Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082207 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.doc BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL 411 EAST MAIN STREETMINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 26OCTOBER 25, 2006APRIL 25AUGUST 22MAY 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, August 22October 25May 23, 2007, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Jeff Key Kerry White Al Vanderwey Pat Abelin Ross Gammon Rob Bukvich Jeff Ebert John VanDelinder, PTSC Rick Hixson Bob Murray Doug McSpadden Andy Epple Tom Rogers, County Planning Jeff Krauss Bob Lashaway Robin Sullivan Bill Murdock Tamzin Brown, 4 Colrners Plannig Committee Joe Gilpin, ALTA Cathy Gastas, citizen Jon Henderson 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 ScottTom Rogers, Gallatin County Planning Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Chris Kukulski, City Manager, 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 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 John VanDelinder, Pedestrian/Traffic Safety CommitteeTaylor 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 Bob Murray, Project Engineer Brit Fontenot, Neighborhood Coordinator 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 Carol Strizich, MDT Tamzin Brown, Four Corners Planning Committee Cathy Costakis, citizen 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} Cathy Costakis, citizen, stated that in the original meeting with the transportation consultants, she found the $20,000 for safe routes to school had been eliminated. The result is that the only ones working on safe walking and biking for schools at this time are those on the task force for the grant received for the Emily Dickinson School. She noted that at the present time, thirty percent of the children are dropped at the schools by their parents, and it is important that those students be encouraged to walk or bicycle to school for a number of reasons, including less pollution and healthier children. She noted that ALTA is one of the premier bicycle/pedestrian consultants in the country; and it would be too bad to lose the opportunity to obtain their input and planning. She concluded by asking that the $20,000 be restored to this project and that the safe routes to school component be added back into the scope of services. Jeff Krauss noted the City’s budget is scheduled for discussion at Monday night’s meeting, and he’d be willing to recommend that half of the monies for safe routes to school be added to the budget if the School District is willing to fund the other half. Jeff Key noted that the Montana Department of Transportation has created a guidebook setting forth the procedures and providing guidance on how to conduct a safe routes to school study. He stressed that this program includes a lot of reliance on the neighborhood, parents, school officials and the community; and it is rare to have a consultant assess the infrastructure. He noted the program starts with a kick-off meeting at the school and surveys on walking and bicycling to school. He cautioned that developing safe routes to every school could be a lengthy process. He then stressed that the transportation plan addresses the major street network of the community and, unless a school is located along one of those streets, is not included in the plan. Director of Public Service Debbie Arkell noted that the City has done some safe routes to school planning; and Engineering Assistant Andy Kerr has worked with several schools in identifying those routes and with the Street Department in getting the necessary striping completed. She stressed that, since all of the schools now have open enrollment and there are no longer neighborhood schools, fewer students are able to walk or bicycle to school.Cathy – was in original meeting of trans consultants. Found monies taken from monies of trans update for safe routes to school about $20,000. and reasoning was that already being done which a few of us on task force are only ones know are working on walking and biking for schools. We got funded for ED School. Knew from looking at original scope, lot of work to be done by ALTA for each elementary school and identifying issues and routes and advice given. Safer to walk, less congestion, less pollution. 30% of kids dropped at schools by parents. Kneed to get them walking and biking. Urge to put back in budget and if can’t be, would be happy to see if can raise monies. Opportunity with all of the planning. Premier bike/ped consultants here. Opportunity that shouldn’t lose. Not enough in safe routes budget. If we can take some of the burden off schools to identify safe routes and best strategies and well spent monies. Jeff Krauss – e-mailing Chris K now. Will put in budget discussion on Monday. City won’t fund all but if School District would cough up half, then we would too. Will go to bat next Monday and tell Chris K about it today. Debbie A and Chris K arrived. Jeff Key – some things going on statewide on safe routes to school. Has been guide book created by MDT that sets procedures and guiudance on how go ab out safe routes to school study. If can imagine, lot of reliance on neigh borhood and parents and school officials and community. What see is rarely is it consulstant assessing infrastructure. Well defined process and very interactive. Starts with kickoff meeting at school, walkability surveys and bikability surveys by whole team for each school. Lot goes into them. Talking about doing safe routes to school at every single school is worthy endeavor but could be lengthy. What we do in trans plan if school on major street network will do best to dive into the issues but if off major street network, falls off radar unless specifically part of the scope. Debb A – we have done safe routes to school planning. Andy Kerr has worked with several schools. And street dept stripes them. Don’t have neighborhood schools anymore. It’s open enrollment. Won’t walk or ride bike. Without neighborhood schools, hard to do. Tamzin Brown, Four Corners, noted that that area now has a walkable community; and she is concerned that with the proposed improvements along various roadways in that area, students at Monforton School will no longer be able to safely walk or bike to school. Rob Bukvich agreed with Jeff Key’s comments, noting that a safe routes to school program should be done outside the scope of the transportation plan update. He noted the safe routes to school program involves a substantial amount of data gathering that is beyond the scope of a transportation plan. Chair Epple stated that suggestion has some merit, noting the plan update includes a strong pedestrian and bicycle component along the major street network. The safe routes to school seems to be a more grassroots effort that typically applies to the local streets within the community.Tamzin – 4 Corners and Monforton School. Right now have walkab le community and might lose that. Concerned about what will happen with road. Have kids walking and riding and don’t want to lose. Want considered as you put this together. Jeff Key noted that a true safe routes to school includes a mix of engineering and educating of the students and parents, evaluating the before and after results. His firm has found the studies it has done immediately focus on the driver/pedestrian and speed issues rather than the other components. Cathy Costakis acknowledged that the safe routes to school program is a holistic program; however, she noted there are some infrastructure issues. She stated that schools have trouble identifying and addressing engineering issues and suggested that having the consultant identify the infrastructure issues could help them be more successful in obtaining grants. Responding to Kerry White, Jeff Key acknowledged that 25 to 30 percent of the volume at many intersections is attributable to schools. He noted, however, that the safe routes to school program includes much more than the intersections; it includes outreach, work sessions with the school, and review of the entire neighborhood. Jeff Key voiced his interest in obtaining input from ALTA when they are in town, particularly since the School District is in the process of building a new middle school and is looking at the potential of constructing a new elementary school and a new high school. He noted that siting of schools in neighborhoods accessed only by local streets can create issues. He then acknowledged that open enrollment creates problems that are not seen with neighborhood schools, and suggested that partnering with the School Board on this issue may help to make it more successful. He concluded by noting this discussion has raised several issues of which he was not previously aware.Rob B – agree with Jeff’s point that it’s worthy and if funding for it and can come up with $20,000, we shouidl fund it outside the trans plan so doesn’t’ end up driving trans plan where don’t want it to go on statistics and data gathering. Do outside the plan. Andy – has some merit. Think planning we’re doing for majopr street network has strong ped and bike component and any new collector or arterial street will have. Commitment that will provide safe routes to school until get to local street network. Then more grassroots school, parents, teachers issue. Several of ours are on local streets not major network. Can take off from overall plan but separate program. JP arrived. Cathy – you are experts. You can decide that. But part of it because parents are drdiving everywhere. Agree need to change system on neighborhood schools. Think part of trans plan because parents driving everywhere. Could be remote drop off points for kids. Good things for not having lot of parents at schools. It’s a larger issue. Andy – everyone hears you and we’ll figure out how to address. Jeff Key – safe routes to schools, focus is on infrastructure. True safe routes to schools is mix of engineering and factgoring in education of students and parents and evaluating before and after. What we found is that in studies done as firm, immediately the focus is on driver/pedestrian and speeds issues. Another point that would lead to maybe having safe routes to school as separate study. Andy E – there’s a series of recommendations from trans plan and could see one that safe routes to school program be integrated into community planning process. No doubt will happen. But actual safe routes to school plans and implementation policies would be outside trans plan. Cathy – agree that whole but some infrastructure issues. And schools less able to figure that out. Unless have engineer on board won’t be able to figure out. Thought if way to look at schools and give some input, then leg up when try to get grants. Could say had consultant look. But agree a non-infrastructure component as well. Kerry W – to Jeff Key. You’ve done traffic studies on 100 intersections within this plan. And timing of those traffic studies some of them when volume goes up has to do with schools and people taking kids to schools. So issue is to identify intersections being impacted b y people taking kids to school. Will you identify those impacts in the plan? Could maybe give school a leg up on problem intersections and roadways. Jef Key – can try to identify. Look at intersections and function un der traffic conditions. If highest use is during summer, point of reference analyzing. If by a school, counting during school period and telling us based on maximum volume, how operating. If have intersections counted in summer, can compare to see how differs. Can do some through traffic studies on file. And Cathy’s right. 25 to 30% of volulme attributable to schools. But safe routes to school is wholistic review of the neighborhood and specific studies. Lot of effort goes into outreach and work sessions with school. Jeff K – I’m interested in idea of piggybacking when ALTA is in town. Right now building middle school and looking at new elementary school and high school potential. Siting of schools in neighborhood acccessed by local street. We need to make every effort to identify how get kids to school. Issue is working with schools. Bigger issue than where cross street because neighborhood schools are full in the city. Open enrollment has to enter into it somehow. Unless we are making effort to make serious, don’t know how to get school board on board. Opportunity to partner. Andy – feel piggybacking is way to go. Everything we do should support safe routs, but details should be done separately. JP – trans coordinating problem out there right now. Last night, PB when we spoke with you had suggestion that talk to School District because many elementary schools and land holdings where xpect to be schools in the future witin timeframe of update. Has it entered in? Andy E – when city, county staff and state met with Jeff earlier this week, we talked about it. JP – as one of the groups with which you are meeting, I would love to see School District added. Jeff Key – the direction we received was to talk to School Board. We try to identify locations and put into traffic model. If roadway network not satisfactory to serve the new use, need to have something in this plan. Need to find about locations like this. High school as on radar; elementary schools are new to me. Need to have honest discussion on where will be and get in travel model. 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, pertaining to context sensitive solutions (CSS) and complete street policies. He reviewed the definition of context sensitive solutions from the Federal Highway Administration, noting the concept is to look at streets in the total context. He noted that some communities, including Bozeman, want flexibility in design, while some want compatibility with adjacent land uses, balanced land use/transportation functions, safe and attractive streets, multi-modal facilities, quality public space, and fewer design exceptions. He noted there are not many Montana examples; however, communities like Missoula, Whitefish and Bozeman are looking at the concept of context sensitive solutions. He stated that the context sensitive solution provides a safe facility for both users and the community and serves the needs of a full range of stakeholders, including drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. He noted that the facilities are built with minimal disruption to the community in a manner that provides lasting value to the community. He indicated that CSS balances safety, mobility, community, and environmental goals in all projects; involves the public and stakeholders early and constantly; addresses all modes of travel; and incorporates flexibility of design and aesthetics into the project. Jeff Key cautioned that, particularly in existing conditions, there are several limitations, including right-of-way, the functional classification of a roadway and its primary purpose, funding, and lane widths. He noted that discussion on lane widths has been heightened recently, particularly since the transportation plan reflects the urban design standards negotiated between the Federal Highway Administration, Montana Department of Transportation and local governments. He stated the desire in many communities is to have narrower lane widths, particularly in communities like Missoula, Whitefish and Bozeman. . Presentation to give level of knowledge on what context sensitive solutions and complete street policy are and mean. And then receive information on how want handled in trans plan. Two main objectiveds for today. CSS has been around in Montana for a little bit. Some examples. See in more urban areas. Define existing and committed networks. Context sensitive solutions – definition from the federal highway administration. Consider total context. Some communities want flexibility in design, including Bozeman. Some want compatibility with adjacent land uses. Multi modeal. Quality public space and fewer design exceptions. Not lot of Montana examples. When looked through Montana and palces work, consider Missoula, Whitefish and Bozeman as looking at this. In Kalispell, this has not come up once. It’s focus is getting roads with aggressive growth and poor road system. wide lanes and shoulders. Discussion opposite of Bozeman with narrower medians and narrow lanes and curb bulbouts. CSS products – safe facility for both users and community. Serves purpose and needs of full range of stakeholders, including drivers, bikers, pedestrians. In harmony with community. Exceeds expections of both designers and stakeholders and achiesves level of excellence. context sensitive. Built with minimal disruption. Added lastding value to community. Really process that happes during design. Mr. Key showed some examples of existing corridors and renderings showing how they could become context sensitive solutions. He identified features that can create context, including land use, site design and building design. He noted there is great urban activity in the downtown at this time; and that activity is a major factor in how roadways are defined. Also, orienting buildings for both pedestrians and vehicles can promote the CSS concept. Design controls in CSS may include speed, the design vehicle, functional classification, location, sight distance, access management and pedestrian/bicycle facilities.Communication open honest, early and honest. Full range of stakeholders. Highway development process tailored to circumstainces. Basics – balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals. Design team, all modes of travel, fliexibility and aesthetics. Issue is how address. Examples. There are limitations. Existing ROW. Functional classification o roadway and its primary purpose. Point to North 7th connectivity plan. Under current guidelines, lane widths now allowed because of road designation. Mike Harris arrived. Jeff Key briefly addressed the issues of speed and capacity, noting that a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit maximizes the capacity of the roadway. He noted the speed limit must be established in conjunction with synchronized signal timing, access management and turn lanes to ensure maximum capacity; and safety along the corridor must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. He noted that design factors which influence target speeds include lane widths, on-street parking, curb turn radii, spacing of signalized intersections, and synchronization of those signals. He concluded by identifying several areas of debate, noting they include acceptance of the design by all users of the system.How pay for solutions. – funding limitations. Lane widths. Discussion on lane widths has been heightened. Urban design standards were negotiated between federal highway admin, MDT and local govts. Those set forth what allowed on major street network. And the trans plan reflects those. How go narrower is issue. Process yet to be defined but in urban areas like Missoula, Whitefish and here, that’s becoming an issue. Visions of context sensitivity. Corridor in Missoula. West Broadway was four lane and reduced to three lane. Sidewalks, refuge islands, but not aesthetic value. Rendering of how could be better with landscaping and different material for crosswalks. Non-standard medians and radii. Can take step further and do land use planning. Extension of downtown corridor. To create this kind of vision requires relaxation of many standards. Long and extended process. Mr. Key noted that Great Falls is the only community in the state that has asked for guidance on this issue, and a fairly good section on it was included in their transportation plan.Features that create context – land use. Typically talk about urban features. Great urban activity in downtown right now. Major factor in how define roadways. How arrange buildings – put up front instead of parking in front. Oriented to vehicle and pededstrian. Land use can be majorfactor in roadway design. Including width, activity, parking and speed. Design controls – design speed – is it through or access? Design vehicle – is it big or just cars or in middle. Functional classification of roadway. Urban or rural. Speed and capacity. Can get good level of service with operating speeds of 35 mph. maximizing capacity on roadways. Timing and access can help. And address safety. Design factors that influence target speeds. Lane width. In meetingw with City Commission and pLanning Board, these design standards have come up. Have to point ouot urban design standards in place right now. Focus on design vehicle. Issues of debate. Design speed versus target speed. Lane widths. Number of lanes. Maximize capacity on what we have. Clear zones. Mid block crosswalks. Bike lanes, acceptance and adoption in community by all users of the system. Jeff Key – want to hear about how you feel this would be accepted in Bozeman. Only asked to address this once—in Great Falls. And community asked for guidance. Way addressed in trans plan was fairly good section in plan expanding on what presented now. Laid fraomwork that average citizen could understand. And tried to give context examples. Carol Strizich???? Arrived. Chair Epple stated he does not believe this community does any new streets that are not context sensitive; and he anticipates even more attention will be given to this issue in the future. He cited the recent improvements to West Babcock Street and Durston Road and the proposed plans for improvements to Highland Boulevard as context sensitive solution designs. JP Pomnichowski noted it is pretty easy to apply the context sensitive solutions to neighborhood streets. She stated, however, that the proposed new corridor for North 7th Avenue is to a more pedestrian friendly type of street; and it is important that the road continue to move all types of vehicles, including semi trucks since it is a state highway. Andy – don’t think we do any new streets not context sensitive. And expdect will want to pay more attention in the future. Babcock and Durston and now plans for Highalnd all context sensitive solution dedsigns. Think run with that strongly in this trans plan. Not anything but in the future. Bill Murdock noted the hat that the County wears is a little different from the City’s. He stated the County is trying to promote development in the triangle area, and 14,000 new lots are anticipated in that area. He stressed that, to make the CSS program work in the county, all parties would have to cooperate and a range of rural to urban designs would need to be accommodated.JP – contxt of neighborhood street is pretty easy. Made note, think of North 7th where looking at as more pedestrian friendly destination type of street, but I still want it to be state highway that moves semi trucks. So if can be context solutions for North 7th, wonder about Huffine. And design objectiveds plan for that corridor is great. Want two levels of function there. Keep traffic moving and not 10th Avenue South in Great Falls. Contradiction there. Andy – our commitment is with understanding that element of the CSS is mobility and moving traffic. Making more aesthetic and pedestrian/bike friendly on five lanes where the intent is to move traffic is different. JP – North 7th is a destination. Think of I-90 as a travel corridor. North 7th has to move traffic but be a destination, too. Doug McSpadden suggested that for five-lane principal arterials, such as Huffine Lane, the CSS approach could include the parallel road system, where the multi-modal elements could be located. He then stressed the importance of a twenty-year vision for all new roadways within the boundaries of this plan. He concluded by stating he agrees that the roads recently built are great, and that concept should be continued.Bill M – hat County wears is a little different than City’s. respect City and while interested, not going to weigh in as heavily on your CSS design but from hat we wear, we’re trying to promote development. 14,000 new lots in triangle, which is in the plan. Emphasis would be different in triangle. What accomplished. Interdiscipline in develp;ment area but how intermodal will feed everone to MSU and Bozeman. This is wonderful idea, ,but everyone would have to play ball. Will MSU consider different class schedule? Would kids ride streamline bus? MDT take away rumble strips on roads? Need to give more than lip service and consider the entire boundary. Chris Kukulski stated he does not believe that Durston Road, West Babcock Street or North 19th Avenue inside the curbline meet the CSS design standards; however, he feels the City is doing a good job outside the curbs. Doug Mc – think where CSS comes in for Huffine is wit Rob’s proposal on parallel roads to Huffine. Talking network adjoining it. Re 7th, and believe only 3% loss in capacity when decrease from 12 to 11 feet. Other roads, major and minor arterials, not taking 20 year vision would be short sighted. Provide great opportunities. Agree that roads built recently are great and should be continued. Following the principles. Chris K – don’t think can take picture of Durston, Babcock or 19th and have show on any of these as being something that another community would want to replicate as CSS inside curbs. Outside think do good. Take Highland as example. Can’t figure out what community wants them to build. Beyond lots of folks. Durstdon was designed to set up as a project that would be example, but built was changed. Only one major element is green scape in center. Take it out and don’t have road section that suspect any other city would want to replicate. Andy – agree. Between the curbs is the big challenge. After the curbs is an issue we can talk about.Jeff Krauss voiced his disagreement with the City Manager’s assessment, stating those are the types of roads he would like to see the County build for its huge new subdivisions, like Black Bull, rather than another Sourdough Road or Durston Road. He noted that, in the area around Bozeman, three-lane facilities with boulevards, street trees, sidewalks and bike lanes would allow for easy connection to the city in the future. Chair Epple noted that, as elected officials have talked more about urbanization in the triangle, the Planning staff has talked more about the need for urban street standards to accommodate that development. He views this process as taking that discussion to the next level. Rob Bukvich cautioned that existing streets are significantly different from brand new streets, and stressed the importance of acquiring as much right-of-way in the street corridor as is needed to accommodate the future roadway. He cited North Rouse Avenue as an example of a situation where not all of the desired improvements can be made because there is not adequate right-of-way to do so.Jeff K – disagree with CM. would say Durston or Babcock is what would like to see County building to huge new subdivisions like Black Bull and other one on Huffine. Right now giving us next Sourdough or Durston beyond us. Think this is Bozeman area trans plan. If County requiring developers to put in what we see on Babcock or Durston, bicyclists and pedestrians would be happy. This is Bozeman area and if we got three lane facilities with boulevards and street trees and sidewalks in these that will connect ot city soon, would be pretty happy. Know what reality is. Got e-mails that new bike lanes are great. Bob Lashaway noted that CSS moves designers and engineers from simply moving traffic to identifying the values of life in the community and taking those issues into consideration in the design process. He noted the process will produce better informed solutions, and he would like to see it continue.Andy – as elected officials talk abouy more urbanization in triangle, we’ve talked more urban street standards to accommodate. Already being discussed and this process will take to another level. Kerry White noted that, from the County’s point of view, it is important to consider the needs of the continuing agricultural community within the triangle area, including the movement of large equipment. He cautioned that not designing a street to accommodate those needs creates problems for those who are trying to make a living. He also cautioned that design standards for federally regulated roads must be followed to obtain federal funding, particularly since he questions whether local funding would be available to cover the potential loss of that funding source. Rob B – some of these streets talkinga bout were existing streets. Different from brand new street in subdivision. Babcock and Durston, could have had as wide a center median as wanted, but no one living on street to enjoy it. Need as much ROW corridor as can to accommodate in future. If important part of CSS is green center median, need ROW when come in to review new subdivisions. Hard to put in existding network. Will see on Rouse Street. Not have everything because not room. Jeff Key cautioned there is always a difference between the vision for a roadway and reality. He noted that if the community does not want to meet federal design standards for a roadway on the urban aid system, there is a process for having it removed. He stressed, however, that the major roads connecting to the interstate should not be removed from that program.Bob Lashway – from what seen, CSS not saing like trees and sidewalks. Hard to say which one is CSS, can only say which like better, when don’t know what parameters were done in. what CSS does is take designers and engineers from simply moving traffic and saying within values of life of community, may be greater things than simply moving traffic andmake sure considerd in designs. Think community is beginning to broaden this discussion, putting value on other things than besgt level of service. Process to produce better informed solutions than engineered roads only. Want to continue to do that. Kerry W – from County’s point of view and ag community, in triangle where ag and equi9pment needs to move. In high tech industry, lot of businesses are within homes in new subdivisions which need deliveries. To design street that oesn’t accommodate fifth wheel truck actually creating problem for those trying to make living. Know developing triangle and may not be farm ground in it. With growth policy, have right to farm and ranch and needs to be incorporated in. certain design standards in roadway that are federally regulated to get federal funding. If don’t comply with guidelilnes, do we run risk of losing funding to build roadways and acan community if go outside stnandards willing to pick up where federal funding not there? Do we have moines to do? Kerry White stated that in the county, it is important to move traffic. He suggested that open space and aesthetics be provided off road rather than within the road right-of-way. He then noted that signal timing is critical in moving traffic and expressed concern about the weight sensors on the side roads. Jeff Key responded that the traffic signals are to be timed to move traffic within the city. He noted, however, that the traffic signals along Huffine Lane will continue to be weight sensor activated but recognized that efforts can be made to maximize the traffic flow along Huffine Lane. Jeff Key – you have urban aid system in your community. And to be eligible, have to follow the guidelines. And MDT is there to monitor that. Reference urban design standards. On Monday night, a Commissioner talked of reality of federal funding situation. If want to get moines, have to follow standards. Thing not pointed out is when see vision plans and 7th connectivity plans, trend is to go narrower and might be vision but reality is can’t build under current standards. Difference bedtwen reality of building roadway reflecting sensitdivity under present conditions no mechanism for 10 foot lane. Always differene between visionand reality. If don’t like that on urban aid system, there is process to get it off and give locals more discretion but think about the types of roads that could potentially come off. Don’t want to take major roads connecting to interstate off. Have sen people want to take collectors off andput another new roadway on. Have to play ball with those standards. Jeff Key continued with his presentation, turning his attention to the complete street policy. He gave the definition of the complete street policy from Chicago, noting that it provides for the safe travel of all persons and types of vehicles within the public right-of-way. He stressed that this includes pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. He noted that the complete street policy provides for a comprehensive, integrated, connected network that includes new and retrofitted roadways. The policy also includes flexibility and uses the latest and best design standards, with solutions that fit within the context of the community. It also establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes. Mr. Key noted that, to implement a complete street policy, it is important to restructure procedures to accommodate all users, rewrite design manuals to encompass the safety of all users, retrain planners and engineers in balancing the needs of diverse users, and create new data collection procedures to track how well the streets are serving the users.Kerry W – if we are going to move traffic, and in county, it’s important to move. Providing open space in new subdivisions and aesthetics off road. Trying to move people into town. On 191 see when pull up to street light on side streets, you go onto timing switch but if leave town and at mall take off and light turns red, is there opportunity within this to have timing? Can hinder traffic with weight sense on light. To move traffic. And downtown Main Street and 19th. Signal timing is critical to moving traffic. J Key – Main Street believe signals will be timed. After traffic patterns normalize. On Huffine, different. Guidelines on progression and how to maximize. Can’t ignore that side streets have traffic needs as well. Accvess and signal are crucial for how development is served. Huffine is the primary roadway. Another issue is roundabouts. Function of Huffine and Jackrabbit was mobility but with growth, that’s being compromised. Does highway have to change at points n the community. Is there mechanism to recognize as community gets more dense, function of roadway has to change. Andy – if could set up system so I never had to stop anywhere I wanted to go, will succeed. Mr. Jeff Key then showed pictures of existing roadways and renderings of how they might be brought into compliance with this policy. He also showed pictures of how streets in Boulder, Colorado, have been built to meet this policy. Mr. Key stated a complete street policy is a regulatory, adoptable document that elected officials will be charged with implementing. He noted that a statewide group is currently putting together a draft complete street policy that will be submitted to the Montana Department of Transportation for adoption; and that policy expands on the Chicago policy.Chris K – we easily fall into trap that one or other and think can have both. Communities have ten times traffic volume. ROW is the key. Not focusing outside city limities, mine is in. if ROW garnered properly, can both move vehicles big and little and quality economic impact in design. Doug Mc – so much overlap, let’s see about complete streets. Andy – have clear direction from this group. 1. 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”“ Chair Epple stated he does not believe any streets are currently being built that don’t encompass all of these elements. Jeff Krauss stated that Chicago’s complete street policy does not say anything about people living on the street. If Bozeman adopts a policy, it must include the farmers along the road and the people living there. Responding to questions from Doug McSpadden, Jeff Key stated that 11-foot-wide lanes are currently allowed on minor arterials; on major arterials, the interior lane may be 11 feet wide while the exterior lane must be 12 feet wide. He cautioned that adoption of a complete street policy implies it will be followed for all projects, and the result might be to elevate costs. Doug McSpadden stated he would like to see cost per user figures as well as the ITE and AASHTO guidelines. He noted that traffic on lower speed urban thoroughfares can be supported by narrower lane widths; however, he acknowledged that for speeds greater than 40 miles per hour, 12-foot-wide travel lanes are needed.Jef Key – complete street policy. Have heard that City and C=ounty should consider complete street policies. Many progressive western communities have complete street policy. Policy from Chicago – accommodate all users … so even most vulnerable can travel safely within public ROW. Issue is how to implement. Principles – safe access for all users. Might meen changing policies. Entiere ROW routinely designed and operated to enable safe access. Appropriatee context and needs. Elements – accommodate all users. Comprehensive, integrated, connected network. New and retrofit projects. Need for flexibility. Adoptable by all agencies. Latest and best design. Performance sgtandards. Implementation – restructure procedures to accommodate all users on every project. Question is if implementable with all and every in statement. Rewrite design manuals. Retrain planners and engineers. Create data collection. Complete street – full range of travel choices, fully accessible to everyone. Examples before and after. Sidewalks, median, landscaping. Formalizes policy. Challenges to roadways. Complete streets mandate taking all users into consideration. Boulder building all arterials as multi-modal. Jeff Key – complete street plicy more regulatory adoptable document that elected officials will be charged with implementing. Word that statewide group putting together draft complete street policy to take to MDT. Expands on Chicago street policy. Jeff Key observed that no one is opposed to complete streets; the opposition arises in implementation of the policy. He cautioned there is a potential that adoption of the policy could trigger the requirement to upgrade the streets for every project, including a chip seal, depending on how it is adopted.Andy – don’t believe we’ll build a street that doesn’t accommodate all elementgs. Jeff Krauss – reading complete street plicy of Chicago, nothing about people living on the street. If going to consider complete street policy and the farmers along the road, that has to be in any policy is people living there don’t see in that policy. Doug Mc – regarding Jeff Krauss’s comment, very imporrant. That would help accommodate those living along roads like Valley Center and make more livable. Regarding Kerry’s concerns, MDT has adopted 11-foot lanes. Right? Jeff Key – whether minor or major arterials. Minors allows 11 foot. Major says 11 and 12 foot for exterior. If follow urban standards, in there. Complete street policy, if set in polcy, it implies will do in all projects. There are trade offos on some. will elevate cosgts if factor in all uses. Jeff Ebert stated that under the new federal regulations, the State is responsible for implementing standards; and the standards adopted by the State are the recommendations from AASHTO. He noted that when talking about a complete street policy, it is important to adopt a policy that allows maximum use of federal dollars while still meeting the needs of the community and the context sensitive solutions and designs. Rob Bukvich stressed the importance of retaining flexibility in the policy, noting that not every street can be improved to comply with a complete street policy or a context sensitive solution. He acknowledged that new streets can be more easily built to comply with the regulations, but taking a broadbrush approach that includes all existing streets would be a mistake.Doug Mc – suggest address cost aspect in way address complete streets that it’s a process and bring in phaseds as develops so not hammered on cost. If complete street has increased burden, will be more expensive. But would like to see cost per user figures. Worth it to be more expensive. ITE and AASHTO guidelines. Lower speed urban thoroughfares widths go down. 11-foot mostly appropriate as in this report. Greater than 40 is when talk 12 foot travel lanes. Seems all on same page and not seeing where problem is. Jeff Key – no one opposed to complete streets. Where opposition can come up is if do by virtue of adopting as policy, do you do it on every project like chip seal. Implementation issue with that. Cost issue. JP Pomnichowski suggested different street standards are needed for various types of use, noting that commercial and industrial uses have different needs than residential uses.Jeff Krauss – in addition t people living there, culd be business or school or public entity. Whatever occupies adjacencies. Perfect example is Main Street. Jeff Ebert – some of the things bantering about on standards. Under new federal, state responsible for implementing standarads and feds washed hands of it. They come into it on national highway and interstate system. standards adopted by State are recommendations from AASHTO and adopt those to be implemented. When talk about complete street policy, ultimately want to be able to fund improvements through federal dollars so want to make sure when discussion comes up, able to maximize use of federal dollars and still meet needs and context sensitive designs and solutions. All of these things in CSS and complete streets, causes things to be longer in the mill so if have policy, might be more cookbook thing. Want to be able to minimize time to design and bujild project so can enjoy the new amenities. Keep eyes open. Chris Kukulski agreed that it is important to retain flexibility in the policy so that the life of a roadway can be extended without triggering the need for major improvements; however, he noted that it is also important to take advantage when opportunities arise and the existing roadway is able to accommodate additional amenities. Chair Epple suggested that caveat language, such as “to the extent feasibly possible” would allow the process to start looking at the possibility of making a street a complete system but would not require it.Rob B – think mistake forus to make hard and fast rule that says all trnas projects will meet complete streets we don’t have ability and don’t think anyone can. Need flexib ility. City working on design for CTEP project for separated pathway along College. That’s a trans project will we include sidewalk on other side? Landscaping with it? Have to have flexibility in doing. We have flexibility in our program. If do reconstruction, have to bring to standards but not on restriping. Won’t be able to do projects that need to be done. Will need to work on newer streets with amenities. Mistake to broabrush it. Joe Gilpin stated that the complete street policies for the state, county and city will all be different. He then noted that Bozeman is already doing most of the things identified in the complete street policy outlined in this presentation. Jeff Ebert voiced his agreement that flexibility is important, noting that the various agencies must be able to continue maintaining their road systems.JP – think need different complete street standards. Neighborhoods – what about commercial, industrial, manufacturing, office park. May go back to CSS. Street for industrial different from residential neighborhood. Last two slides where ask if complete street, does help to see what no lot line structures would be but not just street surface. When look at this, not that much different. Can accomplish the needs of a functional complete street simply with striping. Standards need to be different for different uses. Bike/pedestrian challenges. Picture could be South 3rd. if adopt this, we need to implement it. Kerry White noted that, while the County does not require the installation of sidewalks, they do try to seek connectivity between subdivisions via a trail system. He suggested that this system may complement the community as Bozeman continues to grow. He stressed that, since this plan extends to the Gallatin River, it is important to recognize flexibility is needed so that roads in different areas of the county can be addressed differently. Jeff Key stated he has talked with County staff about the interfacing of the urban roadways and county roadways where development is occurring. He stressed that adequate road right-of-way is essential, although construction within the county may not match City requirements. Jeff Key noted that the current transportation plan includes four typical street sections for minor arterials and multiple street sections for other types of roads. He will look at those sections and hopefully reduce the number of typical sections to make the plan less cumbersome. He then acknowledged that, in light of this discussion, the context sensitive solutions and complete street policy sections will be prepared in a manner that provides for flexibility and recognizes the different standards of the state, county and city.Chris K – concur with Rob’s comment, particularly in extending life of facility. Should not be all and every time. Maybe can be when talking new construction. To me, areas like Kagy, if to do chip seal on there, looks like plenty of room to accommodate bike lane. Good to have flexibility but want to take advantage when opportunities arise. Can advance bike lanes if restripe project did narrow lane and add bike lane. Andy – last sentence in principle is t extent feasibly possible. Whenver have project, look at potential to upgrade and make more complete, but with caveat language, that gives if not adequate ROW or other constraints or neighbor opposition, process would state start by looking at if possible to make more complete. Chris K – don’t know how could have stronger language about complete streets or CSS seems hand in glove. Hope consistent between two. Al Vanderwey – when write this for Bozeman, have issue of weather/seasons included. Joe Gilpin – when thinking complete streegt policies, state level, county level and city levels will be different. And can have different for everyting. In county, lower density and may not have all aesthetics. Bozeman already doing most of the things that complete stret policy says. More palatable to implement something that county sand state could agree. Not overarching blanket for everyone. Jeff Ebert – flexibility is important and must be able to maintina street systems, so don’t tie hands on repairing highway. Chair Epple recognized that the interfacing of roads between the city and the county will need to be the subject of a discussion between City and County planners and Planning Boards, with the results to be included in the plan and probably in the County’s subdivision regulations. Kerry White asked that the transportation plan include a listing of those streets under the Montana Department of Transportation’s control so that people can better understand the reasons for the different guidelines for different streets in the community. Jeff Key responded that he can provide that list. He noted that he will also include a graphic that summarizes the federal functional highway classifications, particularly since those classifications are sometimes different from the local classifications.Kerry White – on County’s point of view, don’t requjie sidewalks in subdivisions, but looking at trail systems within subdivisions. Tried to seek connectivity between subdivisions. Without sidewalks within subdivision if get bikers and walkers on trail system that may one day connect Love Lane to Bozeman, separate from road system, to make complete street, some may require complete streets like maybe Valley Center and maybe 19th. Understand maintenance of the sidewalks and plowing of slow. Sidewalks impassable in winter. Policy from County is how you deal with it and what policy will be in trans plan and input from County Commissino will be important and what’srequried in new subdivisions. And make complement as City grows. What city wants to see county do in areas closer to the city. This plan goes to Gallatin River and don’t see same standards being applied on all roads in the county. Ask how address flexibility and as city grow so that County can come up to speed or standards to match city requirements and will that be addressed in the plan? Saw comment that should be looking 40 years into future. Jeff Key – plan to address what you’re saying, and not sure how will be done. Have had discussion with County staff on interface with urban roadway and county roadways where development ishappening. Roadway ROW is essential. But what is constructed may not match City requirement. Issue is discussing how will mesh in future. When JP talking street standards, understand what sayinga bout different types of uses and how to accommodate. Have existing typical sections that try to factor in complete stret in plan.. lot of comments getting are too vast. Room for removal of some of them. Don’t want os many sstandards to cumbersome. Four minor arterial standards. Part of my charge is to find out how engineers and architects might struggle with them. Hope to eliminate some typical sections. Talking residential or industrial is more sections. And then sections that meet standards versus visionary sections with 10-foot lanes. Mr. Jeff Key stated that identifying the existing plus committed roadway network is currently underway, in preparation for the travel modeling component of the plan. He noted the definition of committed is one for which funding has been set aside and is likely to happen in the next five years; and he will be asking for lists of those committed projects from the MDT, the County and the City. He acknowledged there are some instances where the true definition of a committed project is not followed, citing the Belgrade interchange as an example. He indicated that the projects included in the modeling are those that add capacity or reduce delays.Andy – early in process. Jeff Key – CSS guidelines and principles need to be in plan along with complete street – tailor to be acceptable to city, county and state, not all or every in it. Andy – your planners and planning boards are discussing how to address the interface. Don’t expect Jeff Key and his product to address, but intergovernmental discsusin. Kerry White – needs to be in plan, though. And like idea of may rather than must. Or realm of opotions in county and in city. Andy – will also need to e in county subdivision regulations. Responding to Kerry White, Jeff Key stated those subdivisions which have been approved will be included in the model. He noted that at the next TCC meeting, he would like to discuss the list of committed projects and coordinating the transportation plan update with the growth policy update.Andy – and language that fits in context of the community. Can’t divorce the two but blending the two together. Kerry White – ask Jeff to include streets or collectors or arterials that are under MDT control and maybe set of within trans plan guidelines that State puts forth and other streets under local control so when peop;le look at this they see who is making rules on the streets and give idea on why different guidelines. Jeff Key – can do that. Will have graphic that summarizes the federal functional highway classification; showing the official classification has merits. Wheter put urban design standards applicable to those classifications in the plan. Not opposed to reiterating them, but concerned that can be revised. Can work that out. Exiswtding and Committed network. JP Pomnichowski asked about projects which are not currently committed but that people know need to be addressed, such as the intersections of Haggerty Lane and Highland Boulevard with East Main Street and intersections of Kagy Boulevard with South 7th Avenue and South 11th Avenue. Al VanderWey responded that this transportation plan update will identify those roadway corridors and intersections where transportation system management projects are needed; and those recommendations will be included in the update.Jeff Key – traffic modeling that working on, we have to identify existing plus commited roadway network to do. Travel model has existing roadway network. Definition of committed network is one for which funding has been set aside and likely to happen in next five years. Put in model as part of base analysis, so I will be requesting lists of committed projects from MDT, County and City. Cases where true definition of committed project is thrown aside. In this instance Belgrade interchange is one of those. My discussions with MDT is that this is one this group must make. If not committed will be one of the firsdt “what if” scenarios. Andy – think run main modeling without it and put in as what if. Bill M – would;n’t call committed. And maybe not Valley Center committed. Jeff E – east half is committed but west half without some developer involvement, probably not. With Belgrade, might be beyond the horizon unless can get more monies for it. Rob B – Valley Center not adding capacity. Justd improved two lane and should not affect modeling. Jeff Key – something that adds capacity or reduces delay is what’s put in modeling. JP Pomnichowski noted that at last night’s Planning Board meeting, she asked the consultant to talk to the School Board and representatives for the Fairgrounds and the regional park to make sure their impacts and needs are addressed.Bill M – millings on the Stuky, etck all committed. Al Vanderwey – up to us to determine what to put in model. Jeff Key – always treated committed as funding available and will happen in five years. Can point to cases where don’t do that, like bypasses. And you can determine what will be committed. Andy – you’ll get feedback from each agency about what view as committed and have that dialogue? Jeff Key – want that discussion at next TCC meting have things to coordinate with 2020 plan. We have to do C + E modeling and ready within enxt couple weeks. Kerry White – subdivisions proposed and preliminary plat approved with conditions, those are committee and will be done. Do you have copy from County and are you putting those into modeling? Jeff Key – putting those subdivisions, homes and jobs into the model. Hae layer that have received approval and graphic showing where at. If they are required to expand on major road network, should be included. Bill Murdock noted there are two extremes to traffic planning. One is totally reactionary designing of highways for cars and trucks while the other is an interdisciplinary plan. He believes that the context sensitive solutions (CSS) approach is far more effective and is a worthy goal; however, he cautioned that actually reaching that goal may not be possible.Kerry – important part of the modeling. Jeff Key – if capacity expanding or delay reducing, will be in. will rely on County staff for that input. JP – committed and existing projects – we have projects know will need to be done but not committed and don’t exist. Like Main Street/Haggerty/Highland. Would like some consideration for areas know about. Kagy Boulevard with 11th and 7th. Al Vanderwy – this plan will identify that. Those would e recommendations. JP – last night talked about first part of plan is data collection and want to talk to School Board, fairgrounds and regional park so want to make sure not just alking to INC but others. Bill M – missed a couple meetings. See two extremes. One would be total reactionary designing highways for cars and trucks and other would be to interdisciplinary plan everything. As see CSS woud go toward that. Far more effective. Dcan’t get there but worthy goal. Would loike to see working toward that designation. If trying to gegt feedback on whether to go, worthy goald to head that way. Jeff Key – think ghwere need to be on plan. Things getting elevated like public outreadch. More indepth so think where need to be right now. Planning Director Epple thanked Mr. Key for the update and the opportunity for discussion. Andy – thanks for thoughtful discussion today. Joe Gilpin reported that ALTA launched a user survey via e-mail on Friday; and in five days, they have received over 500 responses. He stated that hard copies of the survey will be posted in different buildings and will be mailed out in the water bills. He noted the results can be well used in development of the plan. ALTA – launched user survey on Friday. Five business days and over 500 responseds through e0mail distribution. Will be hard copy posted in different buildngs and out in water bills. Can use info well in the plan. Andy – glad getting such a response. Next meeting date is Sept 26. 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 – 12:0211:20 pa.m. There being no further business to come before the TCC at this time, at 12:02 p.m., it was moved by Jeff Ebert, seconded by Ross Gammon, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried. There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, it was moved by Kerry White, seconded by Lee Provance, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried. * 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).