Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112807 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docSPECIAL MEETING BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT Kerry White, Planning Board Gallatin County Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition, Gallatin County Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Jeff Ebert, District Administrator Butte District, MDT Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT JP Pomnichowski, Planning Board, City of Bozeman David Smith, Citizen Member, City of Bozeman Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman Lee Provance, Road Superintendent Gallatin County Bill Murdock, County Commissioner-late due to 911 Meeting Chris Kukulski, Bozeman City Manager (Briefly) Staff Present: Rick Hixson, City Engineer, City of Bozeman Shoni Dykstra, Recording Secretary Bob Murray, Engineer John Van Delinder, Street Superintendent Brit Fontenot, Neighborhood Coordinator (Briefly) George Durkin, Gallatin County Road Office Guests Present: Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Scott Randle, Robert Peccia and Associates Tamzin Brown, Four Corners Planning Carol Strizich, MDT Helena James P. Greenwood Dan Worden. MSU Ashleigh Dupree, MSU Murlan Bekov, MSU 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. NEW BUSINESS – BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE A. Review of Committed Projects (Jeff Key) Jeff Key from Robert Peccia and Associates began his presentation with a brief overview of the status on the update to the Transportation Plan. The project is currently on schedule and over the past 8 months most of the data collection activities have been completed. He noted the memorandums and updates he had been able to get to the public via the website and the mailing list. He noted the “non-motorized” survey had been administered, and that the preliminary land use forecasting exercise was close to being finished. He did note the Four Corners area was still working on the preferred land use areas. The information from the land use forecasting has been utilized in creating the future travel demand model. He noted committed projects will also be used in the model. He shared the project schedule for the TCC and noted that this was the ninth of eighteen meetings scheduled for the update of the Transportation Plan. He noted that the project has been meeting the measurable objectives to date. Mr. Key defined a committed project as a project which is likely to be built within 5 years with funding which has been appropriated. He stated the handout given contained a list from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and from the City of Bozeman’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and from Christopher Scott for Gallatin County’s projects. He noted committed projects do not always have an impact on the future travel demand model. He shared that in the past, in Chapter 3 of the Transportation Plan they have included the committed projects that affect the future travel model, and in later chapters include a list of the projects that are likely to happen. He noted that MDT was going through the signal timing within the City which would have an affect on the future travel model Jeff Ebert clarified the signal timing project was in conjunction with the Main Street Project which had been let. Mr. Ebert stated that the installation of Yagi antenna monitors had been recently approved with the project, but the signal timing had basically been completed. Mr. Key sought clarification from the Committee on the handout listing the committed project list. Debbie Arkell requested the name of the Jct MT 85 East Section to be referred to as Valley Center Road. She also sought clarification if the College Street Signal referred to the signal at College and 19th Avenue. Mr. Key stated it was the College Street and Willson Avenue intersection and there had been a lot of discussion about the project. Mr. Ebert stated that it might not be a signal, but a roundabout had been discussed. Ms. Arkell noted the project could be accurately listed as “improvements to the intersection of College and Willson”. Mr. Bukvich would like to see the project stay on the list along with the other projects without identified funding. Mr. Key stated discussions with Mr. VanderWey had identified the South 19th Avenue project from Babcock to Kagy was the only project referenced by MDT that would impact the travel model. Mr. Ebert stated that the estimated cost needed to have $1.5 million added to it, he also noted the improvements to the intersection at 19th and College should be tied in with the Babcock and Kagy project. Mr. Key noted the intent of this discussion was to differentiate the committed projects which would affect the travel model and those projects which are not committed at this time. Mr. Ebert noted that the reconstruction of the 7th Avenue interchange which will add major capacity and could happen in the five year period. He also stated the Rouse Avenue overpass over the interstate will not add new capacity but it will be replaced by 2010. Mr. Ebert noted he would review more of MDT materials and get back to Mr. Key. Ms. Arkell stated that using the roads denoted in the City of Bozeman’s CIP to find committed projects probably was not helpful because they are development driven. She noted there is no guarantee that the projects on the CIP list would happen within the five year time frame. Bob Murray noted he could help Mr. Key come up with language to reflect those projects from the CIP. Chairperson Epple stated the projects could be listed in the future projects section rather than considering those projects as committed. Rick Hixson noted again the list from the CIP is only for impact fee purposes. Mr. Key asked if the City would have any projects that would be considered as committed projects. Ms. Arkell noted the right of way acquisition was a committed project. Chairperson Epple noted that not many of the projects on the CIP are considered committed projects. Kerry White asked if all of the projects from the City would be removed if they were not applicable to the traffic demand model. Bob Lashaway noted that the Transportation Plan needed the projects which were truly committed. Chairperson Epple noted the other projects would be listed as needs and future improvements to reflect they had been considered through the course of the document. Mr. Key asked for the City to communicate which projects would be considered committed projects other than the right-of-way acquisition. Mr. Key noted that Mr. Scott of the Gallatin County Planning Office had provided the list in regards to Gallatin County. He noted he had already discussed some areas with Mr. VanderWey. Lee Provance noted he thought projects which reduce travel times were insignificant unless they added capacity as well. He also noted that Holland Lane was a dead end subdivision road which is not maintained by the County. He also noted that Tayabeshockup Road is probably not a committed project. He also noted that Hulbert Road has been paved. Mr. Scott added that many of the roads on the list are exactions from preliminary plat approval which does not mean the final plat is guaranteed. Mr. White noted a misprint on Cameron Bridge Road should say Jackrabbit Lane East instead of West. Mr. Provance noted that Tubb Road has been paved all the way through. Mr. Key noted the conversation had been helpful and has allowed him to identify projects that have affects on the model. For completeness he would like to see these listed as needs within the Transportation Plan. Chairperson Epple asked if Mr. Key needed a refined list from the City and the County. Mr. Key responded that it would be preferable. Mayor Krauss noted that Highland Boulevard was not on the list and there was a huge capacity expanding project. He also noted Kagy Boulevard from the Old Bozeman Trail is a development driven projects. Mr. Key stated that Kagy might have an impact and be considered a committed project while Highland should be included. Mr. Murray noted that the committed project is the best guess as to what is going to happen. He looked at development and came up with the CIP list. If Mr. Key needs only the projects the City is committed to, probably Highland is the only project that should be included. Mr. Bukvich stated that those not on the committed list would still be included in the plan and further noted that many of the projects would not impact the traffic demand model significantly. Chairperson Epple asked for further questions and comments before moving forward. Mr. Bukvich wondered if MSU had any committed projects. Mr. Lashaway responded the only project was 8th and Cleveland and it was not a capacity expanding project. B. Review of Existing Conditions Memos (Jeff Key) Mr. Key noted in Past Transportation Plans, chapter 2 has been devoted to a discussion of existing conditions. He noted this helped people familiarize themselves with the transportation system and is in part educational. He noted the materials he submitted in the packet contained more information pertaining to non-motorized transportation than motorized transportation. He shared the adopted street network and highlighted the fact that it does not always mimic the “Federally Approved” Functional Classification system for Bozeman. Mr. White sought clarification why Gooch Hill Road did not connect completely on the map. He also wondered why Johnson Road is shown as a principal arterial when it dead-ends. He also wondered if Spring Hill going north out of Bozeman should be classified as a principal arterial. Mr. Key noted that this is the existing major street classification which is why Gooch Hill is shown the way it is. If it is appropriate to connect gaps at this point, those notes need to be included. He noted the plan would include a graphic which would show logical sections of what is most likely to happen. Chairperson Epple noted Gooch Hill does connect at this point. Mr. White noted that Johnson is not even gravel from Chapman to Gooch Hill. Mr. Key wondered if there was a process for updating road improvements on the major street network. Mr. Provance noted that Gooch Hill has connected for a long time. Ms. Arkell asked Mr. Scott if Durston was improved to Monforton School Road. Mr. Scott stated that it was not. Mr. Key addressed Mr. White’s earlier question about Spring Hill Road. He noted that streets are defined by their current status and reasonable expectations. He noted Principal Arterials usually carried 15,000 vehicles per day with high travel speed and limited access. He noted that unless those were already happening or strongly suspected they would not be labeled as Principal Arterials. Mr. White noted that description confused him in regards to streets like Johnson which is currently classified as an arterial when it is not even gravel. He also stated that as Belgrade builds up, Spring Hill Road is going to become busier. Mr. Key stated he would check the last plan and he also noted that as spacing and development happens they want a good network with adequate spacing for the principal arterials. The spacing would provide for Johnson being marked as a Principal Arterial to meet future standards. Mr. Provance stated Johnson was supposed to go from South 19th to 191 as the functional value that Cottonwood currently has. Chairperson Epple stated that maybe future planned arterials could be depicted differently within the major street network. Mr. Provance noted that Spring Hill seems to fit the criteria, and there are new subdivisions near the Airport and on Penwell Bridge Road. Ms. Arkell noted the traffic count was from 2005 and was at 7,200. Mr. White stated that Kent Spur is a dead end road and Cottonwood is paved all the way around and should be depicted as a minor arterial. Mr. Provance noted that Cottonwood was not functioning at the degree of a principal arterial, but as more of a collector. Mr. Murray noted that the graphic the Committee is looking at is depicting what the roads are currently classified as, not what is happening in actuality. Mr. Key asked for direction from the Committee on the value of including the map in the Transportation Plan. Mr. Bukvich noted the graphic does not reflect the existing network and he would like to not show it or change it so it reflects what they are currently functioning as. Mr. Key stated the graphic is used as a tool to notify developers of the standard they need the road built to. Chairperson Epple stated as a development comes in the existing major street network has been utilized to inform the developer of the standard the road should be built to. It has been a good for reference in the city. Doug McSpadden wanted to know if Kent Spur does not go anywhere why it is still classified as a minor arterial. Mr. Provance would like the graphic to represent what each road is functioning as not how they are planned. Mr. Key noted he would pull this out from the public presentation tonight, and reiterated the graphic is what is in the current Plan. Mr. McSpadden noted the inclusion of similar graphics in past transportation plans was consultant recommended. Mayor Krauss would like to see the future arterials differentiated from the streets which are arterials. Mr. Provance would like to see some of the streets depicted in the graphic connected, but noted it was not likely to see growth in that area. Mr. Key stated he would pull the two figures and look at using the “Federally Approved” Functional Classification system for Bozeman. Mr. Key went on to address the existing traffic volumes and corridor facility size in the existing conditions technical memo. He noted the use of data from the year 2005 as that was the most current information available. He noted the use of the graphic portraying the volumes as well as the graphic portraying the corridor size. He stated this can be used to highlight potential needs. Mr. Key introduced the section addressing the existing levels of service. He noted that the tables reveal that as a whole most intersections operated at a level of service C with one or two operating at levels D, E, or F. He sought clarification on section 18.44.060.D in the UDO. “Level of Service Standards. Streets and intersection level of service "C" shall be the design and operational objective, and under no conditions will less than level of service "D" be accepted. All arterial and collector streets, and movements on intersection approach legs designated as arterial or collector streets, shall operate at a minimum level of service "C". The design year for necessary improvements shall be a minimum of fifteen years following construction of said improvements.” Mr. Key asked what the acceptable level of service was, and if it was referencing the level of service for each intersection or for each movement. Chairperson Epple noted the UDO references intersections in context of proposals and is not looking at the streets in general. Mr. Key sought further clarification of the UDO statement was saying if the level of service D was an acceptable level of service. Mr. Murray noted that every movement had to be above a D in accordance with the UDO. Chairperson Epple would like to continue with the statement and get it clarified if need be. Mr. Murray noted that an intersection needed to meet the UDO requirements and MDT. Bill Murdock would like wording included that would have the goal to have each intersection be a level of service B. Mr. Hixson noted there is generally a lot of cost involved in increasing the level of service to B. Al VanderWey stated that Reserve Street in Missoula had F rated intersections which has created traffic impacts which are not acceptable. Chairperson Epple noted that specific movements could not be below a D in accordance with the UDO, an intersection operating at a D is unacceptable. Mr. Bukvich would like to see the wording clarified in the section 18.44.060D of UDO. He noted every left turn into an alley in Bozeman is a level of service F during peak travel hours. He noted that mitigating those movements is to eliminate all left turns out of alleys which would work against the grid system of the City. He noted accepting the reduced level is sometimes necessary. Pat Abelin sought clarification from Mr. Key about counting the intersections of Rouse at Griffin and Oak. Mr. Key noted they probably would not be counted. Ms. Arkell noted that on November 27th the signal at Rouse and Griffin was turned on. She also stated that the signal at Rouse and Oak should be on by mid-January. Mr. Key stated that any intersection rated D, E, or F were automatically reviewed. He noted they considered possible ways to mitigate and looked at those movements which are closer to the border of being rated differently. Mr. White sought clarification on which direction received the level of service F on Highland and Main. Ms. Arkell noted it was for vehicles turning left from Highland onto Main at peak hours. She wondered if the improvements taking place now were being reflected in the Plan. Mr. White asked how the level of service for the intersection was factored when looking at the four different directions. Mr. Key noted that the number of vehicles traveling each direction is weighted proportional to the total number of vehicles and then factored in to find the level of service for the intersection. He noted that mitigating borderline levels of service can often be done by changing the signal timing. Mr. White noted the traffic count analysis was happening during the same time period as the Main Street Construction. He wondered what had been done to make sure the data gathered had factored in those road closures. Mr. Key noted they had taken those road closures into consideration. Chairperson Epple noted the data collection took place before the improvements to Main. Mr. McSpadden asked if the intersection of Ferguson and Huffine was reflective of Huffine reaching capacity. Mr. Key noted that in some cases the analysis may reflect phasing and timing which has not been updated. He noted that the signal came in between the two studies. Mr. Key flagged the intersection to be revisited. Mr. Key presented the crash analysis statistics. The crash statistics came from a three year analysis which summarized high crash locations. He noted some of the intersections warranted further investigation due to the high crash occurrences. He noted low volume intersections with high crash statistics are a red flag. Ms. Arkell noted that most of the intersections warranting further study were signalized intersections. Mr. Key responded that signals do not mitigate all safety concerns. JP Pominchowski asked why a number of the intersections were not identified in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. Mr. Key noted the intersections were not identified as intersections needing to be counted for the current update, and the crash statistics were coming from MDT not from the analysis done for the plan. He also noted Interstate 90 was not in the budget to be counted. Ms. Pomnichowski asked if the intersections that had not been counted but had high crash statistics would have recommendations. Mr. Key noted wording would be worked on for that section. Mr. Key noted the second portion of the handout relates mainly to the non-motorized traffic in and around Bozeman. He stated a major theme in the sections was the heightened awareness of non motorized usage in and around Bozeman. He noted the figure depicting crash sites involving cyclist collisions was more than likely underrepresented because of the lack of reporting crashes. He noted this would be reviewed in the same manner as the motorized crash statistics to see if mitigation needs to take place in specific areas. Ms. Arkell wondered if motorcycle data was included along with bicyclist information. Mr. Key stated he had not had a chance to clarify that with ALTA, but he would get it clarified. Mr. Key noted ALTA had mapped gaps in the sidewalk system rather than show where the sidewalks were. He noted this made the map much easier to read. He noted these gaps are noted in a table in regards to length and locations. He noted that it ultimately referenced areas of deficiency. Mr. Key presented some of the survey results from the pedestrian bicyclist survey. Mr. Lashaway noted that he did not feel 32% of those residing in Bozeman were walking to work. Chairperson Epple stated the wording could be changed to say “32% of those who responded to the survey walk to work”. Mr. Key stated he would clarify that statement. Mr. White asked if Mr. Key had counted pedestrians and bicyclists while doing the traffic counts. Mr. Key noted the non motorized travel had been counted, but he noted cyclists and pedestrians tend to avoid congested intersections so the counts they obtained were not representative of routes or preferences. Mr. White asked if those counts had been obtained from the paths that cross Main Street. Mr. Key stated he had sent the information to ALTA from the most resent surveys along with the counts from 2001. Mr. White asked if anything new had been revealed in this survey. Mr. Key responded that the survey did not contradict past findings, but was helpful for the existing conditions memorandum and establishing what the future needs are. Ms. Arkell asked if the chapter would include the pictures presented in the handout. Mr. Key stated he was aware of the need to be careful of pictures in the plan. Ms. Arkell noted that if pictures were going to be used a bicyclist would be a nice addition to the picture taken of West Babcock Street. On page 70, she noted the sidewalk had been replaced as a part of the Main Street improvements. She also noted the picture on page 73 should be updated to reflect the red brick crosswalks. Mr. Lashaway asked how the increase of non motorized traffic on West Babcock had been obtained. Mr. Key noted there had been counts before and after the improvements conducted for the City. Mr. Bukvich stated he would have liked to address an ALTA representative. He is not in agreement with labeling streets hazardous in a technical memorandum. If the Plan is labeling street sections unsafe, they need to prevent bicyclists from using those intersections. Mr. Key noted the word choice in the Plan could be improved. Ms. Arkell stated you could say “No bike lanes on new streets could be unsafe” rather than naming a specific street. Mr. Lashaway noted that intersections that have higher number of crashes still have a good amount of non motorized traffic making it through safely. Chairperson Epple noted value laden words did not need to be used. He stated the ramifications if someone were to be injured at an intersection the Plan labeled as hazardous without taking any steps to mitigate the safety concerns. Mr. Bukvich noted the motorized existing conditions did not use the words hazardous or unsafe. Mr. Key stated it would not be a problem to change the wording to be less subjective. Ms. Pomnichowski noted that the survey did not ask how often people drove which would have presented more accurate travel information. Chairperson Epple stated he did not want the Committee to back off from the commitment they had made to those who travel by foot or bicycle. Mr. Bukvich stated the survey results appeared to be the same results they have seen in the past. Mr. McSpadden noted that even though the same results have been seen, the survey is still useful as a tool to reveal the latent demand. Tamzim Brown noted that they are trying to implement the Safe Routes to School in Four Corners. She noted that with more cars on Huffine people who would be inclined to walk are driving for safety purposes. Chairperson Epple noted that non motorized traffic counts had been done for three months on Babcock before the installation of the bike lane and the improvements had resulted in a three fold increase of pedestrian traffic. Mr. White stated that increase was measured on a street where there were very negative conditions with no shoulder, no sidewalks, and no place to bike. He noted the same increase might not be applicable where there are not such adverse conditions. Ralph Zimmer stated that pedestrians and cyclists need to be able to get from place to place. Chairperson Epple reiterated that they will get where they need to even if the routes are undesirable. Chairperson Epple also commended Mr. Key on the documents and noted that even though the Committee had recommended changes it did not discredit the work done to date on the draft. Mr. Zimmer asked Mr. Key to remind the Committee about the public meeting tonight. Mr. Key noted the meeting would be taking place at the Bozeman High School Cafeteria from 6:30 to 9:00. He noted the first and third public meeting were more participation and input where the second and last are project updates. He expects to present for about half an hour and then have a time for questions and answers. Chairperson Epple noted the upcoming December meeting. Ms. Arkell noted that Mr. Hixson would be her proxy on December 19th. ITEM 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time the meeting was adjourned at 11:47 a.m. _____________________________________________ Andrew C. Chairperson Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee