and will be conducting on the ground survey to analyze how well bike lanes holding up. Get painting done by end of fiscal year. Excited about participating in trans plan update. Coordinating with PTSC and Safe Trails. Anxious to get going. E. Other TCC Member Reports Ralph – PTSC at regular monthly meeting earkler this month spent time discussiong City sidewalks and where we are and might go from here. Topic of interst to us that hope to pursue. Andy – will add PTSC to regular agenda reports Rick – will you be coming to committee with desires of what want to see? Ralph – don’t know. Will be main topic in two weeks. Can answer after that. Kerry – still working on county impact fee. Jeff’s involved in that, too. Not done yet. Will just let know how coming along – don’t need on agenda. 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. Downtown Parking Garage Update James Goehrung – two main sourceds of funding – TIF from downtown area and federal transit admin. Because of that Title is intermodal facility. Along Mendenhall frontage, will have pededstrian island and transfer station for Streamline. Between Mendenhall and alley and Tracy/Black. 10,000 sf retail space and bidding two phases for first 350 spaceds and two will be another 100 spaces. Where in procedss – have received approval of finding no significant impact from federal admin. Bids went out earlier this month. Prebid meeting on 18th. Scheduled to open May 2. provided successful, as soon as get contracts in place and started, summer construction. Biggest issue is coordinating with NW Entergy, Quest and Bresnan. At mercy of schedule to relocate poles. Marvin & Assoc put together the traffic closure plan for the project. Biggest thing is that Tracy and Black will be down to one lane of travel with northbound on Black and southbound on Tracy. Mendenhall narrowed to one lane with no parking on north isde. Initiated conversation with Streamline because transfer site is in front of Kenyon Noble. Will look at possibility of relocating to east or west during construction. Rob – since Mendenhall on urban system, will want to take to MDT Commission. Trying to get look at proposed island now. Got out of the environmental document. We’ve got Marvin’s traffic impact study from environmental document. Should do us for now. In process of looking atg that and take any changes to MDT because on federal system. Don’t know timeline for review. James – if need additional info, let me know. Bob L – at TIF meeting, announced meeting tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. what is that? James – second meeting with downtown business owners that may be directly impacted. On Main/Black to tRacy. First was on garbae and parking during construction. Worked out concerns. Tomorrow, Chuck Busta will talk about utility relocation. 42 utility services on that one stretch of alley. A ouple issues, because of construction technique, will go below grae. OSHA requires 1/1 slope to excapvate so will encroach on alley. Fence with 6 feet of pedestrian travel through alley during first four months of constgruction. Also nine property owners with parking in back of building. And update on project. Jeff K – how getting coordinated with Main Street overlay? James – not sure of overlay schedule. Will impact waterline work more. Will add to confusion and congestion and way looking now, at mercey of NW Energy, late July before get started. Not sure how fits with State schedule for mill and overlay. Joe Olson – Main Street projecgt scheduled to be let tomorrow so construction may start first ofr June. Once get contractgor, need to coordinate with garage to minimize impacts. Don’t want contractor to shut down one week and other shut down the next week. Jeff E – major part of that project is signal upgrade. Mill and overlay will be just a week. Concrete sidewalk crossings will take some time. Jeff K – everything heard about concrfete crosswalks is that have to cure for ten days and dug much deeper than overlay. And then putting in signals intersection by intersection will take a lot of time. Jeff E – will need to be coordinated bedcause traffic signals at both Tracy and Black. Rick H – how many attended prebid? James four ina dditiona to contruction manager. Martel already selected as contractor at risk. Bidding other sixteen components of construction. James – default date for bid opening will be May 9 if May 2 doesn’t work. Andy – parkiong garage will change downtown face dramatically. Thanks for update. Like to invite to make update at July meeting. B. Other Old Business None A. Status of Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update B. Establish Temporary Appointment to TCC to represent the Safe Trails Coalition during the 2006 Transportation Update Process C. Other Old Business ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Jeff Key – initially thought 15 minute progress report. Also some issues starting to crop up and will let you know what they are now. Progress – under contract a little less than four weeks. Have to get ramped up for it. Talked at last meeting what intended to do. So what up to. On these handouts, agree to do press release. After meeting today, will go to Chronicle and visit with reporter to see how can get into newspaper. Now officially website up and running. Address on release. Send e-mail to MDT, County and City to make sure everyone knows need link to project. Second handout is preliminary website development. When issue press releases and technical memos and graphics, put on website. Especially the technical memos. Anyone from public can print out. List them as working drafts, subject to change. Real purpose of memos is when get to end of project, don’t want people to see for first time. If see something want to comment on, let me know. Will be cleaning up website and making look better. So far started graphics creation. Trans plan heaveier on graphics than used to be. First one is study area boundary. Slightly larger than last one. Model very vast. Further out, the more potential for errors in model area. Lends to being complementary to demand area. Existing major street network. Every community has major street network. Wher ehave discrepancies is a couple. Federally approved classification network. More often than not, doesn’t match locals on major network. Likewise for Gallatin County. Issue because try to pinpoint major street network that will use as first step. Have to make sure looking at collectors and above for existing roadways. Look at future corridors as well. This map came from last trans plan. Assuming that’s the major street network in place now. Asg et going, will cfreate similar graphic for federally approved one. Steve White also in attendance. Jeff – eventually, will be level of service graphic. Coulnt cars and analyze intersections and put on graphic. Right now, created graphic to show what intersections under scope to count and anlyze. 80 intersections t look at. On graphic only 74. six yet to be determined. Left cushion for construction. Need to know what they are. Have initial public outreach scheduled in second week of May. Last graphic lets you know what counting. Other item handed out was technical memo on boundary. Like to do to tell people this boundary is diffeent and why. Both memos on website now. Other progress uitems, kick-off meeting this Friday with sub-contractor doing pedestrian/bicycle analysis. ALTA in Bozeman this week. Initially was to be between RPA and ALTA to get kicked off on our scope of work. deciced to bring in City and all the players with interest in this piece of this project. Internal kick-off but invited others as well. Doug, Ralph, Jon and ___. Work with people like MSU and transit. Excited and ALTA. Glad to get involved early. And invited County and MDT as well. On May 10, presentation to INC. very interested in getting in on project. Our scope said will contact and venue with them two months before firsdt public meeting. Looking at end of Juen or second week of July. Want to know what trans planning is and what value has and how public will be involved. Two questions rep framed to me. On Juen 15, opportunity with Chamber at Eggs & Issues breakfast. Will get word out. And from RPAs point, starting data collection first week of May. Have about three staff members down here doing counts but need more. Can’t get MSU civil engineering students to count cars. Sensitive to things like Memorial Day, school out, holidays. Andy – when INC? Jeff – May 8. Tuesday evening. Doug McSpadden arrived at 10:25. Andy – good outreach. Touching bases that need to be. Jeff – takes time to build momentum. Already building it. Chris Scott arrived. Jef K – Friday morning meeting is when and where? Jeff Key – downstairs in Stiff Bldg. and not advertised. Geared to contracting folks and group. Anyone can show up. Andy – all TCC members invited. But core group is good. Suggest Kathy Gastakes. Overarching interst in bike/pedestrian re child obesity issues. Jeff Key – graphics person is Griz and gave in maroon and gray. Bob Muray – who’s taking over Tracy’s position and work? Since she’s leaving. Andy – don’t know. Know on some projects, CMC will step in and manage projects but don’t think this falls into that. Will figure out and let Jeff know. Today is Tracy’s last day. Jeff – for this initial meeting, asked me to coordinate with lead INC person. Jeff Key – talk about issues. Jeff – 1. first issue has to do with impact fees. Talk about capacity. In every trans plan and in most communities for conceptual plans assign capacities t certain roadways. Tables in current plan. If manage in certain way, can get more capacity. Every trans plan has those tables and generally pretty close. Issue because in impact fee calculations for City, think fundmental key is capacity that community adopts. What finding in other communities in trans plans is that those capacities not always in agreement with travel demand model. Assign capacities of 11,000 for 2 lane and 15,000 for 3 lane. In Kalispell, starting t take hit about capacities. Since table shows 12,000 for 2 lane. And 18000 instad of 15,000. issue have to decide as a group if go forward. Some trans plans give range of capacity. Why elevated recently is City having impact fee study underway and variable is capacity. See if concern or let that develop or not. Andy – need strong effort to link the two. Bob L – seems odd that we would want to try to tie down to an absolute something that will be a range. Really no way to guarantee a number. So aren’t we talking about a range and should be represented that way? Always know that will leverage the range to top when most of our street networks before able to do upgrading. Think should consider rante method of desn’t make engineering too cumbersome/ Jeff Key – makes good planning sense and like idea. Only issue is thtose that use on daily basis. Threshld is really the criteria that tells developer have to build 2 or 3 lane. If use as trigger, then gray area if have range. Like range. California plans generally same. If don’t do range, some more specific criteria to abide by. Andy – the plan does say up to. Bob L. – difference between current level of use and top of range could be marginal capacity remaining and if development uses amount of that capacity, assign value to that and may allow community to require each development to contribute to that capacity rather than one triggering the upgrade. Lee – need absolute trigger for developer required improvemenrs rather than gray area. Numbers people can work with. Gray areas create opportunity for challenge or lawsuit. See lower numbers installed. Andy – policy of City view, never tell that developer you have created problem and need to solve it but say that have LOS issue or capacity issue that can’t be made worse so until addressed and upgraded, no final approval. Often results in coordination with other developers to resolve. Rob B – does City require capacity addition based on ADT numbers? Seems have outline of street sections for arterials, collectors and what developers required to build to rather than off hard numbers. Bob M – beyond that, go back to map that says what improvements are needed. Rob B – when did last time, similar situation because Dan Burden had just come to town to say can put 50,000 on two lane facility. Limiting factor isn’t lanes but intersections. Al V – not capacity as number but as LOS. And that’s grade and issue of driver comfort. Our driver comfort different from California. 12,000 might be high for Bozeman but local street in San Fran. Rob B – lot of other factors come into play. Not just numer of cars, but intersections and speeds. Put down rough number with caveats that said not hard number. Al V – seems a tie between traffic model and table in plan. Would rather not see traffic model capacity which is computer version being translated into hard and fast number to follow. Jeff Key – our scope of work, City especially wanted guidance on traffic impact studies and how should do capacity analysis for traffic studies. Could get to pint in time where corridor has congestion and give guidance for capacity analysis. Function of approaches, speed and geometry and gets pushed by wayside. Will help the staff review. David Smith – City and county standards for some of these roads. County just adopted 2001 plan a year ago. Are they on board with modeling? Lee – rural standards versus urban standards and some parts of county more urbanized. Should be two standards in plan. Kerry White – where intersections create capacity standards, two lane road could be different capacity standards and county vesus city. If don’t have hard line of capacity on a particular road and developer comes in for subdivision, and how does that affect impact fee collection if no hard capacity if realm of numbers? Jeff Key – depends on how impact fee calculation is being completed. County vesion, not so sure capacity makes difference. What began whole conversation is City’s process. Has direct correlation to capacity assuming for roadway. And with County’s not using that methodology. Has bearing on the mpact fee calculation. Kerry – are you considering different capacities on two lane roads like 11th versus Mendenhall versus Rouse? Jeff Key – typically in regional trans plan, don’t measure every road in the major network. Leave to specific studies or developer plans. Try to look at broad brush on theoretical cpacities. When say 12,000 vehicles per day, assumption is some day a rural road will be an urban road. Had typical desired sections but expected urban. In some plans have b oth rural and urban tables. Bob L – seem to have identified street designations and the standards and street capacities. Maybe this group would want Jeff Key to come back in May with recommendadtions on these and maybe sreet capacity be adopted by the TCC. And relate to scope. If prosing chose range or not but changes scope, would want to know for decision and how recommended direction might affect the impact fee calculations and we could be ready to address and provide direction in May. Jeff Krauss – want impact fee consultant there if talk about that. Believe something if going to have discussion. Want to hear from them during that discussion. Need to know. Andy – will reconcile between now and May. Rick H – one big policy issue and that is the acceptable LOS. Capacity tied to that. Our UDO now says LOS C is ddesirable and in no circumstance will we accept lower than D. Chris K arrived at 10:50. Rick H – the amount of monies would go down on roaways and pollution start to go up unless can convince private or public sector to flex hours. So spiderweb. And complicated issue. Lot is policy issue. Jeff Krauss – could ask public if willing to accept lower level of service but think they already fee they have accepted lower. Andy – way more expensivde to community over time to accept only C and accepting LOS D would have general effect of promintg alternative mode of trans. Jeff Krauss – that’s unproven theory to me. Rik H – but nodes where lOS issues raise issues. DEQ lining up to help local govt fix te problem. But local community has the problem. With LOS D will deal with air pollution issue sooner rather than later. Bob L – sounds like maybe some consensus among group that focus on capacity level rather than range so can include within that several statements on compromises that might cause at the end. Andy – would you rather see absolute with caveats? More deciding factor we look at in review is LOS. Bob M – like the range. Those doesn’t come up as often as when plans and improvements are done. Two different roads may not have same capacities. And intersections 99% of the time. Andy – agree. Bob M – tying to impact fees may affect. Chris S – have range in there now where existing and ideal conditions. Individualized circumstances. Need for precise number is calculating impact fees. Assumptions on roadways need in future. Can see desire to recognize functionally there is a range but at least for looking at how finance, need logical basis to tie to specific number for spreadsheet. May take middle but need defensible number. Jeff Key – desire expressed to me that the trans plan go to higher level of documentation on what is development driven and what isn’t. in Kalispell have major street recommendations and sescribe problem and why necessary and paragraphs about project and going one step further than B/C ratios are this. And so specifically can address in whether impact fees t be charged. Counter argument is if roadway already over capacity, not eligib le for impact frees. So desire expressed that maybe in TSM and MSN chapter increase level of detail for updating impact ees. Andy – valid one. Rob B – is it that important from trans plan standpoint to tie down hard and fast number t use in impact fee discussion? LOS number or weasel word statement fine for trans plan. Does impact fee discussion have to be in plan or should it be with impact fee consultant to bring forward impact fees. Lee P – need consistency so don’t get challenged. If anything gray or may be flexible, will be drug into court about it. Want to be defensib le and link everything. Sub regs to trans plan and impact fee andmake sure interact. Like flexib ility but if leave too many holes, will find way to drag into court. Rob B – have rough language in trans plan. How do you use with impact fees? Chris S – looking for identifification of what roadway links likely will need improvements and what kind. Where capacity comes up again. If assume carry 15,000 difeent expectation for improvements than 12,000 per day. Where pick project list from. And what is growth related. Jeff Krauss – that’s trigger point. And if having study and establishing benchmarks, no harm to have benchmark detailed that provides benchmark for another study. Should have consistency internally with what county and city want. Unless costs a lot more. Andy – if talk in terms of a range, can have situations where major upgrades to two lane road carrying 10,000 are recognized because of the friction points or width of roadway so can be at low end and need capital improvements. Or at high end but no problems. Lot more attention needs to be not on theoretical volumes but LOS analysis. Kerry White – critical for impat going through on County to have info we need. If not in this plan, will be additional tax dollars spent to do. If can do here, will benefit county. A lawsuit will cost county or city and if can’t get justified for impact fee, we won’t get it. Critical that info be specific enough to support impacgt fee. Need some sort of capacity trigger point in there. Lee – Andy’s right. LOS issue. Why range is there is to accommodate roadway for specific circumstances that may allow more volume. Without knowing what will happen on connectin roads and lack of zoning, its quandary. More grasp n city than in county. Have to compromise some place. Andy – need to have more communication on this issue. And have options laid out for policy decisions at May meeting. Pat A – also want to write something that doesn’t take County six years to sign off on. Obviously using plan but last time did it, long time for County to step on board. Want plan they are ready to sign when done. Kerry W – look at study area boundary on Figure 1-1. is that a hard and fast study area boundary? Interchange and requirement on federal standards and will do away with federal standards on east side bypass. On this study boundary area looks like comes within 1 mile from Dry Creek Road. What gotten from community is lot of interest out there in north side bypass from Dry Creek to either Old 10 or airport. Don’t want to go into Belgrade so taking off on side roads. And air quality in morning and evening is getting bad. Just extend boundary a little and look at possibly north side bypass around airport to get toward Bozeman. May take pressure off some of those roads. Lee P – Belgrade’s ready to redo their plan and will go through same process in condensed version. Proper and appropriate to take on at that time. If get too spread out, will be less focused on roads that should be for Bozeman trans. Andy – deal with those inputs into study area through external points but don’t study in detail what’s out there rather than expand boundary. But Belgrade’s TCC coordinating plan is appropriate. Bob L – suggest Jeff get with chair in case other issues emerging even if not introduced. Andy – can get listed on agenda and things for people to review ahead of time. Break – 11:15 to 11:25 B. none ITEM 7. PROJECT UPDATES - Discussion only as needed MSU Projects Update Bob L – beginning to look at planning for 8th from College to Cleveland and Cleveland 8th to 6th hopefully for next year’s construction. Andy – any projecgts to affect traffic ptattersn? Bob – under construction and only intermittent interruptions. Legislature will wrap up and so will e projects out of that for next year. Belgrade Projects Update – Jeff E – nothing new. Continuing on Valley Center acquiring ROW. Things going smoothly as they go. Kerry W – let’s throw entry onto interstate eastbound off Amsterdam. Won’t be interchange out there. Three lights out getting onto Jackrabbit. Metion that. Whether three or four years out. Off Thorp or something. Majority of where traffic wants to go is east. Jeff E – bring money and we’ll build it? Bob L – timeline for Valley Center? Jeff E – February 2009 for eastd part. West part not currently scheduled but still trying to buy ROW and move utilites. Couple subdivisions out there and their direction is work with us on MOU to make that reconstruction of roadway and need to coordinate to see how can occur. Lee P – should have four or five on board before long and hopefully we can finance that protion so maybe can flow the two halves. Jeff E – worthwhile to work for that. Chris S – since planner out tere, have some say in that. But also Belgrade planning jurisdiction for majority of them. Doug – is traffic study still ongoing for that project? Thought would be traffic study on east section of the road. Thought wanted update because info so old. Rob B – have final plan done based on traffic study. Developers doing spot studies for their projects. Chris K left at 11:30 Andy – and that’s part of the process for each development. Sounds like with those impact studies done, could update the info. CTEP Projects Sara F – out for second round of bids for East Willson Roof replacement. And hopefully will get interest from community. And have an acceptable bid and would like to ward for Milwaukkee Trail and Library site. Want to make sure money in place. MDT and City hesitate to award contract. Budget in place and everything clear before make award. The two projects consuming my time. Have our 2007 allocation of funds yesterday $127,000 in CTEP funds. Will be available for projects. South 19th Avenue – Main Street to Kagy Boulevard Rob B – nothing to add from last time. Planned for February 2008. Jeff E – met with City staff Feb 8 and asked to explore amenities to add to the project. Came away with dirction didn’t want to reopen environmental document. Letter from consultant to go to City and will double check on that. Review done and need to report back to City on that. ROW activities probably start next week on actual acquisition and that’s all that is new. cautioned 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 b. Other Jeff E – WillsonCollege intersection. Got a little more. At last meeting talked about comparison between roundabout and signal. Determined in Jan that signal require additional ROW. Comparison to roundabout and presented info to City staff. Ironic thing is that roundabout has less ROW impacts to Four F property which would be consideration. Talking 25 to 40 sf between the two. So what doing now is lot of design done because was originally to be signal, need to get additional survey done and look at what those final impacts wil be and probably issue with lookint at opening environmental document again. Under signal felt no ROW impacts. Back to square 1 now. But looks like can do. Jeff Krauss – you’ve worked with us the whole time and suffered through a lot of iterations and appreciate that at City. Thank you for all done. Joe Olson – tied to Main Street project is city wide signal project. Main and Wallace and Chirch and Main two new signals. Extending downtown pattern. Jon Henderson – has it been decided if actuators will be driven by video? Jeff E – yes because loops used in past wear out and benefit cost shows even though video more expensive, it in big scheme of things cost less. Will not be for ticketing purposes at this time. Ralph – on the 19th Main to Kagy, have ROW problems been solved? Jeff E – we’re still working through process. Several concerns and trying to best appease those concerns. Right now nothing official that ROW is of concern, just working through process. Think will be in good shape. Chris Scott – video detectors. Is there advantage for bicycle traffice? Jon H – have had reports that bicycles don’t trigger the detectors. And concerns that during late night, wouldn’t trigger. More supportive of video solution. Work better than loop. 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 Jeff E – working through environmental process. Consultant had meetings b ut nothing new. 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 – working 7th to 19th and once asphalt available, second lift down west of 19th and striping down. All that’s left. 7th to 19th to be done this fall. Second lift not more than a few weeks to do. Chris Scott – assuming that with the western side is there any need to do anything west? Rick – may need to cut out some pieces and redo where not acceptable. 9. I-90 Improvements Jeff E – reported last time only thing is chip seal and a couple bridge approaches. Stil same. Closer t spring now so should be scheduled. Shifting gears, have several projects involving replacement of various structures. North 7th and crossing over Rouse and MRL and structure to east involving spur line. Info from City that that area to northeast of interstate has been rezoned to be residential rather than commercial. Potential could put in smaller structure to cross over that old spur line turned into trail. one of the issues need to have discussion about is MRL leases lin from BNSF which owns property and if thee’sw a push to go through abandonment, takes a year and obviously trail under our structure we would want to look at buying. Remaining part of that, might want to have discussion. If don’t go through abandonment, RR could come back at later date and if do small structure, would be on hook for larger structure. Frees up money for other projects. At same time, amenable t possibly looking at participating in that purchasing of remaining ROW with City or other entity so that could happen. Plant seeds and we’ll follow up in future. Also issues with emergency reponse plan when goes to construction. Topic for another discussion. 10. Huffine Lane Access Control Study 911. Jackrabbit Lane, Access Management Plan Rob B – scheduled public info meeting for the end of next month. Joe – not awere of one 10. Huffine Lane, Access Management Plan Rob B – want to schedule public info meeting. Jeff E --- at last meeting, made presentation and took lot of TCC comments and revised graphics and making links less specific. Tie public meeting in with May TCC meeting that evening or afternoon and maybe give TCC a preview of that meeting will get info and public meeting set and if coincides, so be it. Will be about a month from now. 121. Other Jeff Krauss – Highland? Nothing. Andy – significant project that hospital is doing. Jeff E – think some of our staff members have bene in attendance at some of the meetings. Need traffic studies and plans for what’s to be done so we can react. 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 ITEMS ITEM 9. 2006 & 2007 MEETING DATES AND AADJOURNMENT – 11:55 p.m. Andy – listing of meetings through end of year. Will start next years schedule after this meeting. May roll Huffine access into the agenda. Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, January 24, 2007 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. Chris S – if want impact fee consultant to be here for the May meeting, need to know now. Andy – tend to think phone conference might be worthwhile. If extra trip, not sure cost effective. We heard concernsa bout liking impact fee with trans plan. If leave to staff and if conclude improtantt to be here, will do what need to set that up. If think can be effectively through other forms of communication, willing to leave to us? TCC membes – yes. Jeff Krauss moved and Lee Provance secondedIJP Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting. Andy – hope can make the in bewe3en meetings. Reminder of upcoming meetings. Wednesday, October 25, 2006 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. *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).