Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102407 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docMINUTES BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24th, 2007 9:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. on Wednesday, October 24, 2007, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT JP Pomnichowski, Planning Board, City of Bozeman Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman Jon Henderson, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT Bill Murdock, County Commissioner Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County David Smith, Citizen Member, City of Bozeman Staff Present: Rick Hixson, City Engineer, City of Bozeman Lt. Rich McLane, Bozeman Police James Goehrung, Superintendent of Facilities, City of Bozeman Shoni Dykstra, Recording Secretary John Van Delinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman Guests Present: Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Scott Randle, Robert Peccia and Associates Chris Budeski, Chair Transit Board Dan Worden, MSU Student Jandar Bekov N, MSU Student Ashleigh Dupree, MSU Student 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} Chairperson Epple called for public comment, seeing none he closed public comment. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2007 AND AUGUST 22, 2007 Since there were no corrections to the minutes of the regular meeting of July 25, 2007, Chairperson Epple announced the minutes are approved as distributed. Since there were no corrections to the minutes of the special meeting of August 22, 2007, Chairperson Epple announced the minutes are approved as distributed. ITEM 4. TCC MEMBER REPORTS Transit Committee Report – Chris Budeski Chris Budeski, Chair of the Public Transit Stakeholder’s Advisory Board, stated the average ridership has been 475 riders per day, and the consultant had estimated a ridership of 273 riders per day. There are four routes in operation. The Board received input via email and cards and Board members who rode the bus on a daily basis. The Board addressed issues as soon as they came in. The Board has been working on creating the boundary for the Urban Transport District (UTD) which would be eligible to receive future funds from the state. The Board has considered the boundary of the District to be Bozeman city limits. Belgrade could continue to contract for services or they could create their own UTD. The boundary would be voted on by the public, and the Board has been looking at establishing a mill levy. Belgrade has been providing funding for services rendered. The Saturday night bus service has had a ridership of 300 and the riders have been very cordial. The system is working out well. JP Pomnichowski wondered what the possibilities were of incorporating an airport route. Mr. Budeski stated that it had been discussed. He voiced some concerns the discussions had brought up regarding luggage, the potential ridership, and some employees of Streamline also working at Gallatin Field. I-90/East Belgrade Interchange Report – Pat Abelin Pat Abelin noted that the City of Belgrade, County, and Airport have signed an agreement for working on the interchange. They are waiting on the transportation plan to move further, as that will determine which road segments are going to be included in the interchange. Those road segments will determine how much the project will cost. They are still looking for money for the interchange. TSM’s Report Debbie Arkell stated that the most current TSM was on Highland Blvd and Main Street and PC Development was working on the project. D. Bike Advisory Board Jon Henderson noted his appreciation of the Main Street improvements and stated that the video actuators for bicyclists are nice especially at night. BABAB has been approved to authorize funding to the Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) effort by the City Commission. BABAB has directed their funds to specifically study Hawthorne School due to the slated improvements to Rouse Avenue and towards the new school on West Babcock Street. BABAB has had conversations with the School Board to incorporate improved drop off areas. Mr. Henderson noted that the Bike-Pedestrian survey is being wrapped up. Over 3,000 people responded and ALTA will have a compiled report soon. Mr. Henderson noted the surveys he helped enter had a wide range of responses. He estimated half the surveys received were from what are classified as non riders by the BABAB. He noted the Board has potentially 3,000 comments to start incorporating ideas from. Mr. Henderson mentioned the adoption of the PROST Plan the City of Bozeman, and he noted the Board’s work with Gallatin Valley Land Trust and the Recreation and Park Board to coordinate trails. The Board was pleased with the outcome of the project. Mayor Krauss noted SRTS funding and support has been backed by the City, but he questioned the level of participation by the School Board. Mr. Henderson responded that the School District has been authorized to promote fundraising through their PAC groups, and that SRTS was on the top of the funding list this year. He agreed with Mayor Krauss that more commitment from the School Board for the SRTS would be nice. Mr. Henderson noted from the BABAB’s perspective this is a ridership issue as any person under the age of 15 is able to ride a bike on the sidewalk. SRTS is key to what the BABAB envisions for the community. The Board welcomes City and other involvement in how to better cooperate with the School Board and SRTS. Mayor Krauss noted that putting political pressure on the School Board might be necessary to insure cooperation and backing for SRTS. Lt. Rich McLane noted there was a parallel SRTS task force working with Emily Dickenson. The Task Force has been looking at a walking school bus for their grant renewal for next year. He also noted that the principal of Whittier School was interested in participating with SRTS. SRTS is an issue schools need to be taking part in. Chairperson Epple suggested developing a strategy to address the School Board on a political level which is the level where the decisions are made. Mayor Krauss volunteered. E. Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Mr. Zimmer noted that the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee would like to be included with the SRTS conversations. The Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee has had conversations about their concerns regarding school drop off and pick up zones with the School Board. Mr. Zimmer noted the continued concern of the Committee for the sidewalk situation in Bozeman. He noted areas of concern were places where there is an absence of sidewalks and areas with maintenance needs. The Committee has been discussing strategies to implement which would move the City Commission towards a more productive sidewalk improvement program. Other TCC Member Reports - None ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Bozeman Intermodal Facility Update – James Goehrung Mr. Goehrung updated the Committee on the construction and impact of the construction of the facility on traffic. He noted the initial site work began towards the completion of the Main Street improvements which added to traffic confusion at times. He noted there was a relatively small impact on Downtown area traffic at this point and that some traffic modifications were in place. The excavation work has been completed and the majority of the footings are being poured. He noted negative impacts were made while excavating when large vehicles were having trouble making the turn onto Mendenhall from North Tracy. Reconfiguration of the fencing has taken place for traffic coming off of Mendenhall. An agreement for the sale of the 10,000 square feet of retail space is in progress and has allowed the awarding of Alternate 1 and 2 which provides another 100 parking spaces. Mr. Goehrung stated that much of the progress will depend on the winter weather. Bob Lashaway noted that the TIF Board voted to support the restroom facility in the garage. Since the restroom facility was slated to be one of the commercial spaces and will not be for sale, the Board voted to fund the portion reserved for the restroom and waiting area. The Board felt it would be a disservice to the businesses, the bus service, and those using the parking if public restrooms were not available. They need to continue to discuss the build out of the space with Streamline. Dan Worden, MSU student, asked if there was an updated website concerning the construction of the facility. Mr. Goehrung noted that the project was not set up for that at the moment. Chairperson Epple stated that the plans were available for public review at the Planning Office. Mayor Krauss noted he was able to visualize the size of the facility when he was able to look at the excavated hole. Chairperson Epple queried about the general schedule of the construction of the project. Mr. Goehrung reiterated the completion of the initial phase will be dependant on the winter weather but it should be completed in September or October of 2008. Ms. Pomnichowski sought clarification on the number of subsurface levels. Mr. Goehrung explained there would be a basement, main floor deck, and two upper levels which provide a total of 437 parking spaces. Ms. Pomnichowski wondered if the top level was going to be covered, and would they plow snow on that level. Mr. Goehrung responded that he recognized the need to address that issue and mentioned discussions with other communities in the state. The building was not engineered to bank up snow and will require a break away barrier to push it off the roof to be picked up at the ground level. The most probably location for the barrier is over the entrance off of Black which would require the temporary closure of that entrance during snow removal. Maintenance and other issues are still being discussed and worked through at this stage. Ross Gammon wondered if a heated floor had been taken into consideration. Mr. Goehrung stated that it had been discussed but was not a viable option for the facility due to cost. Other Old Business - None ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Transportation Plan Update Status (Jeff Key) Mr. Key from Robert Peccia and Associates updated the committee on the progress of the Transportation Plan. Mr. Key noted the production of the first Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Project newsletter. The newsletter is scheduled to be published every other month from here on out. It will reflect the information as it has been generated. Mr. Key sought input from the Committee regarding roadway design and the roundabout section of the Transportation Plan. The last Transportation Plan included typical roadway sections. One of the charges for this update was to revisit the typical sections to see if they were still meeting the desires of the community, and if they are in compliance with federal regulations that MDT and the federal highways set forth. Mr. Key noted the typical sections were going to be addressed over the coming month. He was looking for direction for the Committee on what information would add value to the Transportation Plan in regards to the figures demonstrating typical roadway sections and roundabouts. Mr. Key feels that by using figures demonstrating the design of roundabouts, which include right of ways, limits, and possibly the breakdown of various roundabouts as used by low collectors versus arterials, people will be able to better understand how and when roundabouts can be used. Mr. Henderson noted that adding more detail to the pedestrian amenities as well as more detail regarding bicycle use would add value. He would like the features identified in the examples that promote the safety. Mr. Key questioned if Mr. Henderson would like the figure enlarged to show the safety features rather than just having them included in the corresponding narrative. Mr. Henderson responded that he feels deflection angles, exit ramps, and how pedestrians will interact should be reflected in the graphic. Mr. Key voiced his struggle with how to include those details in a graphic. He noted he could include a bike lane in the graphic, but safety and pedestrian interaction was more clearly denoted through narrative than a graphic. Mr. Henderson noted that most of the arterials are now including bike lanes. Mr. Key explained he could reveal bike lanes in more detail in regards to different classifications of roads if only one exhibit per page were used. Mr. Key asked for direction from the Committee about the issue of right of way needs for roundabouts. Mr. Hixson noted the Engineering department would like to see right of way requirements broken down by lane widths and prescribed diameters. Mr. Key asked if that would also be broken down by road classifications, to which Mr. Hixson responded positively. Ms. Pomnichowski mentioned that in the diagrams presented all of the angles of entry were 90 degrees, she wanted to know if there were three-way entry roundabouts and if other standard angles of entry could be utilized. Mr. Key noted those types of situations came up in the rebuilding of existing intersections. Ms. Pomnichowski stated some of the larger subdivisions have been proposing winding roads and cross streets and wondered if there was a standard for a three-entry roundabout. She also asked for more information about the proximity of roundabouts to existing traffic controls and the responsible placement of roundabouts to prevent traffic stacking. Mr. Key noted narrative is easier to accommodate those questions as opposed to the use of graphics. Mr. Lashaway stated that the placement did not change the flow or design of the roundabout itself. He also noted that anything other than an entry of 90 degrees would be an exception and not fall under the typical section of the use of a roundabout. Mr. Key responded that the skew and design guidelines would be found in the state standards. Mr. Lashaway noted that he didn’t feel that the Transportation Plan should reference a standard from another document that could change. Rob Bukvich mentioned the current Transportation Plan did not show every possible traffic signal, and he does not feel the Update needed to include a specific roundabout for every situation but rather an overview. As far as right of way goes, he believes that a cross section should be shown that will show the aprons and the super elevations. In the same section, he would like to see the right of way being 10 feet outside the construction limits as terrain can affect right of way needs. Mr. Gammon noted within the right of way section, the type of vehicles the roundabout is designed to accommodate will change the depending on the vehicle. Chairperson Epple stated that the Plan could include a section “schematic design” with a notation directing the adherence to the design manual so the Plan is not referencing a specific standard that may have changed. Mr. Key responded the typical sections in the current Plan are highly used by the community but are not design oriented with the exceptions of lane widths and right of way widths. Chairperson Epple noted the current Plan has five or six different options for arterials and has rarely seen a road constructed meeting one of those exact design standards. He would like to see the diagrams noted specifically as a schematic drawing and the actual design must meet standards. Mr. Hixson noted that roundabouts are a type of intersection control which has specified standards and guidelines. Christopher Scott commented that providing images could be helpful to show how roundabouts accommodate large vehicles and how the apron can be used to accommodate the larger vehicles. Mayor Krauss stated that the figures will be noted as examples of roundabouts, but the final decision is based on adherence to the regulations put in place by the Engineering department. Mayor Krauss also noted the Urban Compact Roundabout has a non-mountable central island which makes it unsuitable for use by school buses. Mr. Lashaway noted that the Urban Compact Roundabout is one concept; there are roundabouts with partially mountable center aisles which have a larger apron which could accommodate a larger vehicle. Mr. Key noted there were a lot of different options and word choice is important, and so is not getting too detailed. Mr. Scott mentioned that providing a figure which could not accommodate a large vehicle does not make sense for the City of Bozeman. Chairperson Epple stated there were neighborhoods where you would not need to accommodate a large vehicle. Mr. Hixson made note of the fact that traffic circles can be designed to be driven over on the rare occasion a large vehicle would need access. Mr. Bukvich wondered what was going to be accomplished by having several pages of figures depicting roundabouts. Mr. Key stated that roundabouts have been discovered in Montana and the citizens of Bozeman like them. The use of the graphics will heighten awareness of them as a viable traffic control. He also noted that including them in the Plan with typical sections will enforce the idea to the general public that roundabouts are a viable option for traffic control as Mr. Hixson had stated earlier. Chairperson Epple would like to see a description of what is typical for the right of way for the compact urban and full urban design standards. If the Plan is going to be calling out for them in subdivisions, it is important to acknowledge the right of way needs. Mr. Key thanked the Committee for their guidance in this matter. Mr. Henderson stated that if the Committee was going to expand the documenting of typical sections in the Transportation Plan Update, it could be used as an educational tool. The general public may not understand the implications, including right of way or how roundabouts function in general. It is the end user who the Plan needs to cater to. Mr. Key presented an overview of the methodology utilized for Land Use Forecasting. He noted that land use forecasting is a tool to envision what a community will look like 20 years from now. He stated that process begins by convening a Land Use Advisory Committee including representatives from the City, County, and MDT. The Committee met on August 20 and had follow up calls to the School Board and MSU regarding their Tomorrow Plan. The Committee’s charge is to accurately assign the location of future dwelling units. The information included are recently approved developments, developments “in process” within the County, Growth Policies, Existing Neighborhood Plans, Zoning Districts, and future growth needs in general. The Committee found “control totals” for the number of additional dwelling units and additional places of employment which they then began to assign within the County. The Committee then received databases from the City and the County of subdivisions in process. Mr. Key noted where those subdivisions were shown on the included graphics in the TCC materials packet. The Land Use Advisory Committee is also utilizing adopted Master Plans. The Committee allowed for infill in the downtown area. Mr. Key also noted the control total for dwelling units was not reached based solely on current applications and Master Plans. He noted the process was based on multiple conversations held with various planning personnel, as many of the areas where build out will occur will probably have a change in zoning in the next 20 years. Mr. Key noted the placement of employment is much harder, but it still affects the traffic model as people will be traveling to and from their residences to work. He noted assumptions about Jackrabbit Lane and Gooch Hill West having a substantial component of Commercial space which adds credibility to the methodology. He also noted the MSU Tomorrow Plan adds predictability as well. He also noted for the Committee the Land Use plans are not the ultimate authority, but it is the best educated guess available. When the Advisory Committee was looking at numbers and placement, they reasonably assigned numbers to the proposed Belgrade Interchange Area. He opened the floor for discussion about the methodology and if the TCC had any ideas for more accurate placement of growth. He also noted that there will always be room for error, but there is a reality for the designations as well. Chairperson Epple noted the presentation was a great explanation of the process to date and Planning Staff’s participation. He also mentioned the Bozeman Area 2020 plan is not anticipating large changes in land use. The areas where changes are expected have been incorporated in the Land Use Forecasting discussions. He stated he did not see anomalies within the presentation. Mr. Henderson questioned if the model accounted for growth in general and wondered if the areas outside of Gallatin County such as Three Forks and Livingston were also factored in. Mr. Key noted they were accounted for, but did not know how to accurately depict these in a graphic. He also noted people get hung up on graphics and specifics which were not the intent of the graphic. He stated he would rather be less specific in the graphics for that reason. Mr. VanderWay noted the Land Use Advisory Committee took a countywide number and applied it to an area. The numbers represent more of the density in an area than the actual overlay. Chairperson Epple noted the process started with the projected population in 2030 which was then divided by the number of people per household. The number of households and the commercial districts were then allocated across the County. Mr. VanderWay noted the traffic model also is used as a balance in the Forecast. Mr. Lashaway noted the Committee needed to be prepared for public reaction as soon as a road projection is presented, and noted past public comments regarding Love Lane and Baxter Lane. He stated that the plan does not open areas for development, but identifies the infrastructure needed for pending developments. Chairperson Epple noted people are more educated on the process now which should help. Mr. Krauss stated he is comfortable with the methodology. He would also be comfortable with more being done behind the scenes by the Land Use Advisory Committee. He feels the professional staff have had a good overview of where future build up will be. He voiced his concern about transportation to and from some of the large monolithic employers and a addressing the large employers and how we employ roads to and from. Mr. Key noted the Committee has been working on it. Mr. Bukvich stated this is the third or fourth transportation update he has been a part of and has never had a concern about the modeling. He does not feel extensive graphics need to be included for the public, and encouraged the use of narrative rather than a graphic to indicate how the Committee came up with and placed the control totals. Chairperson Epple suggested utilizing a technical memorandum for more detailed information. Cr. Murdock questioned if there was value to the current Forecast in looking at previous methodology compared to the actuality. Mr. Key noted that it could be done, but the Committee has not. Cr. Murdock wondered if the mistakes of the past could be used to address some of the present concerns. Chairperson Epple stated the past has proven to be fairly accurate as far as placement of development, but the timing has taken place sooner than anticipated. Mr. Scott stated how the county had come up with the information that was provided for the Land Use Advisory Committee. Mr. Key also noted he had had conversations with Gallatin Gateway. Chairperson Epple sought clarification from Mr. Key as to what his expectation of the TCC was regarding the information presented. Mr. Key stated he would like the forecasting methodology approved rather than the plan itself, in case small revisions needed to be made. It was moved by Mayor Krauss, seconded by Ms. Abelin, to approve the methodology used by the Land Use Advisory Committee. The motion carried 16-0. Mr. Key also asked for input from the TCC regarding possible dates for a public meeting and the Committee recommended November 27th. Other New Business - None ITEM 7. PROJECT UPDATES - Discussion only as needed MSU Projects Update Mr. Lashaway stated MSU has been working on a design for the reconstruction of South 8th Avenue from West Harrison Street to West Cleveland Street, and West Cleveland from South 8th Avenue to South 6th Avenue. The project ideally would be bid in January or February 2008. WTI has assisted with traffic management planning for football games this fall. In general, WTI has been routing traffic in specific directions and manning the intersection at South 11th Avenue and West College Street. He feels the plan is working well. Belgrade Projects Update - None CTEP Projects Chairperson Epple noted the Milwalkee Trail Project is nearing completion and Peet’s Hill Parkling Lot Project is about seventy percent complete. He also noted Sara Folger is no longer working at the City and CTEP may be administered through the parks department. Mr. Bukvich noted that sidewalk improvement might be a good way to leverage the City’s monies to use CTEP. Chairperson Epple mentioned that a new grants administrator might establish new priorities for projects over the coming years. He also noted that a CTEP project which had received preliminary approval from MDT is a shared use pathway from South 11th Avenue to Huffine Lane on West College Street. Ms. Folger had advised an RFP if the City confirms a match of the CTEP dollars. Cr. Murdock also noted the fact that the Highway Bill is up for reauthorization next year which could affect CTEP dollars. Chairperson Epple noted the dollars for the College Street shared use pathway had been allocated to the project. Mayor Krauss questioned what was happening with the project near South 7th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard. He stated MSU has allowed people to use the driveway that is not really 7th Avenue in the past. He wanted to know if the CFT developers had to participate in the development of 7th Avenue. Mayor Krauss also wanted to know what was happening at the intersections of 7th Avenue and 11th Avenue with Kagy Boulevard and what the proposed improvements were. Mr. Hixson noted that if the level of service changes with a development no one can move forward until it is improved. He also noted that a street impact fee CIP was being worked on and will be presented to the City Commission on November 26. He further noted that the intersection Mayor Krauss referenced was not subject to the Bozeman Municipal Code as it is MSU property. Chairperson Epple noted one of the conditions for the VLT Building was the right to use the driveway until a viable alternate was available to them. Mr. Bukvich noted the intersection has shown up in the list of intersection needing improvement in Mr. Key’s report. He also noted Kagy Boulevard is about at capacity. South 19th Avenue – Main Street to Kagy Boulevard Mr. Bukvich noted they have recently begun negotiations for acquisition which could take some time. The project is most likely going to be started in June or early summer of 2008. 5. Signal Projects Mr. Hixson noted the progress of the signal project at the intersection of Oak Street and Rouse Avenue has been slow, while the project at the intersection of Griffin Drive and Rouse Avenue has been faster. He also noted that signal projects at Oak Street and 15th Avenue, Kagy Boulevard and 7th Avenue, and Kagy Boulevard and 11th Avenue would be determined by the outcome of the CIP which will be before the City Commission on November 26th. Mr. Lashaway asked if there was an update on the proposed signal project on Willson Avenue and College Street. Mr. Bukvich noted it needed to go back to the City Commission with more information after doing a bit more survey work. 6. North Rouse Avenue - None Durston Road Street Improvements Mr. Hixson stated that the improvements were finished. Mr. Lashaway questioned if Durston Road would develop to a point where 25 mph speed limit will feel like it is the “right” speed. Chairperson Epple noted a previous proposal to have the limit be 35 mph, but the neighborhood association protested and the decision was made to leave the limit at 25 mph. Mayor Krauss agreed with Chairperson Epple and noted the fact that there are many pedestrian crossings along Durston Road. Chairperson Epple noted the limit should start to feel more appropriate as more development occurs in that corridor. 8. I-90 Improvements - None 9. Jackrabbit Lane - None 10. Huffine Lane Access Management Plan Mr. Bukvich stated MDT has adopted the Huffine Lane Access Management Plan. MDT is now working to identify how they are going to implement the plan. The current proposal is to charge a per footage of frontage fee to install a raised median and to widen the road four or five feet. MDT wants to go before the City and County Commission to work with signalization as development warrants. 11. Other - None ITEM 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m. _____________________________________________ Andrew C. Chairperson Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee