Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092607 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.doc SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL 411 EAST MAIN STREETMINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 26OCTOBER 25, 2006APRIL 25AUGUST 22SEPTEMBER 26MAY 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 9:4010:02065 a.m. on Wednesday, August 22September 26October 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 Victoria Drummond for Bob Lashaway, Facilities Services, MSU Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman (arrived at 10:20 a.m.) Christopher ScottChristopher Scott, Gallatin County Planning Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board 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 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 (arrived at 10:55 a.m.) Jeff Patten, Federal Highway Administration JP Pomnichowski, Planning Board, City of Bozeman Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee David Smith, Citizen Member, City of BozemanTaylor Lonsdale, Alternate, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Staff Present: Bob Murray, Project Engineer, City of Bozeman 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 Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Carol Strizich, MDT Joe Walsh, MDT Tamzin Brown, Four Corners Planning Committee MSU student in transportation Todd Hortsmaozeman Amy Kelley, Bozeman resident Gary Vodenhal, Gallatin Valley Land Trust Chris Naumann, Downtown Bozeman Partnership Lisa Danzl-Scott, Parking Commission Tamzin Brown Carol Strizich, MDT Steve White, County Commissioner, Gallatin County Guedst Jeff Key, Peccia Carol Strizich Lisa Danzl Scott Bob Murray Rick Hixson Sara Folger James Goehrung Robin Sullivan Chris Saunders Pamzen Brown Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman Christopher Scott, Gallatin County Planning Rick Hixson for Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Al Vanderwey, Urban Planning, MDT Jon Henderson, Bozeman Bicycle Advisory Board Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition (temporary member) Jeff Madden, Federal Highway Administration Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Supervisor, Butte District, MDT Jeff Ebert, District Engineer, Butte District, MDT Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commissioner Chris Kukulski, City Manager, City of Bozeman Staff Present: George Durkin, Road Office, Gallatin County John VanDelinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman Ron Brey, Assistant City Manager, City of Bozeman Tracy Oulman, Neighborhood Coordinator, City of Bozeman Rich McLane, Bozeman Police Department Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: David Cobb, Senator Baucus’ Field Office Andy Epple, Director Joe Olson, MDT Engineering Rob Buckvich, Bozeman Jon Henderson Pat A Debbi A All Vanderway, MDT for Lynn’ Christioper Scott Jeff Rupp Lee Provance Ralph ZimmerRich McLane Bob Lashawy JP Pom Ross Gammon, MDT Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board David Smith, Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commission Bob Lashaway, Facilities Services, MSU (arrived late) Maintenace Robin Sullivan, minutes Ted Lange____, Gallatin Valley Land TrustVLT John Vandelinder Rick Hixson George Jurdin Tracy Oulson Oug Madden Steven Johnson, Executive Director, Gallatin Valley Land Trust MSU professor and students in traffic engineering class Sara Folger Jeff Ebert, MDT ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker} No comment was received under this agenda item. 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 – 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. 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, Robert Peccia & Associates, distributed copies of a memo dated September 24 regarding traffic model calibration analysis/verification. He then indicated that he has been working on the existing conditions memo, and he plans to have that completed within the next two weeks. He characterized this as a significant work product that will be reviewed at the next TCC meeting. He then noted that during the month of September, traffic counts have been conducted around the schools; and there are approximately six downtown intersections left to be counted, which will be done after the street work has been completed. Jeff Key reminded the Committee that Cambridge Systematics, Inc., was retained as a sub-contractor to review the existing travel demand model that the Montana Department of Transportation has prepared for this update, to help identify problems and potential scenarios to consider and to help interpret the results of the traffic model. He noted that Robert Peccia & Associates has done a considerable amount of work in Bozeman over many years and wanted a fresh set of eyes to look at the information. Jeff Key noted the next step is to verify that the travel model is calibrated, so that there can be a level of confidence in the projections for future years. He identified four or five different checks for accuracy and briefly highlighted those checks, noting that VMT (vehicle miles traveled) is a common parameter in transportation and is a part of the review in every scenario. He highlighted the different ways to check for accuracy, which include (1) the percentage difference between estimated and observed vehicle miles traveled for the entire county; (2) the percentage difference between the modeled volume and the traffic count volume by roadway facility types; (3) the percentage difference between modeled volume and traffic volume for a set of screenlines within the study area; (4) the percent root mean square error (RMSE) for modeled volume compared to traffic count volume by road type within the study area; and (5) correlation of model volume to traffic count volume within the study area. Mr. Key stated that the travel model is comprised of a variety of links, which are portions of roadways. He stated that each link has characteristics attached, including the type of roadway; and those links are generally the portion of a roadway between two major intersections. Other issues, such as dwelling units and employment opportunities, are also factored in and help the model come up with the estimated vehicle miles traveled. Responding to Kerry White, Jeff Key confirmed that traffic speed limits do affect capacity and stated that the model generally uses the posted speed limit unless the travel speed is significantly different from the posted speed limit. He indicated that any adjustment of the speed is done based on field verifications and data collection. Further responding to Kerry White, Jeff Key stated that, while speeds may be tweaked in the model as part of the transportation plan update process, a speed study is more technical and outside the scope of this plan update process. Mr. Jeff Key stated that the travel demand model includes all of Gallatin, Park and Madison Counties and portions of Broadwater, Jefferson and Meagher Counties. He noted the modeling area is much larger than the one for the last transportation plan. Since every model has an acceptable error limit, which is typically on the outskirts of the study area, the error limit within the transportation plan boundary will be much smaller. He indicated that, with the larger travel demand model, it is much easier to identify those points which will be impacted by developments at the edge of that boundary, such as the Rolling Glen Subdivision outside Three Forks and the development occurring just outside Amsterdam. Jeff Key drew attention to the table on Page 4 of the memo, noting that it provides the comparison between observed and estimated 2005 vehicle miles traveled for Gallatin County for the different roadway types. He noted that, overall, the percentage of difference is 9.33, which is less than the federal highway guidance of 10 percent. Based on that table, he finds the model is adequately calibrated. Mr. Key stated that Robert Peccia & Associates did two checks to ensure the model is calibrated and Cambridge Systematics did two checks; and based on those checks, they feel the model is adequately calibrated. Responding to questions from JP Pomnichowski, Al VanderWey stated that the lower the functional class, the lower the volumes and the more difficult it is to get the numbers right. As a result, the percentage of difference is higher, and the percentage under the federal highway guidance is higher. He cautioned that if the numbers at the lower functional class level were close, the model would be so constrained that it couldn’t accurately reflect the future. Jeff Key turned his attention to the table on Page 5, noting that it reflects the percent differences between the model and traffic counts by roadway type along with the federal highway guidance. He noted that, as the functional classification decreases, the percentage of difference increases, which is why a transportation plan does not focus on local streets. He concluded by stressing that the actual deviations are well within the federal highway guidance. Responding to Doug McSpadden, Jeff Key stated that, since each roadway is divided into links, a transition from one classification to another can be easily accommodated in these comparisons. Jeff Key then highlighted Table 4 on Page 6, noting that the percent of root means square error is 26 percent for the study area, which is well within the 30-percent federal highway guidance. Responding to questions from JP Pomnichowski, Jeff Key stated the most current traffic counts have been used in these tables; and those counts have been annualized to more accurately reflect actual use of the various roadways so the months and days on which the counts were collected do not impact the overall tables. Rob Bukvich noted that the Montana Department of Transportation has a database of counts taken over the last few decades, with those counts being taken at different times throughout the year, so the numbers can be appropriately adjusted. He indicated that the counts can also be adjusted for the peak month, peak day and peak hour. Al VanderWey stated he has a manual to show how to adjust traffic counts to eliminate seasonal or special events. He then indicated that the MDT has been collecting traffic count data since 1970. He stated that these tables have been calibrated based on 2005 data since that is the latest available data for land use, housing and traffic counts. Responding to JP Pomnichowski, Jeff Key stated that what has happened in the last two years is included in the land use forecasting. Jeff Key turned his attention to the fourth measure, which is traffic volumes by screenline. He noted that in Great Falls, the Missouri River serves as a barrier with only a few crossings; and the model was checked at those crossings. He stated that in Bozeman a line was simply drawn at a specific location. He noted that West College Street is the only one where the percentage difference exceeded the desirable deviation standard of 25 percent by .63 percent. He stated that this deviation is probably due to the different travel characteristics of the college environment and suggested that in the future, a different trip generation rate may be needed for that type of use. Responding to JP Pomnichowski, Jeff Key stated that Table 5 provides a snapshot to tell if the model is replicating things accurately. He noted that West College Street improvements are in the future model, and that project will be reflected in the differences between the existing and future models. Rob Bukvich encouraged TCC members to not get bogged down in the details of calibrating the model, but to recognize that, based on the various methods of calibrating a model, this model is calibrated. Chair Andy Epple noted that the lay people on the TCC have benefited from the discussion. He then acknowledged that, between the Montana Department of Transportation, Robert Peccia & Associates, and Cambridge Systematics, this model has been subjected to some of the best calibration available in the profession. Jeff Key thanked Al VanderWey for his work on developing the model. He then turned his attention to the future noting that, as the consultant, he finds the model is calibrated. He noted, however, that it was important to enter into this discussion and for the TCC to also determine that the model is calibrated. He indicated that the future year modeling will include committed projects, like West College Street, as well as future land use forecasting. He met with the land use forecasting committee the same week as the August TCC meeting and, at that time, dwelling units and jobs were sketched out. Since then, he has worked on a memo and graphics showing more accurately where growth is anticipated to happen. He indicated that memo is approximately 80 percent done, and should be completed next week. He noted that several people are awaiting that memo and the future year model, including developers and neighborhood groups. Responding to Ross Gammon, Jeff Key noted that once the model has been determined as accurate as possible, the transportation plan update will be prepared based on current assumptions. He acknowledged that unforeseen development may occur, and the traffic model that comes with the plan will allow planners to put in the new numbers and see if the road system will be satisfactory. Responding to Christopher Scott, Jeff Key stated that, based on the socio-economic work that has been done, 2,400 additional dwelling units are being predicted. He noted that the land use committee has projected an additional 4,000 dwelling units. Responding to Kerry White, Jeff Key stated that the transportation plan will include scenarios based on low, moderate and high growth rates; and the projections can be tweaked based on the actual growth rates. He cautioned that in the current transportation plan, the most aggressive growth scenario became the actual growth. Further responding to Kerry White, Jeff Key stated that the timing of major projects, including expansions and new corridors, can be put off or moved forward, based on actual growth rates; however, the TSMs are needed now. He then indicated that data is built into the plan and the model that can be used to justify the information in impact fee studies. Mr. Jeff Key distributed an information sheet on the non-motorized survey status as of September 24. He noted that, to date, 1,522 responses have been received to the internet survey. He noted that 9,000 hard copies are being mailed with the water bills, and he anticipates 1,000 to 2,000 of those will be returned. He indicated that the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board will boil down the information garnered from the mailed surveys. Jeff Key noted that when the ad for the survey was published in the newspaper, the web address had an additional hyphen in it, so the website had two domains. A week later, he received a call that a flyer with the wrong e-mail address had been distributed by a local individual. Unfortunately, that web address could not be added to the website; and a new flyer with the correct address was then distributed by that local individual. He suggested that the end of October be set as the deadline for accepting responses to the survey. Responding to Jeff Ebert, Jeff Key stated he believes there is a way to put on a block so that only one survey response will be accepted from a computer; however, he acknowledged that an individual might use different computers to send in responses. Jeff Key noted the process is pretty much on track, although public outreach meetings may be a week or two behind. He has met with representatives from the Fairgrounds as well as with Gary Griffith, Director of Facilities for the School District. He will meet with the SouthEast Neighborhood Association in a couple of weeks and would like to have a public meeting by the end of October if the desired information is ready for public review. Chair Andy Epple noted it is important that the members of the TCC have a basic understanding of how the model was developed and calibrated and have a confidence that the model is appropriately calibrated. He indicated that he finds the model is appropriate and voiced his hope that the rest of the Committee members agree. 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 Setting date for December meeting. Ralph Zimmer asked that the Committee set the date now for the December meeting if there is to be one, since he is trying to make holiday plans. It was moved by Jeff Ebert, seconded by Debbie Arkell, that the TCC not have a December meeting. Responding to JP Pomnichowski, Jeff Key stated that if there were a December meeting, he would ask the TCC members to carefully review the ten or fifteen scenarios that had been run through the model and provide input. He indicated that if there is no December meeting, then that input will be delayed to the next meeting. Chair Epple reminded the Committee that the January 2008 meeting is a regular meeting, which will have an abbreviated agenda item for the transportation plan update. In light of further discussion, Jeff Ebert withdrew his motion and Debbie Arkell withdrew her second and the following substitute motion was placed on the floor: It was moved by JP Pomnichowski, seconded by Kerry White, that the TCC meeting be set for Wednesday, December 19, at 10:00 a.m. The motion carried with Jeff Ebert and Debbie Arkell voting No. (Note: if needed, a conference telephone call will be set up for those who cannot travel to Bozeman for the meeting.) North Rouse Avenue project. Jeff Ebert reported that the MDT is in the process of developing an EIS for the Rouse Avenue project. During early review of the EAS, the federal highway comments included concern about the transit stop at the intersection of North Rouse Avenue and East Peach Street and a concern that any need for additional right-of-way could be a problem. Rob Bukvich responded that, prior to the start of school in August, that stop was moved to the intersection of North Rouse Avenue and East Cottonwood Street because of concerns voiced by area residents. He indicated that the stop includes a “no parking bus stop” sign and yellow curb paint on the west side of North Rouse Avenue.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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Andy – thanks for thoughtful discussion today. 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 11:20 p.m., it was moved by Jeff Ebert, seconded by Kerry White, 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: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 – 10 a.m. – 12 p.m.. ________________________________________________ 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).