Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121907 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docSPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2007 MINUTES ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m. on Wednesday, December 19, 2007, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the secretary to record attendance. Members Present: Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Staff Present: Shoni Dykstra, Recording Secretary Bob Murray, City Engineer John Van Delinder, Streets Superintendent Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning George Durkin, Road Department, Gallatin County Guests Present: Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Carol Strizich 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 Level of Service Presentation/Discussion (Jeff Key) Jeff Key from Robert Peccia and Associates presented a PowerPoint presentation pertaining to level of service. He noted the Committee had the opportunity to set some policy guidance for each jurisdiction within the purview of the Updated Transportation Plan. Mr. Key reviewed the level of service definitions and the current level of service criteria in place for MDT, Gallatin County, and the City. Mr. Key noted the level of service is the measure traffic engineers use to quantify how intersections are functioning. The level of service is the standard for the industry with different criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Mr. Key noted the criteria for the acceptable level of service highlighting the differences between agencies regarding intersections. He noted MDT viewed the intersection as a whole with a minimum of C being acceptable. He noted Gallatin County viewed it on a case-by-case basis and did not have a formalized standard in the level of service in their documents. The City defined the acceptable level of service in the UDO and looks at each maneuver rather than intersections as a whole and each maneuver had to be a D or above. Chairperson Epple noted the level of service D is “minimal delays” and meets the national standard. Mr. Key noted that it might be possible to visually show the difference between levels of service D and F when presenting to other agencies as well as in the plan. Mr. Key noted that clarity in the Transportation Plan with jurisdictional agreement with the Plan gives more direction to developers when conducting a Traffic Impact Analysis. Bob Murray noted the MDT criteria for an urban collector had a minimum of D. He noted the City would not be willing to accept that on a collector. Mr. Key noted that MDT looked more at the arterial streets. Al VanderWey noted where local streets meet arterials is where difficulties arise. Mr. Key noted the focus was on the arterial to make sure it was moving traffic. It also provides an example of when restricting one movement is to the benefit of the intersection. Mr. Provance noted that level of service was not included in County subdivision review, but issues have come up with state roads and he would like to see some consistency in the approach between the different jurisdictions. Bob Lashaway asked if the county would adopt the language of the Transportation plan verbatim. Mr. Provance noted he felt the language would be adopted. Chris Scott wondered how the City had interacted with MDT with state roads as they would like to set a standard before the completion of the Plan. Mr. Murray noted that those routes were looked at in a case by case basis and followed MDT requirements. Chairperson Epple noted that the level of service criteria are set, but the real question is how to use the level of service to mitigate problems. He questioned if the City wanted to continue to look at maneuvers or intersections as a whole. Mr. Provance noted that level of service C might not be reasonably attainable with streets intersecting state roads, and that traffic volumes would dictate some mitigation for those intersections. Doug McSpadden wondered if crash statistics were considered in making the level of service decisions. Mr. Key noted that the end result from level of service was relegated strictly to delay. He noted signal timing, parking, grades, and other factors played a part in factoring. Mr. Murray noted crash statistics are looked at, but not in relationship to level of service. Mr. Murray stated he could not think of a collector in the City which was a MDT route so he did not see a problem recommending a UDO change to the City Commission to establish the minimum acceptable level of service for the overall intersection to be level C. Mr. Saunders also noted that the level of service as defined in the Transportation Plan will affect impact fees and how they are allocated in the CIP. Mr. VanderWey noted that it might be necessary to be more explicit of the hierarchy of classifications in regards to the acceptable level of service. Mr. Murray noted that how the level of service was presented in the Transportation Plan would dictate the intersections needing to be addressed within the Plan. Mr. Key noted that every intersection would be addressed, but level of service would dictate the priority given to any recommendations. Mr. McSpadden wondered how the level of service related to growth and what timeline was being considered and if there was a “grandfathering” in of intersections. Mr. Key noted that when a level of service C was attainable mitigation should take place to meet the standard. He noted that mitigation for intersections would be listed within the Plan. Mr. Provance noted that planning further than 5 years out in the County was unrealistic. Ross Gammon noted that the presentation of the acceptable level of service could be restrictive. He noted that in some cases the mitigation might be beyond a reasonable expectation. Mr. Provance noted that in some cases it should be deferred to the governing body. Chairperson Epple noted that in many cases developers were building city infrastructure to meet code requirements and having a set standard for level of service in place is important. Motion and Vote It was moved by Ralph Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Provance, to recommend the overall intersection level of service C be the standard design for the Transportation Plan in the Update. Mr. Gammon wondered if the Committee was interested in including verbiage for exclusions in the motion to allow the jurisdiction leeway in some cases. It was decided to leave the motion as is. The motion carried 8-0. Mr. Key noted he would like to present the level of service information to the City and County Commission sometime in January. Mr. Lashaway noted he would like to be notified of the dates for those meetings so he could attend. He also noted that getting away from the perception of the levels (A – E) relating to academic grades was going to be a challenge. Mr. Key noted he planned to use graphics to show some of the delineations between levels. Mr. Lashaway also noted that in some cases there would be situations where mitigating the level of service would be unreasonable with the land and financial resources needed. Mr. VanderWey wondered if the levels of service could be compared on a decimal point system for the presentations to the Commissions. He also wanted clarification on how the level of service was found and when the counts were actually taken. Mr. Key noted that it was a volume to capacity issue and that the counts were taken at the peak hour which may have only been a 15 minute time period in some cases. He also noted that the level of service for the maneuvers were for peak travel times. Mr. Lashaway also noted that in some cases a lower level of service may not make much difference relative to the community travel times. Mr. VanderWey noted that along 19th and Main would probably be the best place to focus attention for the travel times. ITEM 4. 2007 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time the meeting was adjourned at 11:26. _____________________________________________ Andrew C. Chairperson Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee