The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-17-08 Transportation and Coordinating Committee Minutes and Attachments.pdfMinutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 1 MINUTES BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, MT and directed the TCC members to introduce themselves. Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County Members present: Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Superintendent, Butte District MDT Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Ray Stocks, Maintenance Chief, MDT Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Bob Lashaway, Montana State University Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Carol Strizich, Statewide and Urban Planning, MDT – proxy for Dick Turner Jeff Patten, Federal Highway Administration Bob Murray, Project Engineer, City of Bozeman - proxy for Debbie Arkell Al Vander Wey, Urban Planning, MDT Lee Provance, Gallatin County Road & Bridge Department Rob Bukvich, Engineer, Bozeman Division MDT John Van Delinder, City of Bozeman Street Superintendent Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition Guests: R. Dale Beland Jeff Key, PE; Robert Peccia and Associates Consultants Present: Tamzin Brown Scott Randall, EIT; Robert Peccia and Associates Ted Lange Joe Gilpin; Alta Planning and Design George Durkin Mariann Amsden 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 opened public comment. Mr. Beland a planning consultant with an office at 2023 Stadium Drive spoke of his concerns regarding the consistency of the draft plan with adopted County plans and policies relevant to the Dale Beland, Public Comment Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 2 Gooch Hill West neighborhood area. That is an area of roughly 1000 acres which was subject to a citizen driven development plan adopted by the County Commission. All of the Work that's been done there is consistent with the adopted County Growth Policy. He had some concerns regarding specific exhibits but with assurances from Jeff Key regarding his concerns and a copy of his comments in a letter to Scott Randall included in the record he feels satisfied that his concerns have been met. Ms. Amsden read a letter from Sandy Dodge, the Chair of the Recreation and Parks Board regarding what the equestrian status is in the PROST plan. (Please reference the attached letter.) Marianne Amsden, Public Comment She also wanted to share a petition from Gallep. Public Comment Closed. Seeing no additional public comment, Mr. Epple closed public comment. ITEM 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Review and Action on the Public Draft of the Transportation Plan and Public Comments. Andy Epple, City of Bozeman Planning Director, Chair Mr. Epple explained that the objective of the meeting today is to review the public comment that’s been received regarding the Draft of the Transportation Plan. The comments have been provided in a 66 page matrix and summarized by Jeff Key and Scott Randall with a consultant’s response for each comment. Many of these comments have been responded to already but in some cases there may be some items that TCC decides to change. Jeff Key, Transportation Engineer Consultant Mr. Key has addressed all public comments received. The public comment closed on December 5, 2008. Of the 65 people that commented, 14 commented specifically on equestrian usage, 18 commented on mid-block crossings. The other half were across the board. The difficult part is that many comments were not related to a specific concern in the Transportation Plan. Mr. Key will point out those items within the document that he feels may need to be revised. Mr. Key began the review discussion with the comments related to equestrian usage. The Gallatin County Planning Board has handed out a letter dated December 15th Mr. Epple Mr. Epple reviewed the paragraph that is already in the Transportation Plan regarding equestrian usage. He asked the TCC members whether they wanted to change past direction in regards to , 2008 with recommendations of what they would like to see regarding equestrian usage in the Plan. (Please see the attached letter.) Mr. Key gave brief history of reviewing equestrian usage by the TCC as it relates to the Transportation Plan. Joe Olsen and Mr. Key met with Marianne Amsden who was representing Gallep and agreed to put together a graphic that would show what an equestrian system might be and where these facilities are. They did not endorse this graphic but put the graphic together just to facilitate a discussion with TCC members. The County Planning Board letter summarizes the changes that the equestrian group is seeking. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 3 equestrian usage or whether they would like to incorporate additional language that the Gallep folks and the County Planning Board have suggested. Kerry White Mr. White stated that the County planning board went over all the equestrian comments and they felt the changes were fairly minor and reasonable to put in the plan. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich would like to propose that instead of talking about equestrians, pedestrians and bicycles we should talk about non-motorized users and motorized users. He feels the equestrian plan should be located in the PROST plan. Lee Provance Mr. Provance agrees with Mr. Bukvich. He feels you can’t break out each use and have a different trail for each type of use. Unless you license them and extract money from users it is not viable to build or maintain equestrian facilities. He does not see equestrian use as a viable source of transportation. He feels it’s more of a recreation issue. Bob Murray Mr. Murray also feels equestrian usage belongs in the PROST plan. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer wondered what the ramifications of Mr. Bukvich’s plan would be. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich explained his intention to simplify this whole discussion by just referring to motorized vs. non-motorized transportation throughout the plan rather than singling out user groups. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer explained that the Pedestrian and Safety Committee do not feel that horses should be on the same facilities that pedestrians use particularly in the city core. That committee’s concerns would not be alleviated with Mr. Bukvich’s proposal. Jeff Key Mr. Key pointed out that the Transportation Plan has been put together with a focus on Transportation assessment which includes vehicles, bicycles, transit and pedestrians. Kerry White Mr. White pointed out that they use the Transportation Plan on the County Planning Board to plan infrastructure for the future. The Transportation plan could be an important document for the County to use to legitimize equestrian use for newly created transportation or recreational routes. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked if the PROST plan would work for that purpose. Kerry White Mr. White stated that the PROST plan is more of a city document. He also pointed out that the Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 4 wording he is recommending states ‘consider equestrian needs where appropriate.’ It does not say that equestrian facilities must be put in. Individual cases would be considered by their perspective commission. Christopher Scott Mr. Scott pointed out that the County through a sub-committee of the Planning Board is updating the Gallatin County Interconnect which relates to parks and trails. It may be an appropriate document to address equestrian usage. Kerry White Mr. White explained that the equestrian paragraph that Mr. Key updated within the Transportation Plan references the Gallatin County Interconnect (GCI) as well as the PROST plan. A completion date is not yet set for the GCI. They’ve completed the trail inventory and are currently proposing trail interconnects between the schools and all the parks. Jeff Key Mr. Key wanted to point out that the graphic attached to the memo handed out today was different than that within the public comment matrix handed out today. Lee Provance Mr. Provance wanted to make it clear that there is no effort to disallow equestrians in right of ways. Equestrian usage is accommodated in thought. He feels that legal problems could come up if we extort right of ways out of developers for limited usage. Mr. Epple Mr. Epple used an example from King County where there is an extensive network of trails they are attempting to preserve. They have language in place, ‘where developers dedicate equestrian trail easements in accordance with an inter-connective plan they should be eligible for park land dedication credits.’ These are different than transportation plan credits. Chris Scott Mr. Scott stated that a subdivision can currently get park land credits for trails that are at least 25’ wide. Public Comment Opened Mr. Epple opened public comment. Tamzin Brown, Public Comment Ms. Brown of Monforton School Road pointed out that equestrian usage has traditionally been used for transportation. She used the example of her neighbor who must drive her cows from her house on Baxter to another house on Monforton. She is now on a paved, 45 MPH road with no shoulder. She feels equestrian trails are not limited use. She said they need 4 feet of flat, dirt shoulder. Mariann Amsden, Public Comment Ms. Amsden pointed out that some of the transportation plans in other areas accommodate equestrian uses. She said that roadways have been used for all kinds of activities. The roads are serving more uses than strictly transportation. They are not looking for special facilities, just a place in the right of way. She felt that equestrian usage should be mentioned further in the Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 5 document within objectives and goals. She thinks many more people would ride their horses if a safe passage existed. They don’t have a safe place to ride. There are places where a transportation and recreation plan must cross. The only way to get from one place to another is through the roads that already exist. Ted Lange, Gallatin Valley Land Trust Public Comment Closed Seeing no further new public comment, Mr. Epple closed public comment on this subject. GVLT does not have a position on equestrian issues but they have been spending a lot of time working on maps with them because they have relevance to trails. It all comes down to right of way. It is hard to separate transportation from recreation because they want to connect to quite a few places such as the MSU horse barns and the Fairgrounds. He feels the question is whether you want horses on the road or whether you want to have a right of way for horses to get to those destinations. This issue is about additional right of ways. What GVLT has been hearing from people in the city is that bikes and pedestrians should be separate from horses. The other issue is crossings. Additional signage and other specific accommodations may be needed for horses. Lee Provance Mr. Provance does agree that we need to recognize the interface between transportation and recreation. He feels that’s incorporated when the recreational plan is accomplished not within the transportation plan. Kerry White Doug McSpadden Mr. McSpadden is wondering if equestrian usage is not addressed here does that shut them out at the commission level. Mr. White made a motion to accept the proposed changes to the TCC transportation plan as submitted by the Gallatin County Planning Board. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said that all decisions are ultimately made by the commissioners including action on this document itself. There will be public hearings on this document, possibly a joint meeting. If this body does not recommend something it does not preclude the commissioners from inserting something anyway. We are in an advisory position. Kerry White Mr. White would like to add to his motion ‘with the exception of the adoption and insertion of the map.’ Doug McSpadden Joe Olsen Mr. Olsen asked whether section 5-5 is still in place that deals with equestrian usage. Mr. McSpadden seconded Mr. White’s motion. Jeff Key Mr. Key responded that section 5-5 is still in the document. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 6 Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked for clarification regarding the memorandum that is included in the motion on the table. The memorandum states that there are no public trail systems within the city of Bozeman that allows for equine travel. He asked if this were really true. Andy Epple Mr. Epple stated that there is no trail systems designated for equine travel. The city engineer has communicated to Gallep that there is no prohibition anywhere in the Municipal Code against equine travel on city streets. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked whether there is a prohibition for horseback riders from using the trails. Andy Epple Mr. Epple is not sure whether there is or not. Mr. Epple took a look at the letter from Sandy Dodge the chairman of the PROST plan committee for the city. The letter from Mr. Dodge makes a recommendation stating, “as for the existing trails in Bozeman the Recreation & Parks Advisory Board and the Bozeman Parks Department have determined that existing city trail locations are not appropriate for equestrian use due to safety and user conflict issues.” Mr. Epple does not know if that constitutes a formal ban but that is their position on it. Kerry White Mr. White pointed out that the text in the motion states ‘where appropriate’ in three different locations. It is up to the commission to make the decisions in consultation with the road and planning department regarding what is appropriate. This text really has no authority; it just recognizes equestrian use as legitimate use that should be considered when roadways and right of ways are created. Lee Provance Mr. Provance said that if Gallep or any other organization comes up with a plan to construct trails within the right away, if appropriate and there is room, they’ll allow them if someone wants to build them outside of his limited funding. Carol Strizich Ms. Strizich asked if there are design standards for equestrian use on roads and right of ways. Joe Gilpen Mr Gilpen said the forest service has produced an equestrian trail design guideline manual that spells out recommendations for equestrian trails, with 18” tread being the minimum. It is not a road guideline. Kerry White Mr. White also stated that the guideline has clearing width and heights. On the tread design, equestrians prefer the softer surface, not paved asphalt or concrete. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked whether TCC members had any interest in pursuing the recommendation made earlier in the meeting by Rob Bukvich to change language throughout the Transportation Plan to Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 7 say non-motorized instead of bicycle/pedestrian/equestrian. Seeing no comment regarding this item, Mr. Epple set that recommendation aside. Vote on the motion Andy Epple to accept the proposed text changes to the TCC transportation plan as submitted by the Gallatin County Planning Board with the exception of the adoption and insertion of the map. Mr. Epple made a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor to eliminate the sentence within the text that refers to the City not having any trails for equestrian use. (3rd Kerry White bullet in the document.) Andy Epple Mr. White and Mr. McSpadden accepted the friendly amendment to their motion. Bob Lashaway Mr. Lashaway asked whether Mr. Key should capture the comments that were made relative to the apparent adequacy of coverage of recreational usage including equestrian use to go forward. Mr. Epple called for a voice vote. Two votes were for the motion, one member abstained from the vote and the remainder voted No. Motion failed. Andy Epple Mr. Epple feels the Transportation Plan should be amended to say ‘at this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in an updated or amended PROST plan and will be addressed through the Gallatin County Interconnect Plan currently underway. Bob McSpadden Mr. McSpadden made a motion with a second from Lee Provance to add to the last sentence in the Transportation Plan regarding equestrian use. The addition will say ‘at this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in an updated or amended PROST plan, as well as the Gallatin County Interconnect Plan currently underway. Vote on the motion. Mr. Epple called for a voice vote. The motion passed unanimously. Chris Scott Mr. Scott was looking for justification to show when those types of facilities are needed in those urban densities. The County may look at that on their own and deal with it locally through other regulations but not in this plan. Jeff Key Mr. Key continued down the matrix provided and brought up comment #4 from Chris Scott regarding when urban local roadway standards should be provided for sub-divisions located outside of the city but within the county. Mr. Key has decided after talking to the county not to pursue further language within this document. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 8 Jeff Key Mr. Key mentioned that items had been added to some of the tables within the document and with one exception they are necessary. Item #6 however regarding Wallace Boulevard should be removed because the Transportation plan should only be dealing with arterial roads and above. As a matter of policy we don’t want to put forward recommendations on local roadways for stenciling or signage. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for discussion on Mr. Key’s recommended action. Seeing no comment, Mr. Epple stated that TCC was in support of Mr. Key’s recommendation. Jeff Key Mr. Key stated that comments 6-10 are all related to equestrian issues. Comment #11 is in strong opposition to a proposed Highland Blvd Oak Street connection. This is a future long-term corridor and just makes options available for cross regional flow and it would be many years to realize this project. Mr. Key does not recommend any changes to the document in response. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for comment. Seeing none Mr. Key moved to the next item. Jeff Key Mr. Key said comment #14 is the first comment about mid-block crossings. 18 individuals commented about lack of mid-block crossings on arterials. One commenter said it is important to design standards for creating safe mid-block crossings. Response was that the discussions regarding mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross mid-block on high traffic roadways. Mr. Key has had a lot of discussion with staff and Mr. Olsen regarding mid-block crossings. As a general rule the TCC have not applied mid-block standards on arterials and collectors. Andy Epple Mr. Epple and TCC members agreed with Mr. Key’s summation of the TCC’s past response to mid-block crossings. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked for confirmation regarding the current wording in the Plan regarding mid- block crossings. He thought the plan says that mid-block crossings are discouraged or not recommended on arterials. If that’s the case, it doesn’t mean they are prohibited, it just means they aren’t recommended. Lee Provance Mr. Provance feels mid-block crossings are not only a safety issue but would cause more of a congestive atmosphere and a maintenance issue on arterials. Jeff Key Mr. Key read the section of the Transportation Draft plan that deals with mid-block crossings on page 9-28. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 9 Bob Murray Mr. Murray said that the administrative draft previously had language that dealt with mid-block crossings at arterials but after discussion with city staff and TCC members at the Chamber meeting it was decided to remove those sections and not have recommendations for collectors and arterials. From a city public works standpoint we don’t want to have standards for mid- block crossings on collectors and arterials but there are always special cases where things can be done differently. They are not however prohibited. Bob Murray Mr. Murray pointed out that there is some specific language regarding mid-block crossings still in the tables that Mr. Murray would like to have removed. Bob Lashaway Mr. Lashaway brought up the drawing regarding mid-block crossings and requested that the heading signify that the recommendation is for local streets. Public Comment Mr. Epple opened public comment on the subject of mid-block crossings. Ted Lange, Public Comment Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for a discussion to finalize the issues of mid-block crossings. Mr. Lange from Gallatin Valley Land Trust agrees with the comment that this plan should not recommend standard mid-block crossings. It absolutely has to be a case by case basis. He is however concerned that the current language is too strong against mid-block crossings. He feels it ignores the fact that people will still cross at some of these locations and there are a lot of variables to be considered. He’d like to turn the discussion around and see the language that was in the previous plan. He mentioned studies regarding mid-block crossings in Toronto. Mr. Lange handed out maps to show where he felt several should be including on Oak Street where pedestrians must go a long way to cross the street. He would recommend a traffic island on Durston Road it may also accomplish traffic calming. Ralph Zimmer Andy Epple Mr. Zimmer made a motion with a second from Rob Bukvich to insert language into the document to say ‘mid-block crossings of collector and arterial streets are strongly discouraged but may be considered in unique situations where adequate warning and protection are provided’. Jeff Key On page 10 of 66 at the bottom of the matrix was a comment about an I-90 and railroad bike/pedestrian overpass. There were quite a few comments about making this a priority for the non-motorized network. The I-90 and railroad bike/pedestrian overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of the Transportation Plan update. The recommendation Mr. Epple asked for a voice vote on the Motion. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 10 was left out of table 5-4 because it is part of a rail to trails recommendation and doesn’t actually apply to the road network. It is part of the Story Hill’s Rail Trail. The recommended action is to revise the table description to make clear what the overpass is and what the likely cost of that will be. One criticism has been that there really isn’t an accurate cost in this document. Joe Gilpen Mr. Gilpen explained that this facility follows an abandoned rail way alignment. One possible idea is to use the Montana Department of Transportation adopt-a-bridge program to get a one lane river or rail bridge that could be aesthetically matching. You would be dealing with relocation costs, modification and bridge deck railing improvements. A new bridge would be very cost prohibitive. This project would extend the main street to mountains trail. This project was built into the PROST plan. Jeff Key Mr. Key stated this is a very long term project. Mr. Key recommends that we expand the text, clarifying costs and what we are envisioning for it. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich pointed out that he feels it is a good project but the land is in private ownership creating right of way issues. Also the bridge is not there anymore because it hindered oversize traffic on the interstate so would need to be raised. It is a big project. Jeff Key Mr. Key stated that this is the type of language that should be added to the table. Bob Murray Mr. Murray added that he had serious issues with the cost estimate. He said requirements would make it a multi-million dollar project and we need accurate costs for it. Jeff Key Mr. Key reiterated that the consultants recommended action is to beef up the text in the table and include further cost estimates. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked if the group was in agreement with the recommendation made by Mr. Key. Ted Lange, Public Comment Andy Epple Mr. Epple stated that Mr. Key has a green light to go forward with this recommendation. Mr. Lange stated that this is something they’ve been pushing for. They agree with the recommendation and would like this as clear as possible. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that the comments on page 18 of 66 pointed out a technical error within the document with regards to the legend of Figure 1-1 that will be changed. Mr. Key would like clarification from the group however whether on figure 1-1 the study area boundary, we need the functional classification system within that graphic. We could remove all those colored lines that are adding confusion. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 11 Andy Epple Mr. Epple likes the idea of having the existing major street network. It’s not purporting the future street network. Discussion ensued regarding graphics and figures and how they should be portrayed. Bob Murray Mr. Murray feels that the graphic is fine the way it is. Kerry White Mr. White said that a road extension under discussion actually goes through private property and the figure is not clear as to whether it is a committed plan, etc. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that he could clarify things through the note process, recognizing that some of the MSN projects are not committed roadways at this time and right of way issues may exist and will have to be addressed during the development process. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked if there was consensus to have Mr. Key add clarification language. Ensuing comments from Mr. White and Mr. Provance confirmed that this language would be beneficial. Jeff Key Mr. Key continued on through the comments. Some were from city staff that wanted a few things clarified or revised. Mr. Key has addressed these and recommends simple revisions and changes as suggested by city staff. (Please see the matrix pages 19-22 for comments and the consultants suggested action for details.) Andy Epple Mr. Epple, seeing no arguments against these revisions told Mr. Key they were good to go. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that comment 28 has to do with the East Belgrade Interchange and transportation in that area. This is a very specific substantial project that has advanced to the EA process. No changes to the plan are recommended. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked that those comments be forwarded to him. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that on Page 25 were comments from Bob Murray. Bob Murray Mr. Murray stated that he was happy with the consultants suggested action and responses to his comments. Jeff Key Mr. Key went on to comment #32. He asked the group about item #2 on page 31 and whether they suggest adding an MSN project to the plan for reconstruct of these roads to urban standards out into the future planning horizon. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 12 Lee Provance Mr. Provance said the County has talked about doing that in the past year between the city and county. There is no in depth design standard though. There is a 60’ drop-off on one side and a huge hill on the other. It will probably be done in the next couple years. Discussion ensued regarding how to respond to item #2 on page 31 of the matrix. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich suggested not adding these items as an MSN project. Andy Epple Mr. Epple clarified that this would be the subject of maintenance as appropriate but not the subject of a major improvement at this time. Jeff Key Mr. Key moved forward to page 37, comment #40 from the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board. The third bullet on page 37 deals with the width of bike lanes and Mr. Key asked for clarification from TCC on this item. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked if the TCC would like to recommend changing the bike lane width to 6’ or stick with the standard 5’. The group decided to stick with the 5’ standard for bike lane width. Jeff Key Mr. Key spoke regarding the fourth bullet. See the matrix for the consultant’s action. The fifth bullet on page 37 was discussed next with Mr. Key requesting input. Andy Epple Mr. Epple addressed this bullet saying that the transportation plan is not where we address this. It should be addressed in our subdivision regulations and development codes. There are unfortunate cases such as at North 19th Bob Murray Mr. Murray agreed that this was out of the scope of this document. where multi-use pathways were constructed and they end in a rocky weed patch. He does feel they need to do some work on this, but this is out of the scope of this document. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich stated that a valuable part of this plan is identifying gaps so that local agencies can deal with them. Jeff Key Mr. Key moved ahead to page 38 of 66 which were comments from city staff Andy Kerr. Please see the matrix for consultants suggested action in response to these comments. Doug McSpadden Mr. McSpadden asked about the traffic calming comment and asked that we be careful about what traffic calming issues are. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 13 Jeff Key Mr. Key clarified that the comment regarding traffic calming was specific to the City’s petition process for a City program in place. Mr. Key then went on to page 55. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked if anyone had any issues or comments with any items on pages 39-55. Kerry White Mr. White asked about page 39, comment 43. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that there was really no controversy within the comment; it is a priority issue that we have no control over. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said there was nothing really to change other than prioritization through a CIP program or through a subdivision process. Deb Stober also appealed directly to the commission about this and it’s getting attention outside of the transportation plan. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that pages 55-57 are comprehensive and thought out comments regarding the North Seventh Conductivity Plan and that the comments state that the Transportation Plan is not within compliance of many of the concepts of the North Seventh Plan. Mr. Key said they have not ignored the plan. He understands the North Seventh Conductivity Plan is visionary, but on the transportation end of it, it cannot be replicated mainly because of road way standards. The road way standards shown in that document are not in compliance with federal highway standards for that kind of facility. That is probably the most controversial comment. He is not sure how to deal with that. Discussion ensued regarding this item. Jeff Key Mr. Key spoke about consultants suggested action for additional responses to these comments. Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich said that he’s talked to the North Seventh Urban Renewal Board and they have voluntarily given up on the round-abouts in intersections. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said that one option or reference to it is that if the city chose to take the North Seventh corridor off the urban route system there would be more flexibility to do more alternative road way designs than are currently afforded. He’s not suggesting that is a good idea but it might put things in context. It’s not so much that our plan isn’t in compliance with the North Seventh Conductivity Plan it’s that the North Seventh Conductivity Plan doesn’t comply with Federal highway and urban route design standards. There was no interest in pursuing this option. Jeff Key Mr. Key brought up the third bullet from the bottom of page 57 for discussion by members. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 14 Discussion ensued regarding the mentioned table and graphic related to this comment. Through discussion TCC members felt that no changes were needed. Ted Lange, Public Comment Jeff Key Mr. Key spoke regarding the comments on page 58 from Ted Lange. Many of the items have already been addressed. Mr. Lange said that the shared used path on the North Seventh Plan was the result of GVLT comments as well. The concept is getting over to Spring Hill for a fishing access and connecting to commercial nodes. For consistency purposes, Mr. Lange felt it might be worth keeping in the plan. Ted Lange, Public comment Mr. Lange brought up his comment regarding boulevard trees. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said that boulevard trees are a requirement in our development standards for the UDO. We have a hard time getting people to maintain and irrigate them. That requirement is covered through the UDO. The County does not really have boulevards. Jeff Key Mr. Key said that there are more comments in the last few pages but he didn’t feel there were any necessary changes in regards to those comments. Mr. Key has done every plan in Montana except for Billings in the last fifteen years and these comments were very good comments. He did not see nasty vindictive comments like he has in other areas. He feels generally the community is pleased. Andy Epple Mr. Epple would agree. He then asked for any other general comments. Chris Scott Mr. Scott said that on page 238 there are references to the Gallatin Valley Growth Policy and it should say Gallatin County Growth Policy. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer referred to the conversation earlier in the meeting regarding sidewalks and missing sidewalk sections, etc. and his on-going testimony about concerns regarding sidewalks that the Pedestrian and Safety committee has. This issue will be brought before the city commission at their January 20th Discussion regarding Mr. Zimmer’s motion. meeting. Mr. Zimmer would like to make a motion to encourage the city to adopt a comprehensive policy on sidewalk installation, maintenance and replacement. TCC came to the conclusion that this motion does not really belong in the Transportation Plan but may be entertained as a general motion of support outside of the Transportation Plan. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 15 Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer did not object to his motion being removed for consideration outside of the Transportation Plan. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said that the TCC’s charge now is to endorse a transportation plan for the greater Bozeman area with the modifications that we have made today as noted by Jeff Key and staff and their consultant recommendations. Rob Bukvich Kerry White Mr. White stated that he would have liked to see the group put in the equestrian material but he will support this document. He thinks it’s a great plan and Mr. Key has done an excellent job on it. Mr. Bukvich moved and Bob Murray seconded that TCC adopts this document with the appropriate amendments as discussed today and forward it to the appropriate organizations with recommendations for approval. Andy Epple Mr. Epple said the equine users have other avenues to pursue and he will personally support their concerns being addressed further. Andy Epple Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer asked whether the 66 page matrix would be going to the commissions. Mr. Epple, seeing no further discussion on the motion called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Andy Epple Mr. Epple stated that yes, the matrix would be forwarded to the commissions with the last column on the matrix being filled out by the consultant to reflect actions made today by TCC. This includes the public comment as well. Bob Murray Mr. Murray brought up that public comment is taken all the way up to the hearing date. Jeff Key Mr. Key will also place public comment after December 5th Andy Epple Mr. Epple said he expects the public hearing for these bodies to be towards the end of January or beginning of February, 2009. The commissioners might possibly have a joint hearing for this document. in the matrix but will not continue to respond to those new comments unless a commissioner requests a response. Additional materials will also be added such as the round-about graphics and other such material that will be ran through people like Rick Hixson and Bob Murray before being added. Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 16 Kerry White Mr. White asked if these materials would be prepared by the next TCC meeting date of January 28th Andy Epple Mr. Epple responded that yes, we will have the materials prepared and ready for that meeting. After that we should be able to get back to our quarterly meetings. . Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer requested a copy of all the revised materials before the commissions have public hearings regarding the Transportation Draft Plan. Andy Epple Mr. Epple asked for final comments regarding the Transportation Plan. ITEM 3. NEW BUSINESS Ralph Zimmer Andy Epple Mr. Epple reminded everyone that the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee will be appearing before the City Commission on January 20 A motion was made by Mr. Zimmer with a second from Bob Murray to encourage the city to adopt a comprehensive policy on sidewalk installation, maintenance and replacement. th Rob Bukvich Mr. Bukvich asked Mr. Zimmer if he wanted a more detailed sentence on how they want to do that. , 2009 and will have this if the motion passed. Ralph Zimmer Mr. Zimmer responded no, any details they’ll add at the commission meeting. Kerry White Mr. White brought up concern for recommending a policy that is unknown. Andy Epple Mr. Epple responded that the motion is to encourage the city to adopt a comprehensive policy. The TCC is not suggesting what that policy would be. Andy Epple Andy Epple Mr. Epple called for further discussion. He also thanked everyone for their time and effort in putting together the Transportation Plan. Seeing no further discussion on the motion, Mr. Epple called for a voice vote. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM. 4 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT Minutes of the Transportation Coordinating Committee, December 17, 2008 17 The next Transportation Coordination Committee will take place on January 28, 2009 from 10:00 to 12:00. The meeting was adjourned at 1:09 p.m. NOTE : THESE MINUTES ARE NOT WORD FOR WORD AND NOT EVERY COMMENT WAS INCLUDED. ______________________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee Prepared by: ______________________________ Aimee Kissel, Deputy City Clerk Approved on:___________________ Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 1 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 1 GallEP Gallatin Equestrian Partnership Proposal (October 29, 2008) Justification From the goals stated in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update, page 1-4, the goals listed are (I'm paraphrasing) functionality; variety of travel options allowing safe, logical and balanced travel; and that the plan support safe neighborhoods. Goal #3, bullet #2, listed on page 1-6 states that the plan "respect and ensure the area's natural and historic context and minimize adverse impacts the environment and existing neighborhoods." As GalIEP has testified before, the planning boundary for the Update includes areas currently and historically used by equestrian riders and drivers. They and other non-motorized residents have used the unpaved roads as a trail system. As these roads are paved with no shoulder and no trail, and traffic volumes and speeds increase, these roads become dangerous to both motorized and non-motorized users. Planning a trail that could accommodate equestrians would keep them off the road and "minimize adverse impacts" of road "improvements." Not planning for equestrian access to trails in equestrian neighborhoods is in direct contradiction to all the goals of the plan: functionality, safety, variety, respect of historic context and existing neighborhoods. With this in mind, we're proposing the following additions: 1. Page 1-6, #2 (Objectives): consider equestrian needs, where appropriate, when planning and designing new roads 2. Page 1-6, #2 (Objectives): add to bullet on widened shoulders /equestrian 3. Page 2-76: Add Section 2.3.22 (Existing Conditions/System Deficiencies): I could supply a photo of equine riders/drivers on narrow and dangerous in-area roads and would also like text something like the following: "There are no public trail systems in the City of Bozeman or anywhere in the planning boundary that allow for equine rider/driver travel. Historically, equestrians have used the rural road network of unpaved roads to travel between equestrian facilities, MSU and the Fairgrounds. As Bozeman grows, it is becoming increasingly dangerous for them to access these sites. 4. Chapter 4: Problem Identification: Make equestrian 4.8, move transit to 4.9: add something like: "The planning boundary for the Update includes areas currently and historically used by equestrian riders and drivers. They and other non-motorized residents have used the unpaved roads as a trail system. As these roads are paved with no shoulder and no trail, and traffic volumes and speeds increase, these roads become dangerous to both motorized and non-motorized users. Future improvements need to take into consideration all of these users. 5. Chapter 6: 6.1: Complete Streets: I noticed that the "policy" is now a "guideline," and that my chances are slim of getting mentioned here. However, by listing users and not including equestrians, we are by definition not users, which is inaccurate, and could have negative repercussions for us. My first choice would be to add into the second sentence of the guideline ... " ... equestrians, where appropriate,.. " . Using ''where appropriate" should alleviate the fear that we want, or should have access to, every trail planned. I believe in the complete streets policy idea, if it can accomplish The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 2 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) its goal of "accommodating all user…" but as it is written, it does not do this. In an effort to be supportive of the guideline as it would benefit the whole community greatly, would you consider adding into the second sentence after "including:" ... "but not limited to: .. " before you list the users? Obviously, this would have to be worked into the 6.1.2 Recommendation as well. 6. A Map! The cycling and pedestrian facilities have a map, the equestrian community needs one too, even if it is identified as "trails possibly allowing equestrian access". I have a photo-shopped version of the PROST map... Ted Lange, GVLT, has almost completed the GIS version ... If the Plan doesn't include a map, then by default, equestrians won't be allowed access. We could be landlocked in our own neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration. We appreciate all the hard work and careful consideration that has gone into this document, which we at GallEP believe will ultimately enhance the character of the community we all love so much. Thank you for your consideration. We appreciate all the hard work and careful consideration that has gone into this document, which we at GallEP believe will ultimately enhance the character of the community we all love so much. A draft map has been prepared and is attached to facilitate discussion at the TCC – for discussion purposes only. Discuss at TCC level. 2 Marianne Amsden (October 29, 2008) Dear TCC Members: Thank you for hearing the equestrian public's concerns today. In light of considering our requests (some minor text additions and a map), I invite you to consider three questions: Is there a problem? Yes...the Update is exacerbating a growing safety issue (mostly outside the city limits) by not allowing equestrians on the trails you already have planned in these areas, which forces them to ride on the road with increasing traffic. Does the TCC HAVE to do something? No, but that's the wrong question...the question should be CAN the TCC do something? Yes, it is within your perview to do a very little (for you), that would mean a great deal to us...a few words here and there and a map showing equestrian access (we don't need special facilities). and SHOULD you do something? Yes, because there's a safety problem (system deficiency), it would be consistent with the Update goals (functionality, safety, "respect and ensure the area's natural and historic context and minimize adverse impacts...on existing neighborhoods"), and because equestrians represent a large user group whose needs have not been addressed, not to mention that it is consistent with the City's vision and mission. Who would it benefit? Not only equestrians, but the whole community. With hard economic times coming, diversity may be what keeps this community vibrant--it's good planning to preserve what could become a unique niche in Montana. Equine opportunities are part of what draw people to the area. There will be coverage of the meeting on KBZK channel 7 at 5:30 and 10:00. If you miss it, it will be available on their website tomorrow or the next day at www.kbzk..com. For those of you who wish to explore this further, our exact requests are listed below, along with all the reasons for including us. Thanks again for your time. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 3 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 3 Marianne Amsden (October 29, 2008) I promise I won't inundate you guys, but here are some photos for section 2.3.22 Existing conditions/system deficiencies. Photo 0151 is our best pic, it was taken on South 3rd, within your boundary, 0013 is on Patterson, within your boundary, .0139 is on Graf by Fox Hollow. The photos are from our Ride-Into-Town event this summer 2008... Also, I'm already getting requests from people who couldn't make the meeting wanting to know where to send their public comment...what's the official site/address/email? Thanks The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. 4 Gallatin County (October 30, 2008) The County is seeing more and more urban type developments on the outskirts of Bozeman, which some of these developments in my opinion should be developed with the local street standards. Could there be more specifics on how the County could determine when to require the local street design standard. Is it lot size, density, type of use (commercial) that could be the deciding factor for requiring the local street design standard? This comment was made previously but was not addressed. An attempt has been made to address this with draft language envisioned to be placed in section 9.5 of the plan. This is intended for Gallatin County only and the draft language is currently being reviewed by the County. 5 Joe Gilpin (October 30, 2008) The following is a list of additions made to the Transportation Plan between the “Administrative Draft” and the “Public Draft”: 1. Story Mill Rd (L St. to Boylan Rd) – Construct sidewalks on both sides 2. Story Mill Rd (Boylan Rd to Mcilhattan Rd) – Construct sidewalks on both sides 3. L St (Story Mill Rd to Railroad tracks) – Construct sidewalks on both sides 4. Mcihatten Rd (Story Mill Rd to Agusta Dr) - Construct sidewalks on both sides 5. Changed Bozeman Trail Road to a bike lane. 6. Added Wallace Avenue as a bike boulevard (signage and stenciling ONLY). 7. Added the Rail Trail as a shared-use path. Additions 1-4 were added as these arterials and collectors had no pedestrian facilities. Requested by the city to be consistent with their plans for the corridor. Local roadway. Consistent with PROST Plan. 1. No change 2. No change 3. No change 4. No change 5. No change 6. Remove recommendation 7. No change 6 Marianne Amsden (October 31, 2008) Let us first explain why we think these changes are justified, using the goals stated in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. On page 1-4, the goals listed are (we’re paraphrasing) “functionality; variety of travel options allowing safe, logical and balanced travel”; and that the plan “support safe neighborhoods.” Furthermore, goal #3, bullet #2, listed on page 1-6 states that the plan “respect and ensure the area’s natural and historic context and minimize adverse impacts the environment and existing neighborhoods.” As we’ve testified before, the planning boundary for the Update includes areas currently and historically used by equestrian riders and drivers. They and other non-motorized residents have used the unpaved roads as a trail system. As these roads are paved with no shoulder and no trail, and traffic volumes and speeds increase, The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 4 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) these roads become dangerous to both motorized and non-motorized users. Planning a trail that could accommodate equestrians would keep them off the road and “minimize adverse impacts” of road “improvements.” Not planning for equestrian access to trails in equestrian neighborhoods is in direct contradiction to all the goals of the plan: “functionality, safety, variety, respect of historic context and existing neighborhoods.” With this in mind, I’m proposing the following additions: 1. Page 1-6, #2 (Objectives): “consider equestrian needs, where appropriate, when planning and designing new roads” 2. Page 1-6, #2 (Objectives): add to bullet on widened shoulders “/equestrian” 3. Page 2-76: Add Section 2.3.22 (Existing Conditions/System Deficiencies): We have supplied photos of equestrians on narrow and dangerous in-area roads. We would also like text something like the following: “There are no public trail systems in the City of Bozeman or anywhere in the planning boundary that allow for equine rider/driver travel. Historically, equestrians have used the rural road network of unpaved roads to travel between equestrian facilities, MSU and the Fairgrounds. As Bozeman grows, it is becoming increasingly dangerous for them to access these sites.” 4. Chapter 4: Problem Identification: Make equestrian 4.8, move transit to 4.9: add something like: “The planning boundary for the Update includes areas currently and historically used by equestrian riders and drivers. They and other non-motorized residents have used the unpaved roads as a trail system. As these roads are paved with no shoulder and no trail, and traffic volumes and speeds increase, these roads become dangerous to both motorized and non-motorized users. Future improvements need to take into consideration all of these users.” 5. Chapter 6: 6.1: Complete Streets: We noticed that the “policy” is now a “guideline,” and that our chances are slim of getting mentioned here. However, by listing users and not including equestrians, we are by definition not users, which is inaccurate, and could have negative repercussions for us. Our first choice would be to add into the second sentence of the guideline …”…equestrians, where appropriate,…” . Using “where appropriate” should alleviate the fear that we want, or should have access to, every trail planned. 6. We believe in the complete streets policy idea, if it can accomplish its goal of “accommodating all users..” but as it is written, it does not do this. In an effort to be supportive of the guideline as it would benefit the whole community greatly, we’ve included a second choice: would you consider adding into the second sentence after “including:” …”but not limited to:..” before you list the users? Obviously, this would have to be worked into the 6.1.2 Recommendation as well. 7. A Map! The cycling and pedestrian facilities have a map, the equestrian community needs one too, even if it is identified as “trails possibly allowing equestrian access”. A map is being prepared showing the routes we’d like access to. If the Plan doesn’t include a map, then by default, equestrians won’t be allowed access. We could be landlocked in our own neighborhoods. A draft map has been prepared and is attached to facilitate discussion at the TCC – for discussion purposes only. Discuss at TCC level. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 5 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Well, that covers it. Thank you so much for your consideration. We appreciate all the hard work and careful consideration that has gone into this document, which I believe will ultimately enhance the character of the community we all love so much. 7 Marianne Amsden (October 31, 2008) Wow, thank you so much. I actually don't have a copy of what I submitted, Ted didn't send it to me, do you know if there were any changes? On first blush, can you extend the Fowler route south to 19th? Also, there is a short connection missing on Goldenstein. Lastly, I'm realizing that I probably didn't highlight the Huffine Route. That has been requested by the equine driving community several times. They currently drive down the car lanes...I think we'd all be safer if there was room for them on the trail...they currently then go down Durston. I see you have a trail planned for Oak, I think that would be better for them than continueing to drive down Durston. How about Huffine to Fowler to Oak to Fairgrounds? Looking forward to hearing from you...Happy Halloween! The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. 8 Aimee Delvin (November 1, 2008) Please add GallEP's proposed additions to the GBATP Update! Having been raised in Bozeman, I remember in the late 70's when my sister and I used to ride our horses down Sourdough Road, past Goldenstein, down Rouse, and around to North 7th in order to get shots and worming for our horses. My mom would come by somewhere halfway with drinks and sandwiches for us. Back then, a trip by horseback 5 miles into town and then a few more to the other side was not dangerous. Sourdough Road was still dirt and only a few people lived beyond us. Nowadays literally hundreds of homes line the same road across from my home. In addition, the roads are now paved and cars whiz by no longer at a 25 mph speed, but with increased speed limits on all of those roads they travel at upwards of 40 mph. I wouldn't dream of letting my daughter do the same thing we did. Too bad for her, I guess you could say. You could help retain some of that old Bozeman flavor, though! Wouldn't it be great to honor the history of what has been a part of life in the valley before you came along? So many people come here to enjoy an equestrian lifestyle, and yet so many of them are completely land-locked, unable to safely ride anywhere. I once visited a friend in New Jersey. The small town she lived in had done an amazing thing! They had planned out equestrian trails leading in all directions through and around their town! I remember being shocked, that in such a highly populated area, they had made it feel actually sweet and charming by simply thinking ahead a bit, and allowing for horse traffic. It created such a nice historic feel, seeing people out enjoying the trails. Does that require just too much forethought for my hometown leaders? Please help create spaces for us to continue to use our horses in a way that honors tradition, safety, and beauty. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 6 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 9 Jennifer Mohler (November 5, 2008) Hello, I am emailing to ask the committee to incorporate GallEP's proposed additions to the GBATP Update. Growing up in Ft. Collins, Colorado, I have seen the landscape drastically and permanently changed by growth. I watched as my favorite trails and dirt roads got paved over, making travel by horseback dangerous at best. I watched as the explosive development erased the character that made Colorado great. I moved to the Gallatin Valley years ago because of the many amenities that this unique place has to offer. I have always had a great appreciation for agricultural and all that it brings to our quality of life. I became a founding director of the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators as a way to ensure that agricultural can continue to thrive in this valley. As a life long equestrian, I urge you to include GallEP's proposed additions to the GBATP Update. People who own horses contribute an enormous amount to the local and state economy, and should be considered as a valid user group. Please understand that horses provide a link for many to our history, our culture, and identity. People live in Montana because it's not any town USA, it's a vital and diverse people who embrace their culture history and want to see it continue. When subdivisions move into rural areas, the paved roads eliminate any safe mode of travel by horse. Unfortunately, when these changes occur, riders become landlocked and have no safe way to travel the roads they have used for decades. Please understand that it is critical for equestrians to be included in the plan and be recognized as the valid user group they are. The whole community benefits when all user groups are included. The update's goals state that this update should respect "the area's natural and historic context and minimize adverse impacts...on existing neighborhoods". In order to comply with the goals, equestrians must be recognized as a valid user group. Communities across the country have embraced equestrians and prospered for it. Don't let Montana become another causality of rapid and thoughtless development. Recognize and embrace the historic and cultural value that horses bring to a community. Thanks for your consideration, Jennifer Mohler The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. 10 Marianne Amsden (November 7, 2008) GallEP's board has now reviewed the Equestrian map you've prepared and we have the following requests in addition to the requests already made (1. extending access on Fowler to southern terminus and 2. adding Huffine from Four Corners to Fowler, Fowler to Oak to Fairgrounds and 3. completing gap on Goldenstien). The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 7 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 1. The only connection we'd have from the North West quadrant to the North East quadrant would be along Valley Center road. We're proposing Cameron Bridge from Jackrabbit to Harper Puckett to Valley Center east to the Frontage Road. Cameron Bridge is still dirt with equine properties and currently doesn't have the same development plans or volume as Valley Center. 2. Could you extend the Bridger Canyon access to the terminus on the east and terminus on the south and extend on Oak to the Fairgrounds? This would open many access points to the Fairgrounds on horseback. 3. Do you think it would be better to only show the routes that overlap the Updates shared-use paths? Are the others on the map for reference? As you know, we have nothing in the PROST plan currently and no idea yet what the City will accommodate. We are only asking for access to parts of five shared-use paths (of the sixteen or so shared-use paths in the TCC's current Update). We do not feel that special facilities are required in these areas because volume will not necessitate it. The equine-driving community also reviewed the map and our requests. We are all in agreement with you about not allowing equine-driving on the paths for the reasons you stated. We appreciate your excellent consideration of what's best for the whole community in this scenario. As an alternative, the driving community is asking for: 1. acknowledment that they are current on-road transportation users. 2. as such, they would like "route" designations. This could be accomplished through roadway signage. The most important route for them is from Gallatin Gateway on Hwy 191 to Huffine to Fowler to Oak to the fairgrounds. They would also like a route from the South either on Gooch Hill, Cottonwood or Fowler, when it is completed, to Huffine. They currently drive their wagons down these roads and are frustrated by the lack of consideration given by motorists. They are hoping signage would alert motorists to their presence and help make it safer for everyone. Thanks so much for your help. Could you please email me the new map when it is completed? 11 David Chambers (November 15, 2008) Dear Ms/Sir: I strongly oppose the proposed Highland Boulevard – Oak Street Connector discussed in the Draft Bozeman Transportation Plan. The area that would be needed for construction of this connector should be preserved as a wetland and wildlife refuge. The proposed road would effectively eliminate this area as wildlife habitat. This connector would also be unnecessarily expensive, probably involving the construction of an elevated roadway across the wetlands on the Highland Boulevard end, and a steep elevated section to cross the railroad tracks on the Oak Street end. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The recommended Highland Boulevard extension serves as a north/south connection that has many benefits to cross-regional traffic flow out to the planning horizon, as well as secondary benefits to reducing traffic through the Northeast portion of Bozeman. The construction of this project can be done to minimize the impact on the wetlands. The likely high project cost is not enough reason to remove the project from the list of recommendations. A project such as this is a long-term need and will take 10 to 15 years to develop. At this time it is important to set aside the right-of-way for a project of this magnitude. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 8 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 12 Kelly Walunis (November 17, 2008) Dear Commissioners, As an avid cyclist (commuting and pleasure), pedestrian, and mother of a young child, I fully support the adoption of the Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan and the future adoption of the “Complete Streets.” Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. 13 Larry Newman (November 17, 2008) I'll keep my comments brief. According to the Plan, I would be classified as an experienced cyclist (8000 miles in 2008), well traveled in Europe, and rode across the US in 2008. 1. The City is at great risk from the sidewalk projections on South Wilson. These projections either force a cyclist into traffic, risking a bike car accident, or a cyclist can hit the curb. On my cross USA trip in 2008, a rider stuck an identical projection in Alma, Michigan, and suffered a cracked hip. Alma was fortunate that the cyclist did not sue the City. The simple solution is to eliminate parking near these extensions and make a cycle path that cuts through the curb extension. The cyclist can pass through the opening without being forced into traffic. This is a common feature in the Netherlands, UK, Belgium, Sweden, and France. 2. In Chapter 8 of the draft transportation plan, most of the traffic calming measures ignore the impacts on bicyclists. When installing speed bumps of all types, leave an opening for cyclists. The above suggestions apply to multiple types of realignment features. 3. Americans, and American traffic planners in general, seem to think that traffic circles/roundabouts need to be large, requiring lots of real estate. They don't. Europeans repeatedly install numerous traffic circles on streets far narrower than any street in Bozeman, including ones as narrow as South 4th. They effectively slow traffic of all types, but drivers do have to be awake and sober. Yes, Americans drive a higher percentage of large SUVs, but a typical English village has large, dual wheeled tractors pulling ag machinery, Landrover SUV's, delivery trucks, and "Greyhound"-sized intercity busses successfully navigating these narrow village streets. And the traffic volumes are significantly higher. As noted in the draft Transportation Plan, traffic circles have 90 percent fewer accidents, and they handle higher traffic volumes more efficiently that signed intersections. Yes, we do have snow, but so do the Swedes, French, Germans, and Swiss — and they all use small traffic circles. Curb bulb-outs are a customary and acceptable form of traffic calming. They serve to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and also heighten the visibility of pedestrians to the travelling vehicles. Care does need to be exercised when designing and installing them such that there is adequate space for cyclists and also for storm drainage conveyance. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area. The effects traffic calming measures may have on the bicycling community should be looked at when incorporating any project. While traffic circles and roundabouts are both types of circular intersections, there are many differences between the two. Traffic circles are a type of traffic calming measure that is commonly used in residential neighborhoods. They do not generally require additional right-of-way for installation and are commonly installed on existing roadways. Roundabouts are different than traffic circles in that they handle higher traffic volumes, entering traffic yields to circulating traffic, and deflection controls the vehicle speed. Roundabouts are also larger than traffic circles, accommodate trucks, and generally require additional right-of-way and full new construction. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 9 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 14 Joan Montagne (November 24, 2008) I am excited to read the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan and to see how our comments were taken to heart. With everyone seeming to be interested in driving less, there are many more bikes and walkers around town than in the past. I am especially excited to see a comprehensive analysis of our community’s bicycle-pedestrian facilities and needs along with detailed recommendations for improvements. I really support a Bozeman to Belgrade (and vice versa!) Trail Route as envisioned. I support including this important vision. I support completing sidewalks & improving Intersections – neighborhoods such as Babcock between 11th and 19th and South 3rd south of Kagy. Sidewalks are the foundation of a pedestrian-friendly community. I support the recommendations for completing these missing links. The plan also proposes lots of important intersection improvements for increased pedestrian safety. Mid-Block Crossings on Local Streets – Our trails tend to follow streams, and streams tend to cross streets mid-block. It is very important to establish design standards for creating safe mid-block crossings for the pedestrians and bicyclists who use these trails. The mid-block trail crossing on Highland, 300 feet north of the Highland/Holly intersection (not along a stream) is a good example of a well-designed mid-block crossing, using a refuge island on a two-lane road. I support the proposed mid-block crossing standards for local streets. I am troubled at the plan’s failure to include mid-block crossing standards and recommendations for collector and arterial streets. Curb Extensions & Refuge Islands – These are important design tools for crossings at both intersections and mid-block. A good example is the recently installed refuge island at the Durston/North 25th intersection that has greatly increased the safety of this crossing for Emily Dickenson Elementary School students. I strongly support the recommended standards in section 9.7.1 of the Transportation Plan Update. Main Street Underpass – Last year the Main Street to the Mountains Trail System reached Main Street at the new library. A safe crossing on Main Street is now needed – either a signal at the Main Street/Broadway intersection or ideally, an underpass east of this intersection. I support the “Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network Improvements” map (figure 5-7) at the end of Chapter 5, and in Table 5-4 “Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements” (section 5.3.3). Safe Routes to School – The Transportation Plan references and supports the recently completed Bozeman Safe Routes to School Plan and includes some of the recommended Safe Routes to School projects. Good job! Bicycle Improvements & Shared Use Paths – Many important bicycle facility improvements including recommendations for constructing a number of 10-foot wide paved shared use paths (table 5-8), as well as bike lanes and expanded shoulders are included in section 5.4 and 9.7.2 of the Transportation Plan Update. I support these recommendations. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. This is a project recommendation and is shown in Figure 5-7 and Table 5-4. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 10 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Complete Streets – I support the “Complete Streets Guidelines” (Chapter 6 – section 6.1) for ensuring that streets are safe for all users including motorists, transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. I urge the City and County Commissions to adopt strong policies based on these guidelines. WHAT’S MISSING: I am concerned by the absence of Mid-Block Crossing Standards for Collectors and Arterials – Earlier drafts of the Transportation Plan Update included good recommendations for creating safe mid-block crossings on collectors and arterials (section 9.7.1). These recommendations have been removed from the current draft. I am very concerned that this decision represents a failure to acknowledge basic human nature, a failure to address existing unsafe situations (see below), and a failure to plan for preventing unsafe situations in the future. When I am confronted with a mid-block trail crossing on a collector or arterial, I lazily attempt to cross mid-block rather than travel 200 feet or more to an intersection. It is important to note that a well-designed mid-block crossing with a refuge island and good sight-lines can be safer than crossing at an intersection because cars are not turning, and only one direction of traffic has to be crossed at a time. Durston Mid-Block Crossing on West Side Trail – North of the Mall, the West Side Trail crosses Durston (a three-lane minor arterial) mid-block. This crossing is 230 feet west of the Durston/Greenway intersection and 210 feet east of the Durston/Hunters intersection. A refuge island could be installed in the center lane to create a safe crossing. I believe this project should be included in the Transportation Plan Update. Oak Street/Regional Park Mid-Block Crossing – Immediately south of the Regional Park, in the new Oak Springs subdivision, there is a major greenway trail that hits Oak 550 feet east of the Oak/Yellowstone intersection and 580 feet west of the Oak/Ferguson intersection. At this location, Oak will eventually be constructed to a four-lane arterial with a median island (it is currently two lanes and ends at Ferguson). Hundreds of new residences are being or will be eventually constructed south of the Regional Park and in the future, many children and other people of all ages will use this greenway trail to access the park and the new Chief Joseph Middle School north of the park. This mid-block intersection will become extremely dangerous unless it is designed to provide a safe crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is important to note that mid-block crossings on four-lane roads create a dangerous false sense of security for bicyclists and pedestrians unless the crossing is signalized. I believe it is critically important for the Transportation Plan Update to include plans for installation of a signalized mid-block crossing at this location. I-90 & Railroad Bike-Ped Overpass – Communities across our nation are creating safe bicycle-pedestrian overpasses across major barriers such as interstate highways and railroads. In our community, our best opportunity for such a facility is to construct an overpass across the railroad and I-90, connecting the abandoned railroad berms immediately northeast of the Village Downtown. I can remember using the old RR tracks to cross the Interstate before it was removed. I believe that as more subdivisions are developed north of I-90 there will be an increasingly significant need for this overpass. It would also provide a key link in the Main Street to the Mountain trail system. It is The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. Recommendations for mid-block crossings were limited to local streets. Recommendations for mid-block crossings were limited to local streets. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. This recommendation was left out of Table 5-4 because it is part of a “rails to trails” recommendations and does not really apply to the road network other than they are going over the railroad mainline and I-90. The recommended project is part of the “Story Hill Rail Trail” contained in Table 5-8. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 11 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) essential to include this big vision project in the Transportation Plan Update if it is going to have any chance of eventually being realized. Securing funding will be extremely difficult if this major project is not included in the Transportation Plan Update, because potential funders will assume that this project is not supported by the City, the County and MDT. While this overpass is included on the “Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network Improvements” map (figure 5-7) at the end of Chapter 5, it needs to be included in Table 5-4 “Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements” (section 5.3.3). Thank you for accepting my comments, 15 Anthony Sciolino (November 24, 2008) Robert Peccia and Associates, As a resident of Bozeman I want to express my concerns with the transportation plan. I want to stress how important it is that more access is given to non-vehicular traffic. Bozeman is a town full of people who enjoy being active in the outdoors, currently with the small trail system we have it is difficult to get across town without having to deal with crossing or walking along side a busy street. We need more trails and more access for pedestrians, bicyclist and for people on horse back. There are quite a few people in this town that want the ability to travel by horse and it’s almost impossible to do so now which makes it extremely important that this is implemented into the new plan so that this western tradition is preserved. If you want a place full of highways and busy streets with no equestrian or pedestrian trails go to any other town in this country. There is no reason Bozeman has to be like every other place, we don’t live here where its cold to be in a major city full of highways and busy streets. If you want a congested city with nothing but paved roads go move to one. Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. No changes are recommended. Discuss at TCC level. 16 Jay Rotella (November 24, 2008) I support the following comments regarding the proposed Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. WHAT’S GOOD: • Comprehensive bike-ped planning for the first time ever! This is the first time an update to the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan has included a comprehensive analysis of our community’s bicycle-pedestrian facilities and needs along with detailed recommendations for improvements. One of the nation’s best and most experienced bicycle-pedestrian planning firms - Alta Planning & Design http://www.altaplanning.com/ - was hired as a subcontractor to complete these sections of the plan. Please express your support for giving bicycle-pedestrian needs full consideration in this plan. • Bozeman to Belgrade Trail Routes – The plan includes several options for creating a Bozeman to Belgrade Trail. Please express your support for including this important vision. (See section 5.4.4 table 5-8 and map at the end of Chapter 5 of the Transportation Plan Update). Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 12 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) • Completing Sidewalks & Improving Intersections – The plan DOES NOT propose forcing neighborhoods to construct sidewalks where many homeowners don’t want them (like the New Hyalite View subdivision). Instead, it proposes to fill in the highest priority missing links in locations that are currently dangerous for pedestrians – such as Babcock between 11th and 19th and South 3rd south of Kagy. Sidewalks are the foundation of a pedestrian-friendly community. Please support the recommendations for completing these missing links. The plan also proposes lots of important intersection improvements for increased pedestrian safety. (See sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of the Transportation Plan Update.) Mid-Block Crossings on Local Streets – Our trails tend to follow streams, and streams tend to cross streets mid-block. It is very important to establish design standards for creating safe mid-block crossings for the pedestrians and bicyclists who use these trails. The mid-block trail crossing on Highland, 300 feet north of the Highland/Holly intersection (not along a stream) is a good example of a well-designed mid-block crossing, using a refuge island on a two-lane road. Please join GVLT in supporting the proposed mid-block crossing standards for local streets. (See section 9.7.1 of the Transportation Plan Update.) PLEASE NOTE that the plan’s failure to include mid-block crossing standards and recommendations for collector and arterial streets is one of GVLT’s greatest concerns. (See below) • Curb Extensions & Refuge Islands – These are important design tools for crossings at both intersections and mid-block. A good example is the recently installed refuge island at the Durston/North 25th intersection that has greatly increased the safety of this crossing for Emily Dickenson Elementary School students. GVLT strongly supports the recommended standards in section 9.7.1 of the Transportation Plan Update. • Main Street Underpass – Last year the Main Street to the Mountains Trail System reached Main Street at the new library. A safe crossing on Main Street is now needed – either a signal at the Main Street/Broadway intersection or ideally, an underpass east of this intersection. GVLT supports the recommendation included in the “Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network Improvements” map (figure 5-7) at the end of Chapter 5, and in Table 5-4 “Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements” (section 5.3.3). • Safe Routes to School – The Transportation Plan references and supports the recently completed Bozeman Safe Routes to School Plan and includes some of the recommended Safe Routes to School projects. (See section 5.3.1 of the Transportation Plan Update.) • Bicycle Improvements & Shared Use Paths – Many important bicycle facility improvements including recommendations for constructing a number of 10-foot wide paved shared use paths (table 5-8), as well as bike lanes and expanded shoulders are included in section 5.4 and 9.7.2 of the Transportation Plan Update. Please support these recommendations. • Complete Streets – GVLT strongly supports the “Complete Streets Guidelines” (Chapter 6 – section 6.1) for ensuring that streets are safe for all users including motorists, transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, the elderly and people with The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. This is a project recommendation and is shown in Figure 5-7 and Table 5-4. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 13 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) disabilities. Please join GVLT in urging the City and County Commissions to adopt strong policies based on these guidelines. WHAT’S MISSING: • Mid-Block Crossing Standards for Collectors and Arterials – Earlier drafts of the Transportation Plan Update included good recommendations for creating safe mid-block crossings on collectors and arterials (section 9.7.1). These recommendations have been removed from the current draft. GVLT is very concerned that this decision represents a failure to acknowledge basic human nature, a failure to address existing unsafe situations (see below), and a failure to plan for preventing unsafe situations in the future. We believe that when confronted with a mid-block trail crossing on a collector or arterial, a significant percentage of trail users will attempt to cross mid-block rather than travel 200 feet or more to an intersection. It is important to note that a well-designed mid-block crossing with a refuge island and good sight-lines can be safer than crossing at an intersection because cars are not turning, and only one direction of traffic has to be crossed at a time. • Durston Mid-Block Crossing on West Side Trail – North of the Mall, the West Side Trail crosses Durston (a three-lane minor arterial) mid-block. This crossing is 230 feet west of the Durston/Greenway intersection and 210 feet east of the Durston/Hunters intersection. A refuge island could be installed in the center lane to create a safe crossing. GVLT believes this project should be included in the Transportation Plan Update. • Oak Street/Regional Park Mid-Block Crossing – Immediately south of the Regional Park, in the new Oak Springs subdivision, there is a major greenway trail that hits Oak 550 feet east of the Oak/Yellowstone intersection and 580 feet west of the Oak/Ferguson intersection. At this location, Oak will eventually be constructed to a four-lane arterial with a median island (it is currently two lanes and ends at Ferguson). Hundreds of new residences are being constructed south of the Regional Park and in the future, many children and other people of all ages will use this greenway trail to access the park and the new Chief Joseph Middle School north of the park. This mid-block intersection will become extremely dangerous unless it is designed to provide a safe crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is important to note that mid-block crossings on four-lane roads create a dangerous false sense of security for bicyclists and pedestrians unless the crossing is signalized. GVLT believes it is critically important for the Transportation Plan Update to include plans for installation of a signalized mid-block crossing at this location. • I-90 & Railroad Bike-Ped Overpass – Communities across our nation are creating safe bicycle-pedestrian overpasses across major barriers such as interstate highways and railroads. In our community, our best opportunity for such a facility is to construct an overpass across the railroad and I-90, connecting the abandoned railroad berms immediately northeast of the Village Downtown. GVLT believes that as more subdivisions are developed north of I-90 there will be an increasingly significant need for this overpass. It would also provide a key link in the Main Street to the Mountain trail system. It is essential to include this big vision project in the Transportation Plan Update if it is going to have any chance of eventually being realized. Securing funding will be extremely difficult if this major project is not The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. Recommendations for mid-block crossings were limited to local streets. Recommendations for mid-block crossings were limited to local streets. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. This recommendation was left out of Table 5-4 because it is part of a “rails to trails” recommendations and does not really apply to the road network other than they are going over the railroad mainline and I-90. The recommended project is part of the “Story Hill Rail Trail” contained in Table 5-8. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 14 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) included in the Transportation Plan Update, because potential funders will assume that this project is not supported by the City, the County and MDT. While this overpass is included on the “Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network Improvements” map (figure 5-7) at the end of Chapter 5, it needs to be included in Table 5-4 “Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements” (section 5.3.3). 17 Greg Young (November 24, 2008) Dear TCC, I applaud your work on the transportation plan. Thank you. Please make sure that the I-90 pedestrian and cycle crossings are integral to the plan. Also make sure that in places where trails meet roads mid-block, that there are safe crossings. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. Recommendations for mid-block crossings were limited to local streets. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. No changes are recommended. 18 KC Cassidy (November 25, 2008) I want to use a bicycle to move around Bozeman, more than I do now - thank you for this comprehensive bike-ped plan!!! I'm excited about the: Bozeman to Belgrade Trail Routes, and safety issues like mid-block crossings, curb extension and refuge islands, safe routes to schools and the "Complete Streets Guidelines" that support street safety for all users. Without concerns for safety of pedestrian and bike travelers, the pathways would not be as well used. Please also consider: Safe Mid-Block Crossings, such as at Durston and North of the Mall and the Oak Street/Regional Park Mid-Block Crossing, and the I-90/Railroad Bik-Ped Overpass Thank you for the great job and I look forward to using more of the bikeways in the future The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. Recommendations for mid-block crossings were limited to local streets. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. No changes are recommended. 19 Tomas Gedeon (November 25, 2008) Hello, I would like to comment on the transportation plan for Bozeman. I bike to work daily from March to November about 5 miles from south of town. I really enjoy the bike lane on South 3rd. I have been almost killed by a car on Wilson where there is no bike lane and I am very encouraged that this new plan is taking the bikers and pedestrians seriously. I strongly support the Complete Streets program, improved bike lanes and shared used paths, I am excited about a path from Belgrade to Bozeman (Frontage Road around the airport is a Russian roulette on a bike). Refuge islands and bike friendly crossings are great. Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 15 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) I would like to see improvement in driver's recognition that the roads are not primarily theirs, but that pedestrians and bikers have the same right for that road. Couple of months ago I was in Italy, close to Napoli, which has completely crazy drivers, but they always and immediately yield to pedestrians even outside of the marked crossing. I am not sure how we can foster such culture, but putting more crossings, even mid-block and emphasizing pedestrians and bikers can lead to it in time. Pedestrian towns are much more lively and much more fun to live in, then drive-through strip malls. Thank you, 20 Susan Brewer (November 25, 2008) I read with alarm the editorial in the Bozeman Chronicle the other day. I am not a horseback rider, but I hate to see horses and riders and what they stand for fade from the Gallatin Valley, however gradually. Any limit to use, or not allowing for designated trails, is the beginning of a slippery slope to losing our heritage. I think it would be a tremendous loss. Therefore, I support GallEp’s proposal re the Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Update The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. 21 Pam Poon (November 25, 2008) Dear Sir: I live on the northeast end of Bozeman but work on the southwest end of town. While I have biked to and from work, it is not easy and can be very dangerous. My high school age daughter goes to and from the high school to Bronken fields regularly for soccer practice, but does not want to bike due to unsafe trails. Please consider my comments below on the proposed GV Transportation Plan Update. The current plan for cyclists has some excellent improvements and changes. However, it still needs Mid-Block Crossing Standards for Collectors and Arterials, a Durston Mid-Block Crossing on West Side Trail, an Oak Street/Regional Park Mid-Block Crossing, and an overpass at I-90 and Railroad. Recommendations for mid-block crossings were limited to local streets. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. 22 Cal Harrington (November 25, 2008) I greatly appreciate the attention to pedestrian and bicyclist needs of our city and county population in the current transportation plan. I particularly appreciate the attention given to the issues of safe crossings (especially at and near the library), bicycle lanes and safe sidewalks. I often travel up South 3rd south of Kagy, on foot, on my bicycle alone and also pulling my daughter in our trailer. Traveling the first several hundred yards south of Kagy is unnerving to say the least. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 16 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) I would like to add my two cents worth as well. It is difficult to feel safe traveling around downtown on bicycle with my family. Neither Main Street, nor Babcock, nor Mendenhal are managed to be conducive to bicycle traffic. While most drivers are courteous on these routes, visibility is limited for cross traffic on Babcock and Mendenhal and drivers frequently pass other drivers who are stopped for pedestrian cross traffic. Main street traffic is downright dangerous for most cyclists, the exception being cyclists on road bikes who are capable of riding at 20 - 25 mph and therefore can keep up with traffic. It seems that more and more cyclists of all ages are resorting to riding on the sidewalks indicating that the number of cyclists downtown is increasing and that the traffic infrastructure is insufficient to meet this demand. I also would like to see the issue of safe crossings at arterials and collectors addressed, as well as the possibility of an overpass of the railroad tracks and I-90 at the old abandoned railroad berms NNE of town. Unless a cyclist takes L St., or the trail west of there, there is no safe crossing of the railroad tracks and I-90. The other option I would like to see included would be a bicycle and pedestrian safe/ friendly route along Rouse from East Lamme south to Griffin Dr. Finally, I generally support all of the appreciations and comments put forth by the GVLT. Thank you for your time and attention. These streets are restricted by their size which limits the space available for bike lanes. The current section width of these roads does not allow for the addition of bike lanes without the removal of on-street parking and/or driving lanes. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. This plan identifies numerous locations along collectors and arterials where intersection improvements are recommended to accommodate pedestrians (see Table 5-4). No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. 23 Gina Himes Boor (November 25, 2008) Please accept the following as public comment on the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan: I applaud the use of street designs based on the "Complete Streets" idea in the current draft of the Transportation Plan. Thank you for including comprehensive planning that includes the needs of bikers and pedestrians! I would encourage full adoption of Complete Street Guidelines in order to make Bozeman a leader in creating a safer, more pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets. I commute on my bike to work and to run errands and would love to be able to feel safe riding my bike, and pulling my young daughter in a trailer behind me, anywhere in town. Currently, this is not the case especially on Main Street (or on any street) through the downtown area, on Babcock between 11th and 19th, on both north and south 19th, and on north 7th. I live in the New Hyalite subdivision on Highland Blvd. I would love to see a couple more mid-block crossings or at least curb cuts along the west side of Highland so that the path along Highland can be more easily accessed by bikes, pedestrians, and wheel chairs from the east side of Highland. I was disappointed to see that the recommendations for creating safe mid-block crossings on collector and arterial streets throughout Bozeman were taken out of this draft of the Plan. Please include these in the final Plan. I support the proposed Main Street underpass to complete the Main Street to Mountains trail system. I love the new trail south of the new library that added another link in that M2M plan. I use it regularly as I do many of the other shared-use paths around Bozeman. These are an important aspect of making Bozeman a wonderful place to live and I support all efforts to continue building more such paths. One such path that I think should specifically be included in the current plan is the I-90 and railroad overpass for bikes and pedestrians. It's an important project that needs support from the city of Bozeman. Recommendations for mid-block crossings were limited to local streets. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 17 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Although it shows up in the "Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network Improvements" (figure 5-7), it does not appear in the "Proposed" improvements in Table 5-4. Please make sure it is on the proposed list so that funding for that project can be more easily procured. Thank you for the good work done on this plan to date. It is a great improvement on the last plan and goes a long way in making Bozeman a nicer, more sustainable and livable place. Thank you! 24 Mary Harter (November 25, 2008) To whom it may concern, I understand there is a transportation plan underway for the Bozeman/Belgrade area and I would like to express my opinions concerning this. Incorporating bicycling and pedestrian trails, paths and cross walks both at lights and mid block make walking and riding our bicycles so much more appealing. I currently use the Bozeman inner city trail systems on a daily basis on the east end of town. This has made the east end of town a much more desirable place to live and housing prices reflect this. But I would love to see this extended toward the center of town and even to the west end of town on over to Belgrade. If there were linking trails and bicycle friendly streets I would be so much more inclined to ride my bike just about everywhere rather than get in my car. So please make this your #1 priority in developing the Bozeman-Belgrade transportation plan especially the following: • Mid-Block Crossing Standards for Collectors and Arterials • I-90 & Railroad Bike-Ped Overpass • Main Street Underpass on east Main near Broadway St. OR a light at Broadway The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. This is a project recommendation and is shown in Figure 5-7 and Table 5-4. No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. No changes are recommended. 25 Kay Ruh (November 25, 2008) Hello: I am so excited that the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan is looking at such a comprehensive solution to bicycle-ped traffic! My husband, an attorney, rides his bike to work every day. We also have two little girls in our lives that we ride bikes with all over town all the time. Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 18 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) As a 30-year community member, I strongly support mid-block crossings for local streets. The one on Garfield is essential for bike-ped safety. Bike lanes and extended curbs are a must, in my opinion. And some kind of crossing on East Main near Broadway and Lindley Park is SO NEEDED. That is a scary area, for bikers and pedestrians alike. A bike-ped path between Bozeman and Belgrade is also an important consideration. Frontage road and the 1-90 are not options! So many mid-valley residents could use this as a major transportation route to both Bozeman and Belgrade. This kind of planning not only encourages a healthy community, it also is what makes our area so attractive. It is these kinds of amenities that bring new citizens and tourists alike to our area, which increases our financial strength and stability. Thank you for considering my opinion. A number of recommendations for alternate paths between Bozeman and Belgrade are made in Chapter 5 of the plan. 26 R. Dale Beland (November 25, 2008) Please accept this letter as public input to the current draft plan. As the former Gallatin County Planning Director who initiated the participation of the County in the previous Plan, I am a strong supporter of this update. Please note that the Gooch Hill Neighborhood Plan (GHW Plan), unanimously adopted by the County Commission on February 27, 2007; amended the Gallatin County Growth Policy to include its plan goals and objectives. Section 4 of the GHW Plan describes planned land use and circulation for the 958 acres within the Plan area. A mix of business park and residential uses is intended as shown in the Future Land Use Plan, Exhibit 4-A. This plan incorporated the proposed westerly extension of Stucky Road to connect with Cobb Hill Road. Exhibit 11-A (Adopted Road Plan with Alternatives) describes this alignment. Since the County Commission has recently approved the first major increment of the land use plan (Woodland Park Phase I Major Subdivision), it is appropriate to make the Draft Trans Plan consistent with this adopted policy. Property within Phase I extends southerly to the proposed Stucky alignment. I note that Section 5.1.3 of the current draft includes “Recommended Street Network (MSN) Projects” which include: MSN-9: Stucky Road (South 19th Avenue to Gooch Hill Road); MSN-28: Stucky Road / Elk Lane Extension (Extension of Stucky Road west from Gooch Hill Road to the future connection of Elk Lane and Love Lane). Both projects are described as two-lane collector roadways with bike lanes and sidewalks. However, Figure 1-1 shows MSN-9 as a “minor arterial” and excludes MSN-28. Therefore, we ask that Figure 1-1 and related portions of the Draft Trans Plan be amended to incorporate this Stucky alignment including both projects, and that the roadway classifications be clarified. If I have misunderstood the draft plan in these matters, please correct me. Our Woodland Park development team, including Hyalite Engineers, would be happy to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. These connections are collector roadways. The legend in Figure 1-1 is incorrect and the collector and minor arterial roadway designations are reversed. Also, Figure 1-1 is intended to provide existing roadway segments and functional classification, and gaps in the transportation system are not shown on this Figure as dashed lines (these are shown later in the Plan on Figures 9-1 & 9-2). It is our understanding that MSN-28 is a gap along this facility and is not yet constructed, so therefore would not be shown on Figure 1-1. The legend of Figure 1-1 will be changed to correctly identify collector and minor arterial roadways. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 19 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 27 Rick Hixson (November 25, 2008) 1. Page 2-55 - The caption under photo 17 is wrong. There are no rumble strips on Bridger Drive. 2. Figure 3-21 (Previous Comment) - Something is wrong with the volumes on Fowler. One of the things that is wrong with the figure is that Fowler now extends south of Huffine and connects to Garfield which connects to South 19th. This will make a difference in the model, I guarantee it. 1. Revisions will be made. 2. This comment is related to a previous comment regarding South 19th Avenue “v/c ratios” as contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter. I will attempt to offer an explanation of what the model is calculating and not calculating. I will then offer a proposed change to the affected graphics. The existing calibrated model was for year 2005 conditions. The future year model (2030) is the existing conditions (2005), plus the committed projects (defined as affecting capacity, funding has been obtained, and the project will be built within five years). It appears, though, that projects that have been built on the ground between 2005 and 2008 were not included in the future year model (2030). This needs to be changed and re-run, and we are prepared to do so. This will change the volumes and “v/c ratios” around the area you have specified (i.e. Fowler, S. 19th Avenue, College, etc). That being said, there will still be some high v/c ratios and volumes for future year conditions until which time a stronger, gridded roadway network can be realized. The recommended roadway network that was analyzed as part of chapter 9 shows volumes and v/c ratios if the MSN projects are built and connected. The numbers are much more palatable if the gridded system is developed. Additionally, a large amount of land use assignments were forecasted along the South 19th Avenue corridor, which ultimately results in traffic generation. After some serious research into the future year (2030) model results, represented graphically on Figure 3-17 & Figure 3-21, it appears that the following links should be added to the model to more accurately represent the model output of future year conditions (2030): 1. We will revise the caption to read “…Bridger Drive has a variable shoulder along much of its length.” 2. The inclusion of the bulleted links in the adjacent column will be made in the future year (2030) model run and will affect Figures 3-16, 3-17, 3-20 and 3-21. We do not, however, expect any recommendations will change as a result of tweaking this future year (2030) model run. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 20 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 3. Page 4-13 (Previous Comment) - In four places on this page North 7th Avenue is called North 7th Street. 4. Page 5-19 (Previous Comment) - Kagy/7th is NOT a committed project. 5. Table 5-3 (Previous Comment) - Remove " ... and poorly developed property." from the North 7th Avenue items. 6. Page 6-2 (Previous Comment) - It needs to be made clear that there is no need to upgrade a facility when maintenance is being performed. I can't envision any kind of maintenance which should trigger a requirement to make a physical change to the section. SO, add the following: 6. When routine maintenance is being performed. 7. Page 8-3 (Previous Comment) - Item 2) at top of page - change "contain" to "restrict". 8. Page 9-3 (Previous Comment) - In the fifth line on the page change "to" to "of'. • 27th Avenue (between Oak and Baxter) • Davis Lane (between Oak and Baxter) • Oak Street (between New Holland and Ferguson) • Ferguson (between Durson and Oak) • Fowler (between Huffine and Garfield) • Garfield (between Research Drive and Fowler) The Fowler Lane extension and Garfield connection will likely affect volumes & v/c ratios the most, but only in that small area of the model. We don’t expect the other links to have a significant effect on volumes or v/c ratios, however for completeness they should probably be added as well. 3. This comment was contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter and was inadvertently missed in the “Public Draft” document. 4. Revision will be made. 5. This comment was contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter and was inadvertently missed in the “Public Draft” document. 6. This comment was contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter. In the “Public Draft” document, we chose to address this by adding a paragraph on page 6-1 (last paragraph) that specifies that major street improvements are not a requirement for maintenance activities. 7. Revision will be made. 8. Revision will be made. 3. The required text changes will be made to the four references in error (i.e. North 7th Avenue instead of North 7th Street). 4. This project (CTSM-6) will be removed as a committed project and changed to a recommended project. 5. The required text changes will be made to the two locations in table 5-3 currently on page 5-30 of the “Public Draft” document. 6. Item number 6 will be added to page 6-2 as requested (i.e. when routine maintenance is being performed). 7. This text change will be made. 8. This text change will be made. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 21 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 9. Page 9-4 - First sentence, second paragraph - streets should be singular, not plural. 10. Page 9-11 (Previous Comment) - Second sentence, paragraph 2 - insert the word "formal" between any and right. 11. Figures 9-7 thru 9-12 (Previous Comment) - We insist on receiving DIMENSIONS FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY on these figures. Assume a design vehicle and a conservative design and give us dimensions. If you have questions, call either Bob or myself. 9. This was part of a previous comment contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter & as inadvertently missed in the “Public Draft” document. 10. This comment was contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter and was inadvertently missed in the “Public Draft” document. 11. We attempted to address this by adding a conceptual area on each of the graphics to distinguish extra right-of-way required for a roundabout versus that of a traditional traffic signal. This was easily obtained through the FHWA roundabout design manual. However after visiting with Bob Murray on the telephone on November 26, 2008 and in person on December 4, 2008, we think we have a better understanding of why you need this and what you are intending to use it for. 9. A text change will be made to make such that the reference is singular (i.e. street). 10. The word “formal” will be added between “any” and “right” to read “…without any formal right-of-way agreements or easements”. 11. We propose that on each of the roundabout figures we place a “needed right-of-way line” that is not defined on the graphic according to road classification (i.e. local, collector, minor arterial, principal arterial), but rather is a “general” right-of-way line that shows right-of-way for each quadrant of the figure. Then, letter designations can be added to define the right-of-way lines such as dimension “a”, dimension “b”, dimension “c”, etc. – however many are needed to represent the information. A table can then be created that would show required right-of-way for each of the defined dimensions on the graphics for the various potential intersection types (i.e. collector-collector / arterial-arterial / etc). In the table, needed right-of-way dimensions can be computed and defined, for both the small inscribed diameter and the large inscribed Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 22 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 12. Figure 9-13 (Previous Comment) - There is also a 33 foot standard. Add it. 13. Page 9-26 - Last paragraph - high pedestrian use areas should not be capitalized. 14. Page 9-27 (Previous Comment) - Since the heading says "Marked crosswalks should be used (emphasis added) get rid of the last bulleted items. We do not want to encourage mid-block crossings. 15. Page 9-28 (Previous Comment) - First line – replace '... are advisable…" with "may be useful". 16. Page 9-31 (Previous Comment) - Here is my previous comment: "Somewhere in the Shared-use path discussion it needs to be stated in no uncertain terms that shared use paths should only be installed when they can be installed on both sides of the roadway". Here is my new comment: Add the following bullet to the list: • The paths are provided on both sides of the roadway. 12. This comment was contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter and was not addressed in the “Public Draft” document as we were instructed to remove it based on discussions at the February 26, 2008 TCC meeting. 13. This comment was contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter and was inadvertently missed in the “Public Draft” document. 14. This comment was contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter and was inadvertently missed in the “Public Draft” document as part of the mid-block crossing change. 15. This comment was contained in your October 7, 2008 review letter and was inadvertently missed in the “Public Draft” document. 16. We attempted to address this by adding a pretty significant discussion about sidepaths at the bottom of page 9-30 and the top of page 9-31. We added to the top of page 9-31 the following language as well: “…sidepaths should be provided on both sides of the roadway to reduce the numbers of bicyclists travelling against vehicle traffic”. diameter. Areas would be based on assumptions on vehicle size, however this could be done rather easily (I think) in a CADD platform to compute accurate areas. 12. We will leave this section out of the transportation plan, as directed by Bob Murray on our December 4, 2008 meeting. 13. The words “high pedestrian use” in the last paragraph on page 9-26 will be modified such that these words are not capitalized. 14. The last bullet item on page 9-27 will be removed. 15. The words “are advisable” will be replaced with “may be useful” in the first sentence on page 9-28. 16. We will add the recommended bullet to the list as requested. 28 Scott and Heidi Benowitz (November 26, 2008) We are writing to comment on the draft version of the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Updates), herein referred to as the Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft Plan. Our comments are … Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 23 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 1. I-90 Belgrade Interchange/Amsterdam Road terminus at Jackrabbit Lane. The April 20, 2007 technical memorandum describing the study area boundary of the Plan refers to the 2001 update to the Plan, and contains two maps: one for the 2001 update, and one for the 2007 update. The map for the 2001 update includes both the north and south entrance ramps to the I-90 Belgrade interchange. The 2007 update map in the memorandum and the maps in the Plan only show the south entrance ramps to this interchange. As the technical memorandum does not state the north ramps are exempt from the 2007 update, I am assuming this interchange is completely within the study area boundary. The Plan does not address this interchange, nor consider any modifications to this interchange. This comment is directly related to #2 below, the East Belgrade Interchange. Due to the proximity of this interchange to the Amsterdam Road terminus at Jackrabbit Lane, this interchange does not adequately allow east-bound Amsterdam Road traffic to access the I-90 east-bound ramp on Jackrabbit Lane. This is a severe traffic constriction, especially during morning traffic periods. Another east-bound on-ramp should be constructed to allow east-bound Amsterdam Road traffic direct access to I-90 east-bound without having to go through the Jackrabbit Lane intersection. This issue should be addressed in a future revision of the Plan. 2. East Belgrade Interchange (Plan MSN-20). This proposed interchange is to “serve the Belgrade and airport areas”, and “is necessitated by the future development in the region and the need for more adequate connection to the airport”. This single improvement is the most expensive item in the entire Plan. This proposed interchange will serve no purpose unless it is connected to the Frontage Road to the north and to an arterial to the south. So in addition to the costs for the interchange itself, we also will have the financial burden of building new roads from the north and south to allow the interchange to fulfill its purpose. While this area will surely see future development, and as a result will produce more traffic, we believe there are more economical methods to achieve better access to the airport with similar results. The airport is currently accessed from Bozeman and those areas east of Bozeman via the Frontage Road; and from the western/southern portions of the county via Jackrabbit Lane. We believe the Plan should instead focus on improvements to these existing access routes to allow better access to the airport, which should reduce infrastructure costs. Access to the airport from Bozeman and east of Bozeman should continue to emphasize and utilize the Frontage Road. This road should be changed to a Principal Arterial to allow for the increased traffic from anticipated growth in the greater Bozeman area. This change in road designation and the resulting change in road cross-section will allow safer travel along this corridor. Access to the airport from the western/southern portions of the county via Jackrabbit Road, Amsterdam Road, and the Belgrade/I-90 Interchange (see comment #1) should continue to be the primary access route, rather than pushing more through traffic on to Love Lane (see comment #3). Traffic from Jackrabbit/Amsterdam Road to the airport could be routed east on to the Alaska This interchange is outside of the study area boundary for this transportation plan update. This interchange is outside of the study area boundary and was therefore not analyzed as part of the recommendations process. This matter was discussed at the TCC at previous TCC regular meetings, and the MDT is aware of some public interest in providing a direct connection. It is unknown at this time, however, whether any studies are planned or in process that would assess the impact of a direct connection from Amsterdam eastbound on I-90. The East Belgrade interchange project is currently in the Environmental Assessment (EA) phase, which is the environmental documentation phase leading up to project design and construction. This project has been in the works for many, many years, and is sufficiently advanced in project development activities that we are essentially treating it as a “given” in the Transportation Plan update. We are relying on the EA for the specifics being put forth through that project for inclusion into the Transportation Plan document. There are spacing and right-of-way limitations for the frontage road that would preclude it from becoming a five-lane, added capacity principal arterial. This includes proximity to the railroad right-of-way. There are future planned upgrades to Jackrabbit lane in the form of an expanded, five-lane roadway section. This is currently being designed this type of improvement, though, does not negate the need for a future arterial along Love Lane. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 24 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Frontage Road, then across a new I-90 overpass/underpass (similar to the Valley Center/Frontage Road underpass), then connect with the Frontage Road to the airport. This new overpass/underpass will be expensive, but not as expensive as a new interchange. Upgrades to Jackrabbit should allow for this additional airport traffic, rather than pushing more traffic on to Love Lane. While we understand how your traffic computer models show benefit in reduced traffic times by implementing the proposed East Belgrade Interchange and upgrades to roads leading to it from south (primarily Love Lane), the modeling does not reflect the upgrades we have presented above. 3. Love Lane. This road is listed as a Principal Arterial-non Interstate in the Plan. By definition, the “major purpose of the non-interstate principal arterial is to provide for the expedient movement of traffic. Service to abutting land is a secondary concern.” Assigning this definition to Love Lane is contradictory to the future development envisioned in this portion of the county, as evidenced by the preliminary zoning designation in the four-corners planning effort. The four-corners planning effort envisions the undeveloped land abutting Love Lane to be primarily residential, with the exception of the southern terminus near Huffine Lane (mixed use that includes residential). Service to Love Lane from the future residential development will be a primary concern, not a secondary concern as defined by a Principal Arterial designation. Love Lane should be re-classified as a Minor Arterial in the Plan to help assure there will be no access restrictions for future development such as are contemplated on other Major Arterials in the Plan. Given the projected land use along Love Lane, using it as a major corridor to the Airport from the southern portion of the County seems ill-advised, and contrary to the needs of the community. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments. Love Lane is not only intended to provide a long-term connection to the airport, but also to serve land use growth and connectivity needs out ot he 20 year planning horizon. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. 29 Peter Aengst (November 26, 2008) I am writing to comment on the update of the Bozeman Transportation plan which I recently reviewed at the library. Please consider my comments in making any changes and adoption of this important plan. As background, I own a home in southside historic district, have lived in Bozeman for 15 years, and extensively use Bozeman city roads and trails in my bike commute to work and for walking with my one year old. Overall, I think the plan gets many things right. Especially important is its recognition of need for comprehensive planning for biking and pedestrian facilities and future needs with city growth/new development. I fully support section 5 of the plan where it recommends completing sidewalks and improving several intersections for safety. This is critical as there are several busy places (west Babcock, South Third beyond Kagy, etc) that are quite unsafe as now set up. I also support the need to have some sort of Main Street crossing by the library/Broadway area. However, I do not think it should be another light there but ideally a pedestrian underpass/overpass. This would connect library, Lindley park to growing north side of Main businesses and future homes. Finally, I like the plan’s section 6 part on “Complete Streets Guidelines” that would ensure that streets are safe for Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 25 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) all users including motorists, transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. The City and County Commissions should adopt strong policies based on these guidelines. There are three areas where I think the plan could be improved/strengthened: 1. There should be a recommendation for firm standards on mid block crossing for collectors and arterials. This includes for refuge islands mid street so that bikers and pedestrians can safely cross and not have to deviate hundreds of feet to an intersection (which most won’t do). This doesn’t have to mean more lights but just a pedestrian warning sign, crosswalk, island, etc… 2. There should be more details and emphasis given to effective street cleaning/sweeping of bike lanes in City and County. Right now this is not sufficiently done and is a disincentive to some who would bike commute. It makes sense if we are going to invest in bike lanes and routes that we also ensure they are in good condition for use. 3. The I-90 and railroad bike/pedestrian overpass is a great idea. It needs to be included in Table 5-4 “Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements” and not just on the figure 5-7 map. Somewhere there needs to be built a connector for just pedestrians/bikers over the major barrier of I-90/railroad and the area east of Rouse and by village downtown is probably the best location given where new home building is going in and the land trust’s plans for main street to mountains trail system. Please emphasize this overpass in the plan so that it can be clear to developers and government funders in future and happen. Thank you for considering my comments, The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. There is a discussion about street sweeping bike lanes in Chapter 2 and Table 2-14 lists the bikeway maintenance activities and frequency. The plan also does note that the FY ’09 budget includes money for a street sweeper and employee time specifically to sweep bike lanes. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. 30 Bob Murray (November 26, 2008) 1. Comment 1 – Page 5-2, Item 19 (July 10, 2008) - This item has not been completed, and will now only go to Tschache. 2. Comment 10 - Page 5-18, Item 44 (July 10, 2008) - The connection of Hulbert (now Catamount) with Valley Center has been eliminated. It will now only go from 27th west. 3. Comment 20 - Page 5-38, 5-39 (July 10, 2008) - Quite a few of these are local streets which we don’t stripe, and contradicts the discussion later in chapter 10 about bike lanes on local streets. 1. This comment was contained in your July 10, 2008 review letter. . It is our understanding that this project (i.e. North 15th Avenue) has been completed between Durston and Patrick Street, so it was left as “partially completed” in table 5-1. 2. This comment was contained in your July 10, 2008 review letter. We initially had changed this intersection project (i.e. Hulbert and Valley Center) from “not completed” to “completed”. It is now clear to us that this intersection will never exist, 3. This comment was contained in your July 10, 2008 review letter. The streets recommended for bike lanes (as contained in table 5-5 on page 5-32), that are not designated as collector or above, include the four following facilities: 1. We would propose to change the text in table 5-1 to read “…partially completed, will now only extend to Tschache”. 2. We propose on changing the text for TSM 44 on page 5-17 to “…not completed, not carried forward in Plan update”. 3. The four referenced bicycle lane additions, all of which are on local roadways, will be removed as recommendations from the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 26 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 4. Comment 24 - Page 6-22 (July 10, 2008) - This all needs to be dialed back. I am all for the education (I wasn’t aware it was illegal), and giving lights to kids, but giving them out to college age and up and at all the other events listed is overkill in my opinion. 5. Also, I had a bad reference in comment 7 which seemed to result in MSN-9 being dropped. There is still a section of Durston which needs to be completed. Comment 7 – Page 5-8 (July 10, 2008) MSN-6: The portions that have been constructed are all the 3 lane and 5 lane minor arterial standard. MSN-7: The portion between 19th and 27th was approved as a private street • Fallon Street • W. Garfield • Tschache Lane • W. Lake Road The discussion in Chapter 9 (i.e. Public Draft) does state that “…bicycle lanes are generally found on major arterials and collector roadways”. 4. This comment was contained in your July 10, 2008 review letter. The discussion is contained on page 6-21 and 6-22 of the “Public Draft”. These types of programs are becoming more and more common. Missoula just implemented their “Bike Light” program (link below). missoula bike light program 5. I think this all goes back to the first draft of the preliminary recommendations. At the time, there was a recommended project (MSN-9: Durston Road – North 19th Avenue to Cottonwood). This was dropped in the packet because we thought that Durston Road was built out between North 19th Avenue and Cottonwood? I believe the section you are referring to that still needs to be completed is Durston between Ferguson and Fowler. This has been addressed. This has been addressed. Transportation Plan. 4. We would like to leave this in because we think it is a good educational tool. We propose, though, to remove the first two paragraphs at the top of page 6-22, along with the poster graphic. The remaining bullet items on page 6-22 could be boiled down to just a simple sentence, without all the narrative to go with it. The “dutch” photo can be removed as well. This would significantly pare down the entire discussion, but allow it to still remain in the Plan. 5. We will add a recommended MSN project for this link (i.e. Durston Road between Ferguson and Fowler) Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 27 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) without curb and gutter. MSN-8: Don’t like this link, it was one we talked about early on as changing. MSN-10: This has been completed to Fowler. MSN-10: The sections that have been constructed are all the 5 lane principal arterial standard. 6. Comment 15 – Table 4-2 (October 3, 2008) - Why wasn’t 7th and Kagy included? 7. Comment 16 – Page 4-8 (October 3, 2008) - Warrant 2: “(on direction” should be “(one direction”. 8. Comment 20 – Page 5-3 (October 3, 2008) - CMSN-4: This is a minor arterial, not a collector. 9. Comment 23 – Table 5-2 (October 3, 2008) - Item 44: A reference is made to TSM-14, but that is a different intersection. This was removed/modified. This has been addressed. This has been addressed 6. This comment was contained in your October 3, 2008 review letter. In reviewing the scope of work for the project, dated March 27, 2007, this intersection did not make it into the scope of work. We’re not necessarily sure why it didn’t – there are many intersections that potentially could have been included, but after two iterations and subsequent modifications to the intersection list, this intersection was not specified. We did have six intersections listed as “yet-to-be-identified” for counting purposes, however we used those up in the work plan because we had to go count several intersections over again because the TCC (mainly JP) was adamant that certain intersections be counted when certain public schools were in session. This intersection was on the “committed project” list from the City’s CIP program and has been treated as committed in our eyes up until Rick’s review letter dated November 25, 2008. Typically, the committed projects have developed far enough along that design and mitigation is known and completed. 7. This comment was contained in your October 3, 2008 review letter and was addressed in the “Public Draft” document (see warrant 2, page 4-8). The same comment also should have applied to warrant 3 on the same page. 8. This comment was contained in your October 3, 2008 review letter and was inadvertently missed in the “Public Draft” document. 9. This comment was contained in your October 3, 2008 review letter. See explanation correlating to comment 2 above in this matrix. We did remove the reference to TSM-14 in the Public Draft version, however it is now clear to us that this intersection will never exist. 6. No changes are recommended. 7. The text listed for warrant 3 will be changed from (on direction only) to (one direction only). 8. The referenced text will be changed from “collector” to “minor arterial” as noted. 9. We propose on changing the text for TSM 44 on page 5-17 to “…not completed, not carried forward in Plan update”. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 28 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 10. Comment 27 – Page 5-25 through 5-26 (October 3, 2008) - The majority of items TSM-29 through TSM-47 seem to be just something you stuck in based on some public comment. I don’t feel they should be included unless they are your recommendations. 11. Comment 32 – Table 5-10 (October 3, 2008) - The majority of Oak that exists west of 19th within the city limits is already constructed with standard sidewalk. 12. Comment 40 – Roundabout Figures (October 3, 2008) - Need to provide range of right of way required for each of the options. 10. These projects were reviewed as a result of your October 3, 2008 review letter, and a number of them were removed for the Public Draft. They do now reflect our recommendations. 11. This comment was contained in your October 3, 2008 review letter. Table 5-10 in the “Administrative Draft” is now Table 5-8 in the “Public Draft”. This fact is not lost on bike comments, but the intent was to plan for this corridor to eventually connect the west part of developing areas and the west part of the city with the fairgrounds and eventually trails along Rouse Avenue linking to the “Main Street to the Mountains” trail. It is not expected that this project would be undertaken anytime soon, as more pressing needs exist. 12. We attempted to address this by adding a conceptual area on each of the graphics to distinguish extra right-of-way required for a roundabout versus that of a traditional traffic signal. This was easily obtained through the FHWA roundabout design manual. However after visiting with Bob Murray on the telephone on November 26, 2008 and in person on December 4, 2008, we think we have a better understanding of why you need this and what you are intending to use it for. 10. No changes are recommended. 11. We will remove this language from the Transportation Plan regarding a “shared use path” along Oak Street. 12. We propose that on each of the roundabout figures we place a “needed right-of-way line” that is not defined on the graphic according to road classification (i.e. local, collector, minor arterial, principal arterial), but rather is a “general” right-of-way line that shows right-of-way for each quadrant of the figure. Then, letter designations can be added to define the right-of-way lines such as dimension “a”, dimension “b”, dimension “c”, etc. – however many are needed to represent the information. A table can then be created that would show required right-of-way for each of the defined dimensions on the graphics for the various potential intersection types (i.e. collector-collector / Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 29 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) arterial-arterial / etc). In the table, needed right-of-way dimensions can be computed and defined, for both the small inscribed diameter and the large inscribed diameter. Areas would be based on assumptions on vehicle size, however this could be done rather easily (I think) in a CADD platform to compute accurate areas. 31 Erich Pessl (December 1, 2008) To whom it concerns, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the update to the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. With the rapid population growth in the Gallatin Valley, this updated plan initiates the appropriate changes to our old-school transportation plan. I would only like to recommend the following additions to the current plan: 1. Mid-Block Crossing Standards for Collectors and Arterials 2. Durston Mid-Block Crossing on West Side Trail 3. Oak Street/Regional Park Mid-Block Crossing 4. I-90 & Railroad Bike-Ped Overpass Thank you for your excellent work on this proposal that will certainly make our community a better place to live! Thanks for your support. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. N/A No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. 32 Hal Stanley (December 2, 2008) Dear Sir or Madam: I am responding to the proposed Transportation Travel Plan 2007 Update for Bozeman and Vicinity. I live near Bridger Creek Golf Course, so you will note lots of my comments focus on the Northeast section of Bozeman. I am a long time bicyclist and have tried to increase the use of my bicycle for commuting and doing errands around town. So my comments will also be focused on this mode of transportation. First, I would like to applaud all involved for lots of good work in developing this very thorough plan and increasing the focus on bicycle transportation. It would be cool if lots of this plan could be implemented very quickly, but I realize this is fiscally difficult unless the new federal government focuses on our infrastructure with funds to localities to implement projects. At least there is a thorough plan which can be worked against and revised. Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 30 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) My overall comment is not meant to be divisive, but to challenge the community. I believe the current plan still overly focuses on automobiles as the dominant means of transportation. The assumptions developed in Chapter 3 seem to extrapolate on what happens now instead of looking at how we might change patterns of transportation. I would challenge the creators to look at disincentives to automobile transportation and much more aggressive ways to make it easy to walk, bike, and take public transportation. Even if we could replace the carbon emitting vehicles of today with more environmentally friendly vehicles like plug-ins or hybrids, the reality is individual transportation in vehicles requires much more real estate and infrastructure investment. As Bozeman grows congestion will get worse even with the good projects proposed by this plan. The need to accommodate individual vehicles makes the city less livable and our lives more hectic and strained. Future planners have been advocating small communities within communities where people can walk or bike to most stores, work, and recreation. In this regard, I believe a transportation plan must be developed in conjunction with a total city plan which works towards these kinds of changes. It seems the current transportation plan just accepts the way things are and tries to accommodate our continued sprawl. I would like to see Bozeman do some radical changing of patterns to set it as a livable community the envy of every other in the world. We are still small enough that major change of direction could happen. I realize I am one voice, but maybe there are others out there you have heard similar thoughts from and if so I challenge you to create a plan that visualizes a much different less automobile centric future. One example is how Main street is handled and viewed as a Principal Arterial. I know that the downtown merchants vetoed attempts to change the downtown area of Main street into more of a mall with no traffic several years ago. I think this was a mistake for both them and all of us who want a robust downtown of local shops. I would challenge the community to revisit this and create a vision where the downtown portion of Main street is only available for public transportation and bicycles with substantial changes to the current street so it is smaller to accommodate only public transportation with expanded walking mall type facilities. I think this would encourage both locals and tourists to enjoy our robust downtown and keep it special. Higher traffic volumes of the future will only discourage people from coming downtown. I know this sounds expensive and crazy, but why not put one or two additional parking garages on the periphery of downtown and create a light rail type transport that moves from parking garages down the middle of Main with stops each block. Certainly there is the challenge of moving traffic east to west thru Bozeman, but I think alternatives could be developed. I think this plan should at least think outside the box and propose a few alternate scenarios of visions for the future like this instead of just extrapolating what we have now into the future. My more detailed comments are as follows: 1. I especially applaud your section 9 comments on various traffic calming methods and their effect on cyclists. I would like to emphasize the harm of shoulder rumble strips such as exist on Huffine Lane and Springhill. Because these are collectors of things that give cyclists flats, few cyclists want to ride on the other side and so we ride on the traffic side which is more dangerous than without the strips. I would There are many hazards and challenges to accommodating bikes, peds, and vehicles on the same transportation system. This plan attempts to provide a multi-modal view of the transportation system while balancing the needs of all users. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 31 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) like you to emphasize and recommend as high priority changing dangerous grates on streets pointing them out throughout the city. Also I don’t think you mentioned how dangerous RR crossing tend to be like the one on Rouse. In order to get across safely the one on Rouse must be approached from the middle of the lane moving toward the side so as to meet the tracks perpendicularly. There is little space there to do this since the road is narrowed. Currently it is extremely dangerous to cyclists. The neckdowns, chokers, and angle points mentioned should not be allowed in this day when bicycle commuting is on the rise. Recent projects like Wilson have made the street more dangerous to cyclists. 2. I may have missed it, but I didn’t see recommendations to pave McIlhattan thru to Story Mill or Story Mill and L Street from Bridger Road to the train depot. These are in my mind very high priority projects for encouraging more options to travel on Rouse. 3. MSN-23 has a RR underpass on Griffin, but I did not see something similar for Rouse where I believe it is a much higher priority. 4. In your Alternative Scenarios Figure 3-23 the AS2 could be much more aggressive and helpful if it were to head north from Main directly to Story Mill with a I-90 underpass or overpass. There could also be an exit from I-90 here which would take traffic going to Bridger Canyon off city streets and funnel it directly. 5. I think the AS-1 interchange off I-90 at the airport should be one of the highest priority recommendations. The frontage road is currently clogged and dangerous because this exit doesn’t exist. 6. I encourage more direct recommendations for use of Full Closures to make neighborhoods more livable and encourage cycling versus vehicles. 7. I also feel more aggressive recommendations of Roundabouts and where they might go is needed as they are in my mind a much preferred method to stop signs and stoplights for both traffic flow efficiency and safety. 8. I would like more emphasis on the Bozeman to Belgrade trail with maybe a specific section explaining it. I think this should be a priority plan to make the community more bike friendly. Currently one must take a circuitous route to Belgrade to find bike friendly roads as no one in their right mind would ride the frontage road. 9. I also support and would like to see more emphasis on completing and expanding the current bike and pedestrian trail system in Bozeman. For example the Main Street to Mountains North to South with an underpass at Main Street and solutions for connecting up from Main Street to the trail that ends near the train depot. 10. Mid-Block crossing of trails across Collectors and Arterials should be reinstated as I know I will not go to the corner, but will rather find a way directly across. I believe most people will do the same and not accommodating this will increase danger. These might be good candidates for long term improvements, especially if MSN-24 is ever realized. This would be extremely difficult along Rouse. This modeling scenario was intended to analyze the effects of an extension to Highland Boulevard would have on the network. This is already considered a high priority project. Full closures are not without their disadvantages…they can block links to roads and businesses which can increase travel time and therefore traffic congestion, pollution, etc. This plan recommends a number of locations for the implementation of a roundabout or suitable traffic control device. There are a number of trail alternatives between Bozeman and Belgrade discussed in Chapter 5. A Main Street underpass or pedestrian signal is recommended in Table 5-4. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. Suggest adding an MSN project to plan for reconstruct of these roads to urban standards out into the future planning horizon. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 32 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 11. The I-90 and RR Bike-Ped Overpass is an excellent idea that should be pushed to the front of projects and listed in Table 5-4. I tried to read most of the plan, but if I missed something and my comments are incorrect or don’t take your work into account, I apologize. Once again I thank all of the contributors for a great work and hope my comments don’t seem detrimental, but rather supportive of continued progress. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. 33 Mary Keck (December 3, 2008) Dear Scott, It is with great difficulty that I write to you with my comments on the Bozeman Transportation Plan. Our son, Collin, was killed in September riding his bike to work in Sumner, WA. The bike path from the new apartment complex where he lived led to a busy two lane road with no shoulder. He was run over by a gravel truck. We are working to fix that unsafe road in Washington, but we are also deeply concerned about bicycle safety here in Gallatin Valley. In the update of the transportation plan, a great opportunity exists to provide creative, safe routes for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Thank you for your work in helping bring about good change. The most important point I want to make is that on roads where speeds exceed 25 mph, the safest place for bicyclists and pedestrians is on a shared use path off the roadway. A bicyclist cannot stay up with traffic at higher speeds, and dangerous situations develop when motorists pass bicyclists. The majority of bike fatalities occur when the bicyclist is overtaken (hit from behind), due to the higher speeds involved. Specifically in considering a Belgrade to Bozeman route, an off-road shared path would be the safest, for all users. In the interim, I believe the Frontage Road to Belgrade, and Valley Center Road should be closed to bicycles. Very real hazards exist there with the high rates of speed and the lack of shoulder on along most of the roadway. Providing trail connections are also vitally important. Leading riders and pedestrians down a trail or bike path and then dumping them out at an unsafe place is irresponsible. We have the space in the Gallatin Valley to provide for all users. Many other places are constrained more by topography or existing development, we have an opportunity to do things right here. Mid-block crossings are a good solution as they eliminate the complicating factor of turning traffic. One of the top priorities should be the mid-block crossing near parks. One final point, I think bike lanes between driving and parking lanes are a bad idea. A better solution would be a shared used path off road where bicyclists are not creating a hazard as they try to avoid cars pulling out or parking. The proposed improvements along This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. Shared-use paths may require additional right-of-way which may not exist along existing routes. They also add additional conflict points at access locations to the main roadways. On-street bike paths have been proven to be a safe alternative to bicyclists. There are a number of shared-use paths recommended in Table 5-8 as alternative trails between Bozeman and Belgrade. This plan attempts to address locations where links between paths, trails, and sidewalks are not connected. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. The end of Chapter 9 discusses shared lane markings and how they can be used to help safely accommodate bike paths and parked vehicles. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 33 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) North Rouse would be an example of where one shared use path along one side of the road, could improve safety within the space constraints along that roadway. Contrary to the laws, bicycles are not a vehicle. They are much more like a pedestrian in their vulnerability. These important changes should be stipulations in the updated Transportation Plan not just recommendations. A strong plan will effect real change. It will protect all users and save lives. Thank you for considering my comments. 34 John Preston (December 3, 2008) Thank you for the work you have done on the Transportation Plan and for the opportunity to comment. As a resident of Bozeman for 17 years and as a year-round bike commuter, road bike racer, and elementary teacher I have seen the best and worst in bicycle related planning and action. We have room for much improvement. As a commuter and "roadie" I am an advocate for bike lanes that allow cyclists to travel on a variety of our streets and roads - we need to have safety and efficiency if we are to make commuting work. Commuters should not be expected to travel only on back streets and bike paths - they won't always get us where we need to go! That said, I also believe in shared use paths that can accommodate a variety of users - these are especially important for families and less mobile members of our community. Along with this we need safe routes to school in order for our children to walk and ride to their schools - they need the exercise and we don't need the cars on the streets! A safe route from Belgrade to Bozeman has been sorely needed for years and I hope it is something that can become a reality - there is currently a missing link for riding in our valley! I had not heard of the overpass over the interstate idea and find it intriguing - what a valuable link from south to north that would provide. Like I said in the beginning, I hope your plan helps us move towards a more bike/ped friendly community! Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. 35 Nancy Padilla (December 4, 2008) I am glad to see this improvement appear on page 5-37 of the report: Oak St. Gooch Hill Rd. N. 19th Ave. 3.06 Improve or build to Shared Use Path Standard. Links regional park, to points East. $750,000 I live near this area and walk on West Oak often. It is not a pleasant experience by day, and is terrifying at night. I hope that something can be done soon to improve the safety of the portion of West Oak that I will attempt to describe as follows: there is a sharp curve in the road with no shoulder and high concrete barriors to keep the cars in their lanes. It is very unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Having a shared use path would be Thank you for your positive feedback. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 34 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) IDEAL. But it is so expensive that it probably won't happen very soon. I hope something can be done right away to improve safety. The Regional Park is very nice and is getting more use all the time, which makes the situation increasingly dangerous. Thank you for an excellent report. 36 Alan Jackson (December 4, 2008) This is to encourage the acceptance of the proposed equestrian related additions to the Bozeman Transportation Plan as submitted by the Gallatin Equestrian Partnership. As a resident of Bozeman since 1976 my family has enjoyed the equestrian recreational opportunities here. The attraction of having horses was in large part our reason for choosing this area. The adoption of the changes presented by GallEP into the Transportation Plan will continue to attract people to this nascent forward thinking community. We are so lucky to live in this beautiful place and have people willing to insure our children and grandchildren will have the same opportunities that we enjoy. Therefore I urge those concerned to act favorably on the proposed additions. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. 37 Orville and Margaret Bach (December 4, 2008) I am pleased to see more emphasis given to bicyclists in this plan. Even though my wife and I are 62 years old, we much prefer to use our bikes to run errands, commute to activities, etc. rather than drive. The reasons are obvious. We doubt that the price of gas will remain at current low levels. The prices above $4.00 were just killing us, so it made sense to leave the car in the driveway. The health benefits are obvious, not to mention the cleaner air with few emissions. Unfortunately, we do not live within the city limits and we find ourselves disconnected from town. We hope that you will incorporate a connected system of trails and lanes that will truly allow folks all over the valley to have a viable means for walking and riding bikes. It would be wonderful if we could do that for commuting to work, running to the store for a jug of milk, to the bank to make a deposit, or to the post office to mail a letter--rather than always having to drive a car. Thank you. This plan has intended to provide a mixture of projects, both for motorized and non-motorized, to serve the city of Bozeman and Gallatin County. No changes are recommended. 38 Jeanne and Norman Eggert (December 5, 2008) Dear Officials, We have been following the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan update for the past two years, and are very pleased that pedestrian and bicyclists' concerns were taken into consideration. We are happy with the openness and inclusiveness of the process to the public, the thoroughness of the consultants' work, and with their recommendations. We believe that Alta Planning & Design have done an outstanding job. As active members of GVLT, backers of the Bozeman/Belgrade trail, and avid bicyclers, we support the update. We have lived in Bozeman for 42 years and have watched the city Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 35 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) expand and the traffic swell to the point that many bicyclers and pedestrians are afraid to commute or recreate. With the energy crisis, and the need for safe streets, it is crucial that the recommendations of the update become top priority. We are particularly supportive of the several options for a Bozeman to Belgrade trail, refuge islands, the Main Street underpass, safe routes to schools, complete streets recommendations, and the many improvements of bicycle paths and shared use routes. Although curb extensions are useful for pedestrians, they cause bicyclers to enter the traffic flow which can be unsafe. Although we are happy to see mid block crossings on local streets, which will increase the safety of our bicycle/pedestrian trails, we are concerned that these mid block crossings do not extend to collectors and arterials. We support GVLT's recommendations that mid block crossings also extend to North of the mall where the West Side Trail crosses Durston, and the Oak Street/Regional Park mid-block crossing. We also support the I-90 & Railroad Bike-Ped Overpass. Thank you for your consideration. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. No changes are recommended. 39 Greg Beardslee (December 4, 2008) Dear Planners, I am greatly encouraged by the direction that Bozeman area transportation planning has taken. Planning for the future non-motorized transportation is finally recognized to be not only important, but critical. Giving people safe bike and pedestrian routes, in order to provide for welfare and efficiency of daily commuting is key to having a functional environment in which to live and work. Creating one or two useful Bozeman to Belgrade bike routes is an important aspect of this plan that must be one of the forefront goals to achieve. The bottleneck area of the N. 7th railroad overpass, combined with the planned abandonment of Red Wing Lane, will create a dangerous situation for bike commuters who live in the Springhill area. There must be a dedicated bike corridor, at the minimum, a gravel trail, to connect the Springhill intersection with the N. 7th/Griffin Drive area. On the City’s plan for an industrial Park on the Mandeville Farm property, it should reflect a continuous useful path from the Northwest corner to the Southeast connection of the abandoned Red Wing Lane. The plan does not contain wide enough road sections to accommodate pedestrians or bikes of either commuters passing through or going to work. Improving sidewalks for pedestrians in key dangerous areas is very important. Both of the suggestions that have been brought to me, East Babcock between 11th and 19th, and along S. 3rd south of Kagy, have been problem areas for years, and should have been improved for pedestrians many years ago. Please adopt mid block crossing standards as recommended by GVLT. These standards go beyond blue sky wish list items, and will make pedestrian crossings in certain locations as safe as is practical. Please adopt the Complete Streets guidelines. Witness the previously mentioned planned industrial subdivision, where the city itself is reluctant to provide adequate street width, which will create a hazard for pedestrian and bicycle movement. So even the enforcer, the A proposed pedestrian facility and wide shoulder along 7th Avenue between Springhill and Griffin Drive is recommended in Chapter 5. There are proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities for these roadways. The Complete Streets guidelines included in the plan are provided as guidelines for officials to adopt a policy if they wish. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 36 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) City of Bozeman, balks at the expense of planning adequate paths when the improvement must come from the city’s development budget. Complete streets is needed to ensure safety into the future. This should not be a recommendation for development, but a requirement. Mid block crossing standards are important. Recognizing basic human behavior is important. When a route terminates at a mid block location, and an attractive destinations beckons directly across the street, a crossing is not always practical or safe to construct, yet one must acknowledge the desire for people to risk crossing at those locations. A standard that places obvious signage directing bicyclists and pedestrians to the nearest safe crossing point should be adopted. Every mid block crossing improvement recommended by GVLT should be strongly considered and acted upon as priority items. GVLT mentions both the Durston Mid-block crossing and the Oak Street mid block crossing as near future hot spots for safety improvement. I strongly support a proactive approach to repairing the shortcomings of these non-motorized crossings. The new award winning trail that ends to the east of the Public Library will eventually need a crossing to the north of Main Street, and the recommended underpass to the East of Broadway could not only fill that role along the old rail road right of way, but also be a much needed safe crossing during the summer for the many pedestrians traveling to and from Lindley Park. A temporary solution of a signaled pedestrian crossing at Broadway may work, but westbound traffic can have a difficult time stopping for a traffic signal at that intersection when the roads are icy. Please stay the course on adoption of all recommended safe routes to schools. Children deserve safe routes and parents deserve the opportunity to not worry obsessively about their children’s safety going to and from school. The I-90 overpass, which GVLT mentions as a desired route to restore, represents both a blue-sky project, and a situation that should never have happened. When a perfectly useful railroad bridge was removed from that crossing many years ago, I remember remarking that that would have made an excellent trail corridor for hikers and pedestrians. Well, now here we are, almost 20 years later, realizing that error and needing it incorporated into the transportation plan. Please recognize this bridge location as a desired component for a future connector trail, and include it in the recommended pedestrian improvements and the proposed pedestrian intersection improvements. I wish to point out that the Bozeman High School is a major barrier preventing east-west travel north of Main Street. Prior to 9-11 there used to exist, a policy of a pass-through for pedestrians and bicyclists midway along the connecting enclosed hallway between the High School and Middle School. When this pass-through was closed, a barrier was created. A new pass-through or underpass tunnel should be planned as part of the High School remodel improvements. Bike routes terminate at 11th Street, yet people often must continue somehow across the High School. If forced north, bicyclists must cross Durston to proceed east, then cross Durston again to get back on route. If forced south, they typically must ride illegally on the Main Street sidewalk because of heavy Main Street traffic. The former pass-through recognized human nature and provided an answer, which is currently lost at this point in time. An underpass for the hallway would be an easy and desirable fix for this situation. In the Transportation Plan, please recognize the High School and its present configuration as a significant barrier to east-west non-motorized travel. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. Where applicable, SRTS projects that have been recommended on collectors or arterials have been included in this plan. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. Thanks for your comment. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 37 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 40 Jon Henderson (December 4, 2008) Below are comments from the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB) regarding the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update). The board would like to thank all those involved during this update process on a job well done. It is very clear that a concerted effort was made to incorporate cycling needs into every aspect of the plan. We are proud of this work and look forward to years of improved safety and access to bike facilities throughout the study area. This document will serve as our ultimate recommendations to be considered for the final draft of the plan. Please contact us if you have any questions or require further information. Thank you again for your thoughtful work on this important guiding document! • The Bike Board would like to propose that the Complete Streets Recommendation be changed from ‘guideline’ to ‘policy’. We strongly encourage the formal adoption of a Complete Streets Policy for both the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County. A policy is the only way to ensure effective principles will be applied on each project. Whereas, a guideline would allow too much interpretation as to whether these practices would actually be enforced. • The Bike Board recommends stronger language for maintenance from Gallatin County. We believe that the needs of the City of Bozeman are adequately addressed, but more effort should be made on behalf of Gallatin County to properly maintain shoulders (i.e., remove debris) and other bicycle facilities. • The Bike Board recommends a 6’ bike lane for Minor Arterial Street Standards to allow for more spacing between moving vehicles on these high capacity, high speed roadways. Also, bicycles towing child trailers can be quite wide and a wider bike lane on these roadways would enhance children’s safety. To accommodate this improvement, we suggest narrowing the boulevard depicted with the 2 lane option and reducing the turning lane/raised median depicted with the 3 & 5 lane options. 13’ turning lanes should provide more than adequate spacing for all vehicle types. • It would be helpful to put Tables 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, in alphabetical order by street. • The analysis shows that relying on staged development to get bike facilities in place is problematic, and results in lots of gaps (i.e., in shared-use-paths). Yet in the recommendations for bike facility improvements, we did not see a recommendation that for improved policy for how these paths get constructed (i.e., not waiting for each parcel to be developed). Perhaps we could include some alternatives that would improve policy to create consistency along an entire corridor all at once. Thank you for your comment. The Plan does not set forth policies, and previous discussions about Complete Streets have resulted in basic comfort level with the term “Guidelines” instead. It will be up to the local agencies to put forth a formal “Complete Streets Policy” for consideration by your elected officials. At one point during this Plan development we had thought about a 6-footbike lane on minor arterials, however during multiple iterations and review, the 5-foot bike lanes on minor arterials were ultimately recommended for consistency. 6-foot bike lanes can be accommodated by reducing the size of the boulevards on the minor arterial roadway section. Chapter 5 non-motorized tables were put into alphabetical order, however chapter 2 tables were not. This sounds like a valuable idea, but we have no idea if the current policy needs restructuring or not? No changes are recommended. Discuss at TCC level. We propose to put the information contained in tables 2-10, 2-11 & 2-12 in alphabetical order. Discuss at TCC level. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 38 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 41 Andy Kerr (December 4, 2008) Some comments: 8.4.1 – should have a recommendation that speed bumps should not be used on public streets. 8.12 – it should be noted somewhere that Traffic Calming for existing streets is limited to local streets only. TSM2 – still looks like there is a problem with the description, maybe it is supposed to be “Willson Ave, Olive to Main Street”. Figure 5-7 – don’t see a legend description for what a solid green line is supposed to be. Table 5-3 – hard to believe Oak Street from 7th to 11th (south side) didn’t make the cut for recommended sidewalks. There should be a note that full street improvements are necessary before sidewalks can be constructed along almost all of these street segments on this list, and the cost estimate is for sidewalks only. N. 13th should be S. 13th (College segment). Thanks for your comments. Thanks for your comments. Yes, this should be “Willson Avenue (Olive Street to Main Street)”. The solid green line represents existing facilities. There is a proposed shared-use path for this location. Thanks for your comments. Will add a sentence to the end of the last paragraph on page 8-4 that “…speed bumps as defined herein should not be used on the public street system, and are more applicable to private roadway facilities, accesses and parking lots”. Will add a sentence to the first paragraph under section 8.12 that “…the City’s traffic calming program for existing streets is intended for application to local streets only”. Heading of TSM-2 will be changed to read “Willson Avenue (Olive Street to Main Street)”. Will amend Figure 5-7 to include the solid green line in the legend. No changes are recommended. Text will be added at the end of section 5.3.2 on page 5-29 that “…in general full street improvements are necessary before sidewalks can be constructed along almost all of the street segments contained in Table 5-3. Cost estimates provided are for sidewalk construction only. Change N. 13th to S. 13th in Table 5-3. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 39 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 42 Tamzin Brown (December 4, 2008) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan update. I live west of Bozeman near Four Corners and my main interest is rural roads and maintaining corridors for non-motorized uses such as equestrian, bicyclists and pedestrians. I support and endorse the proposed additions to the plan submitted by the Gallatin Equestrian Partnership, as follows: 1. Under "Objectives" (p.1-6, #2): add "consider equestrian needs, when appropriate, in planning and designing new roads." This ensures that shoulders are wide and flat enough for equestrian traffic. It also would allow for "Equestrian Trail Crossing" signage where appropriate in equestrian neighborhoods and near equestrian facilities such as the Gallatin County Fairgrounds. 2. In Chapter 4, "Problem Identification", add a subsection for "equestrian": "The planning boundary for the Update includes areas currently and historically used by equestrian riders and harness drivers. They and other non-motorized users use the unpaved roads as a connecting trail system. As these roads become paved with no adequate shoulder or adjacent path, and as traffic increases in sped and volume, these roads become more dangerous to motorized and non-motorized users alike. Future road improvements need to take into consideration all users." 3. In Chapter 6, "Complete Streets": when listing users of streets, please include "equestrians, where appropriate". 4. Include a map showing equestrian shared access roads and trails. Thank you for your consideration of equestrian concerns. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. 43 Deb Stober (December 4, 2008) I've reviewed the Bozeman Transportation Plan documents online and would like to address additional areas of concern that need immediate attention on the northwest side of town. I live on Valley Drive, a privately owned, public access gravel road in the county that runs between Durston and Babcock, just east of Fowler. As Fowler is currently open only half way between Durston and Babcock, our road receives much more cut-through traffic than it was ever intended or designed for. We have had increased costs for additional gravel and grading, constant dust, and ever increasing speeding traffic. People get frustrated when they try to use Fowler to go from Durston to Babcock and find out that it doesn't go through. Then they speed recklessly through our very quiet road without concern for the children, animals, or dust that we have to breath. I'm sure that you want to know why we don't pave. Well, we have all been put in payback districts to pay for Durston and Babcock, and as square footage of lots was the basis for payback, we get the glory of paying far more than everyone else. A condo/apt. building on the same size lot that may have 12-20 vehicles might split the cost 6 or 10 ways while we have to pay the full amount. Around $5,500 if my memory is correct. That's about what it would cost us to pave our road, without the additional expenses of forming an RID. I'm sure there are not many Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 40 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) people with an extra $10,000 stashed away to pay for roads right now. Many of our homes were built 24-30 years ago. We have retired people on limited incomes, families on single incomes trying to put their children through college, and everyone else struggling to get by. Regardless of our personal issues, there is a new Elementary School being built on Babcock just west of Fowler, T-ball fields just south of the corner of Babcock and Fowler, and a new Fire Station in the 100 acre Regional Park at Oak and Davis, which is Fowler's extension to the north. There is also the new Middle School west of Davis and Baxter which has increased traffic and made it extremely dangerous to cross Baxter with no four way traffic control. I can't wait to see the Fire Engines coming through our gravel road rushing to an incident at the new Elementary School. No matter what, they currently would have to go through 100% residential 25mph roads that don't even have lanes painted on them. This is a major safety and security issue for EVERYONE involved. With the opening of a children's Dinosaur Park at the corner of Davis and Oak this summer there will be even more traffic and no proper north-south routes to accommodate traffic. The city currently owns a 50 foot right of way on the uncompleted portion of Fowler between Durston and Babcock. A two lane street with walking trail on the west edge could easily be completed before the new school opens. Please make completing Fowler a Priority. It's extremely Urgent. 44 Elizabeth Layne (December 5, 2008) To Whom it may concern: Thank you for including non-motorist transportation needs in the plan update. As a frequent bicycle commuter and board member of Bozeman's non-profit community cycling center, I am very concerned about including non-motorized user-needs in our transportation plan. Overall I fully support inclusion of "Complete the Streets" guidelines and urge both city and county commissions to adopt these guidelines, and to continue support of the national Safe Routes to School initiative. I also strongly support a Bozeman to Belgrade Trail; this is a frequent concern of low-income recipients of bicycles from the cycling center. As other development occurs, at least one cycle/pedestrian friendly route between these two cities needs to be established. Another major concern of mine if consideration of the Main Street to the Mountains trail crossing I-90 and the railroad tracks; an underpass or overpass or clear signage and re-routing is needing for this path that distinguishes our community. Connection of existing bikes lanes and sidewalks (i.e. Babcock between 11th and 19th, S3rd from Kagy to Graff) is also very important and is simply logical. Again, thank you for your exhaustive work on this plan and for including non-motorist needs. Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. 45 Norman Weeden (December 5, 2008) My comments on the transportation plan take two perspectives. First I would like to comment on the overall philosophy taken in the plan and second I will make specific comments on items about which I have direct knowledge. Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 41 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) The overall plan seems to be very traditional, assessing the needs for automobile traffic first and later that for pedestrians, bicyclists and other types of transportation. Although to many people who currently use automobiles as their major means of transportation, this approach is satisfactory, I believe it is neither desirable nor cost effective. An attempt to cater primarily to the needs of drivers sets us on a course destroy the very nature of the region and relegate us to an ever increasing tax burden. My suggestion is that we decide right now that more traffic congestion is not acceptable and develop alternatives with this goal in mind. Peripheral parking facilities around Bozeman with extensive mass transit on current roads would probably be cheaper than trying (as the plan does) to keep up with the expected traffic demands of an expanding population who would like to turn the Gallatin Valley into San Fernando Valley II. Why can't we limit traffic inside the city by severely restricting parking on surface streets? Commuters would be encouraged to park in lots located at relatively easily accessible locations around Bozeman and take buses, bicycles or other means of transportation from these facilities to their final destination within the city. Residents of Bozeman could obtain permits for parking in front of their homes but would not be able to park in most other residential areas. With the construction of a few parking facilities (possibly even underground and heated) and the expansion of the bus system we avoid most of the disruption and costs mentioned in the document. With regard to bicycles, I was gratified that the document began with the assumption that bicycle use should be encouraged, which I believe is the attitude held by most residents of Bozeman. The study is very detailed but again only looks for traditional solutions. I am 60 years old have been fortunate in that a bicycle has been my primary means of commuting for the last 45 years, the last 30 of which have been in areas like Bozeman with significant snowfall in the winter. In such areas there is obviously a difference in tactics during the winter than in the summer (as autos also face different driving tactics). The plan virtually ignored this difference (see comment on Kagy and Sourdough below). During the winter 'in street bike lanes' disappear underneath piles of plowed snow and become unuseable. With the loss of in street bike lanes, bicyclists move to the sidewalks--not the ideal solution. Shared use bike paths are an absolute necessity in the winter, but these need to be cleared to be of practical value. If Bozeman is going to be serious about encouraging bicycle and other non-motorized transportation, it will have to consider both summer and winter needs. Clearly, winter needs are going to be much less, but commuters still need to get in to work. I have several comments on specifics given in the document. The primary issue I see with automobile traffic in southwest Bozeman is the intersection of Kagy and Sourdough/Church. If development continues along Highland, in the Bozeman Trail area, and south along Sourdough towards Triple Tree, Kagy will become very busy, particularly during communting hours. In the morning rush, traffic could become a continuous line of cars moving west along Kagy from Highland and Kagy all the way to Willson. Traffic entering this stream from side streets (particularly Sourdough) presently has to wait for a break in the traffic, which can amount to a considerable delay. The transportation plan clearly notes this fact on several occasions and mentions the installation of a signal or roundabout as TSM-8. This solution is basically the traditional one for intersections showing increasing traffic. However, the Kagy/Sourdough intersection poses a problem in that for much of the winter the "Kagy hill" between Highland and Sourdough can be extremely slick and nearly impossible to stop a car on the This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 42 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) downslope before entering the Kagy/Sourdough intersection. A signal at this intersection would simply be a set up for moderate speed collisions between cars crossing or entering Kagy on a green light and cars unable to stop before the intersection as they descend the hill. In view of this situation, unless the city is going to spend a considerable amount of money applying sand or chemicals to Kagy (and contaminating Sourdough creek with the run-off), the traffic control at this intersection should remain as is. Such a situation allows Kagy to effectively carry a heavier load of traffic east and west, but Sourdough and Church become problematic as feeder streets during heavy traffic times. Individuals living along the Sourdough corridor may take the Goldenstein to South 3rd or 19th route alternative, rather than wait the 15 to 30 minutes trying to enter Kagy directly from Sourdough. These issues were not discussed in the document, and suggesting that an installed traffic light or roundabout would fix the problem is naive. There will be some days each year that a sander or snowplow will have to be dedicated to this stretch of Kagy if cars are going to be expected to stop at the bottom of the hill. An excellent location for a parking facility/transportation hub would be near this intersection. Returning to bicycle issues, the plan seems to be inaccurate at times. For instance, the diagram of existing facilities in Bozeman (Figure 2-14) does not appear correct. If 'on street bikeway' means a marked bicycle lane on the street, then such a lane really does not exist on Kagy between Willson and at least 11th--all that really exists is a white line paralleling the curb in some places. The area between the line and the curb is too narrow for normal bike use. Most of the bike traffic in this stretch of Kagy is on 'shared-use sidewalks' on either side of Kagy. Similarly, the 'on-street bikeway' along 11th between Kagy and Lincoln is usually obstructed by parked cars. Again, the sidewalk currently functions as share-use. There is no 'on-street bikeway' along Black, along most of Willson, and along Grant (except where it traverses the MSU campus). I am sure there are other errors in this figure, but I am not as familiar with other parts of Bozeman. A minor issue is the use of on street bikeways as parking places or stopping areas. In general this is not a problem in Bozeman, and I have no idea what the legal aspects are; however in certain areas, such as on Grant where it traverses MSU, on 11th, where it traverses MSU and on Kagy near the Valley View Golf Course cars occasionally block the bikeway. On Grant or 11th the cars are usually pulling over to drop off passengers, although occasionally cars park temporarily in the bikeway. On Kagy, the blockage is more extensive and predictable. On good golfing days the parking lot at Valley View does not have sufficient capacity, and golfers park their vehicles along Kagy, blocking the bikeway. The result of this misuse of the bikeway is to force bicyclist out into traffic or onto the sidewalk. For the most part I have not found this issue to be a problem. Traffic is usually sufficiently light to allow the bicyclist to pull out into the car lane and pass the obstacle without feeling endangered or forcing traffic to slow significantly. However, should traffic and/or parking on the bikeway increase considerably, the bikeway would lose its original purpose. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the transportation plan. Overall, I feel it represents a good start but is too traditional. If we are really going to retain Bozeman as a city we would like to live in, we need to be much more innovative in our thinking. Otherwise, we will continue our 'progress' into another major city with major traffic congestion and eventually a dead core. These locations are signed bike routes which are represented as “on-street bikeways” in the graphics. Thank you for your comments. It is recommended that “on-street bikeway” be changed to “signed bike route” on appropriate graphics to avoid confusion. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 43 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 46 Teri Seth (December 5, 2008) Attention Transportation Coordinating Committee: I encourage you to incorporate the recommendations in the Gallatin Gateway Plan for the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. I have some additional concerns also. I live on Low Bench Road south of Gallatin Gateway so I drive 191 from 4 Corners regularly. I am very concerned with safety on Hwy 191. I understand that the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan has taken the recommendations from the Gallatin Gateway Community Planning Document but some of the recommendations for Hwy 191 end at Cottonwood Road. I have two concerns in particular. Please consider extending the 50 mile per hour speed limit recommendation south to East Williams Bridge Road. I have seen and experienced too many close calls between 4 corners and home in the last 6 months. Every week I see accidents or near accidents when people are slowing to turn off of 191 to a commercial or residential road. I am very aware of the constant near misses but still I find myself having to slam on the brakes for all kinds of hazards one would expect in an area with so many homes and businesses, like people stopping for pets in the road, a line of cars stopped for a car turning left. The problem is once vehicles slow down the brake lights go away and other vehicles approaching at 70 mph have a difficult time discerning slow or stopped cars until a driver is right upon them. I cannot express how dangerous the speed is for an area with so many frequently used turn offs. The other problem is cars that decide to pass and are unaware of the many intersections where vehicles are turning onto Hwy 191. I have had to pull off the highway to avoid head on crashes more than once. In fact most of the residents out here have had to make radical evasive moves to avoid head on collisions in this situation. I cannot express how dangerous the speed is for an area with so many frequently used turn offs. The Gateway Plan also recommends turn lanes at Low Bench Road and a couple other roads south of Cottonwood Road, which is great. There are other roads that are not included in the list in the Gateway Planning document that are very hazardous to turn on to or from. I encourage you folks to include all of the roads in the wish list for turn lanes including Two Bear Way and West Wilson Creek. A few years ago turn lanes were installed at Little Bear Rd which gets less traffic than Cottonwood Road and possibly less than Low Bench Road. I am not sure how these other busier roads were missed. Turn lanes for all of the residential roads is essential. I realize this Transportation Plan is a long term document and the financing for turn lanes is a ways off. Lowering the speed limit can happen right away and it will not involve infrastructure funding. Please incorporate these safety recommendations in the Transportation Plan to save lives. Thank you for your comments. This is outside the study area boundary. This is outside the study area boundary. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. 47 Thomas J. Keck (December 5, 2008) My wife, Mary, sent you her comments yesterday. Let me start out by saying I agree with her comments completely. I will add some additional ideas here related to bicycle transportation in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. Both Mary and I are glad that bicycle and pedestrian transportation are now at least being considered as part of the This plan attempts to provide a multi-modal view of the transportation system while balancing the needs of all users of the roadway. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 44 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) overall transportation plan for Bozeman. We have seen, first hand, what happens when issues of bicycle and pedestrian safety are ignored, get addressed haphazardly, or are addressed too late in the development of urban environments. Our son, Collin Keck (age 22), was killed in September of this year while pedaling to work with a co-worker in Sumner, Washington. Collin was hit by a tractor trailer gravel truck and died instantly at the scene. Please check out the website for Collin, www.collinkeck.com, so that you know something about him. You can only begin to imagine what it feels like to successfully raise a son here in Bozeman, see him become an amazing young man, celebrate his graduation from college and watch him head off to the Puget Sound area for his first job as a civil engineer; only to have a chaplain with police escort show up at your door barely two month later. Bicycle safety and the development of safe bike paths has now become a major focus in our lives for the foreseeable future. There are many factors that contributed to Collin’s accident. A change in any one of them would have likely saved Collin’s life. Many of those same factors are directly related to aspects of the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan as it attempts to address the development of safe bike routes in the Bozeman area. My specific comments follow: Adult Oriented Bicycle Safety Training Any transportation plan that promotes bicycle use as a means of transportation must have a strong emphasis on bicycle safety training, especially training oriented to adults. Collin’s inexperience pedaling a road bike in an urban environment and lack of appropriate, adult-oriented, bicycle safety training was a major contributing factor to his accident. Growing up in Bozeman, getting bicycle safety training as a child, and riding his mountain bike on local streets and Forest Service trails did not begin to prepare him for the new environment in which he was biking to work. Bozeman will, hopefully, never be like the Puget Sound area but substantial increases in traffic and vehicle congestion are inevitable, especially in core areas. This is the environment you are planning. Our efforts in working with Collin’s employer, Parametrix Inc., to provide bicycle safety training for their employees, have shown that there are generally hundreds of youth oriented, bicycle safety programs available for every one adult-oriented program. This is a major hole in the safety network that needs to be filled, especially when we are promoting bicycle use for transportation. The draft Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) mentions Education Programs in section 2.3.12. Much greater emphasis promoting bicycle safety training for adults needs to be included in the final version of this plan. Placement and Continuity of Bicycle Paths Bicycle paths or bike lanes when they are built must begin and end at safe locations. A second major contributing factor to Collin’s accident was a paved shared-use trail (Auburn Trail) that winds its way down from the residential development where Collin and his roommate lived and ends abruptly at Stewart Road, a local roadway with an extremely high volume of traffic including many large gravel hauling trucks, no shoulder, and no maintenance along the edge of the road. I’m sure the Auburn Trail was built in There are a number of bicycle and pedestrian program and policy recommendations made in Chapter 6 that are intended to help educate non-motorized users. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 45 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) conjunction with the very development where the boys lived and was designed to promote bicycle and pedestrian use. Somehow nobody thought about the safety hazard they were creating at the other end. Bicycles commonly use Stewart Road. The Auburn Trail is one of the main access points that bring them there and it continues to be an invitation to yet another disaster. We have not seen a situation quite as bad as Stewart Road here in Bozeman but our current piecemeal approach to building bike paths is creating similar situations where bike paths, bike lanes or just improved roads with wide shoulders end at unsafe locations. Examples include Valley Center Road west of the railroad underpass, Bridger Canyon Road on the way to the “M”, and Kagy Boulevard east of Highland Boulevard. More recently, a new bike lane and wide shoulder have added to the eastbound side of Haggerty Lane where a new residential development was built. Both the bike lane and the shoulder disappear abruptly past the subdivision. There are a number of ways to avoid these situations. Comprehensive planning is a good place to start. In short, if you cannot build a bike path or bike lane so that it begins and ends at a safe point, then don’t build it until the safety issues can be resolved. If you build it they will come. At least one study referenced in the draft update to the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan indicates that to be true. Road Closures to Bicycles One way to address some of the most critical safety issues is to close specific sections of roadway to bicycle use until such time as a safe alternative can be created. We have somehow arrived at the conclusion that motorized vehicles and bicycles should be treated as equals on many of our roadways. Bicycles cannot go as fast as automobiles, they move differently, they cannot accelerate as rapidly, they are much less visible, and they offer much less protection to the operator. Road bicycles, in particular, are much less stable than any good motorcycle on the road. Yet, somehow we believe that aside from our major highways and Interstates, we must allow bicycles to use all roadways at all times. This is wrong. A good transportation plan, in my opinion, would identify those sections of road that are critically hazardous and mark them for closure to bicycle use until the hazardous conditions have been resolved. Critical conditions would be any combination of high vehicle speed, traffic volume, overall traffic congestion, large truck traffic, lack of roadway shoulders and/or road maintenance issues that make the road extremely hazardous to bicycle use. In Collin’s case, Stewart Road was considered as a “Share the Road” situation despite being an under-engineered, narrow road without shoulders, without any roadside maintenance, and with an extremely high volume of traffic including large tractor trailer trucks hauling gravel at a rate of approximately one truck every two minutes. The Frontage Road between Belgrade and Bozeman and Valley Center Road west of the railroad underpass would be two roads that should be closed immediately to bicycle traffic and signed as such on both ends. I am sure there are other road segments in the greater Bozeman area that should also be closed to bicycles. Road closures to bicycles should be viewed as one of the number tools that can used to protect public health and safety during the interim while we upgrade our infrastructure for safe bicycle transportation. A strong emphasis was made in the plan to connect bicycle and pedestrian trails and paths. As you have inferred, the preference is to build these facilities as complete as possible. Given the funding situation of many government entities, this is not always practical. Until which time facilities can be constructed from start to finish, the tendency will unfortunately be to build this system in segments and pieces until they are all linked together. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 46 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Large Tractor Trailer Trucks Use of roadways by large tractor trailer trucks needs to be considered in designing our bike and pedestrian infrastructure. The volume of truck use is equally important as the speed and overall volume of traffic on a road for determining when hazardous conditions exist. My initial search indicates that large tractor trailer trucks are extremely hazardous to bicyclists, especially at intersections where they turn in front of a bicyclist without ever seeing them in the bike lane. Safety programs at large mines, regulated by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), pay particular attention to the operation of large equipment, including trucks, as one of the major safety risks on a mine. Yet, it amazes me how few safety regulations exist and how little consideration safety is given relative to the operation large trucks in our communities. Planning of our transportation system in the Bozeman area should identify all truck routes. These routes should be signed as such. Large trucks should be restricted on any roads where their use creates unnecessary and substantial safety risks and a special use permit required before a large tractor trailer can be used on these roadways. Potential use of roadways by large trucks needs to be factored in when engineers are designing the level separation required between bicycles/pedestrians and motorized vehicles in the transportation system. Off Road Bike or Shared Use Paths In my opinion, off road bike paths or shared-use paths are always preferable bike lanes in situations where hazardous roadway conditions exist. Such conditions would again be defined by potential traffic speed, traffic volume, overall roadway congestion, the presence of large truck traffic, and any other factors that can affect bicycle or pedestrian safety. Bike or shared-use paths when adjacent to a roadway should be separated from the roadway at a minimum by a boulevard that is at least 6.5 feet wide. A white line painted on the road offers little protection to bicyclists using a bike lane in unfavorable situations such as heavy vehicle traffic, numerous access points and/or substantial activity along the roadway. Problems occur whenever motor vehicles must cut across the bike lane at an intersection or other access point. This problem becomes worse when the bike lane is sandwiched between the right hand traffic lane and curbside parking as additional vehicles must cross the bike lane when entering or existing parking spaces. As the current draft of the Updated Travel Plan states, each road or road section is unique and there is no cookie cutter method for designing safe bicycle transportation routes for all roads. City planners and engineers must think “outside the box” to find the right approach for each specific set of circumstances. A hierarchy exists in terms of the degree of safety afforded by each of the general options available in planning our bicycle transportation system; from “Share the Road” with adequate shoulder clearances, to bike lanes on the side of the roadway, to bike or shared-use paths separated from the road by a boulevard, to completely off road paths or trails following old railroad grades or drainages. Each has its place in the overall transportation system. Where and how they are used depends on existing and future road conditions. City planners and engineers should always error on the side of safety whenever reasonable options exist. Major roadways in the planning area that are on the FHWA urban aid system are designed to accommodate the WB-67 design vehicle, which is the tractor-trailer combination. As project are considered, designed and constructed, design features to accommodate these vehicles are put in place. Items such as larger sweeping radii around the corners, level roadway surfacing, and widened lanes all contribute to satisfying the design vehicle required on the urban aid system. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 47 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Design the Bicycle Transportation System for All Users I consider the shared use bike path along Highland Boulevard to be an excellent example of how a multi-user trail system can be created with good signage at all vehicle access points. On page 2-41 on the Transportation Plan draft, there is a picture of this trail with the caption, “This cyclist chooses to ride along the shoulder of Highland Blvd. rather than on the adjacent shared use path.” There will always be experienced bicycle riders who will use the roadway during low traffic periods to move more quickly. This does not mean that somehow the roadway is superior to or negates the need for the shared use path. On page 9-30, “Shared-use paths can provide a good facility, particularly for novice riders, recreational trips, and cyclists of all skill levels preferring separation from traffic.” I would add “during periods of high vehicle traffic” to that list. Please remember we are providing bicycle transportation options for all users, not just high end users with fancy bikes. By the end of Draft Report, I’m beginning to think your contact user group for this update is somewhat skewed in their ideas relative to the population of Bozeman as a whole. Thank you for this opportunity to present my ideas regarding the future bicycle safety and bicycle transportation in the Bozeman area. Obviously, some of my thoughts have strong emotional attachment at this time. I believe, however, that Mary and I have a valuable perspective on these issues that needs to be heard in the planning process. 48 Dean Littlepage (December 5, 2008) Please include this as a comment on the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. I live in "old" Bozeman, in the southwest quadrant near the university, and so am tuned into biking and walking as transportation. Besides occasional out-of-town trips or short trips to trailheads, this household starts up a motor vehicle no more than once a week for in-town business or pleasure; we put far more miles on our bicycles than on the car within the city limits. I think everyone in the Gallatin Valley should at least have the opportunity to live this way; it's far healthier for people and for the planet. Therefore I'm pleased to see that this plan is fully a transportation plan, not just a road and car plan like we're used to seeing. My likes in the plan: Integrated bike and pedestrian planning, such as filling in gaps in sidewalks and safe mid-block pedestrian and trail street crossings. The two highest priorities in my area are signaled crossings of Main St. at the library and of College between 8th and 11th. There will be someone killed at the latter spot if something doesn't get done there; it's been only dumb luck that it hasn't happened already. Roundabouts. Or if you like, call them what we used to call them: traffic circles; the small town I grew up in has had one since the 1950s. I can't imagine why some people think they're so exotic or socialistic or whatever the objections are. Please plan for them everywhere they're even remotely feasible. Traffic flow is a huge issue. We live on West Curtiss, which becomes a de facto arterial during drive time on weekday mornings as cars turn left off Willson to avoid the slowdown at the Olive signal. Traffic planners seem to think that's okay; it very definitely is not! It's dumb and dangerous. As far as immediate Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. While traffic circles and roundabouts are both types of circular intersections, there are many differences between the two. Traffic circles are a type of traffic calming measure that is commonly used in residential neighborhoods. They do not generally require additional right-of-way for installation No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 48 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) needs, College and Willson and College and 11th in our part of town are the highest priorities. More on traffic circles. A very important thing to do: Go overboard on an education campaign to inform people how to behave in traffic circles. For 11th and College, that will be extremely important. Think of the potential carnage in the fall with new students from Ekalaka driving enormous, diesel-belching pickups through that intersection at high speed. A Bozeman-Belgrade bike route. Yes!! Some people will commute it, others will just ride it. Safe Routes to Schools and Complete Streets guidelines and plans. Wonderful! Do it! Shared Use Paths. I support them all. The goal should be to get bike routes off the speedy arterials as much as possible. Many drivers are incredibly cavalier towards bicyclists on those routes. The intersections are just a roll of the dice for bicyclists. What the plan needs: A clear decision on an I-90 bike/pedestrian overpass. More safe mid-block crossings on major streets and roads, with safety islands. Thank you for the work on this plan. If we stick with the basic draft and beef it up a bit, Bozeman will be a place I'll want to continue living in spite of the crazy, slipshod, profiteering development that's overrun the place. and are commonly installed on existing roadways. Roundabouts are different than traffic circles in that they handle higher traffic volumes, entering traffic yields to circulating traffic, and deflection controls the vehicle speed. Roundabouts are also larger than traffic circles, accommodate trucks, and generally require additional right-of-way and full new construction. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. No changes are recommended. 49 Tom Burnett (December 5, 2008) I oppose public transportation and all the funding, studies, meetings and rationale behind/within it. It is an unjustified cost to taxpayers, placating a utopian world-view. Streamline in Bozeman is a fiscal disaster. It costs taxpayers and student fee-payers roughly $10.00 every time it picks up a ride, no matter if they are going ½ mile of 5 miles. The ride to Livingston costs taxpayers and fee-payers $15.00 to $20.00, the rider nothing. Not all riders are indigent. The parking garage is money badly spent, too. Traffic calming measures, the ones we’ve seen in Bozeman, are ridiculous. I lived in England with roundabouts. They’re fine there. Let them stay there. Thank you for your comments. Public transit is an integral component to a true multi-modal transportations system. Streamline completes their own planning for their system - the draft Transportation Plan recognizes their importance to the transportation system and supports their future growth. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 49 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Scratch all modifications to streets that appear in the plan, for benefit of buses. And other considerations, that involve any cost, to accommodate public transit. There is no “mass”, hence no need for “mass transit”. 50 Mary Cloud Ammons (December 5, 2008) To Whom It May Concern, First of all, all the parties that participated in the formulation of the Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan should be complemented on the extensive effort they made to incorporate non-vehicular transportation into the Public Draft. I am very pleased to see so much thought and planning dedicated to pedestrian, bike, and public transportation and hope that these issues will remain at the forefront of transportation planning and design. In my capacity both as a resident and as the vice president of the NorthEast Neighborhood Association (NENA) I am keenly aware of the transportation issues that affect my neighborhood. Let me first reiterate the state of affairs in the NENA neighborhood. Currently, there are no bike lanes or shared use pathways in the NENA neighborhood as demonstrated in Figure 2-14 of the Public Draft. Additionally, the draft identifies major gaps in pedestrian facilities (Figure 2-18). Disconcerting is the pedestrian facility gap next to a school. Although there are no approved residential developments in the NENA neighborhood (as of 10/07), the draft predicts an additionally 1643 new residential dwellings in the NENA neighborhood by 2030. The bulk of those new residences will primarily be served by Rouse Ave (see Figure 3-10). The draft also predicts that by 2030 there will be 1324 new jobs in and around the NENA neighborhood. Access to these jobs will be primarily via 7th Street, Rouse Ave, and a yet-to-be-determined northeast route (Figure 3-13). NENA currently contains no high volume routes (>12,000 average daily traffic or ADT), but Rouse Ave is projected by 2030 to increase to 12,000-18,000 ADT (Figures 3-15 and 3-17). These data and predictions suggest that the focus of transportation planning in the NENA neighborhood should be centered on the issues of providing better and more pedestrian and bike facilities and moving traffic through the neighborhood to service the projected increase in residential dwellings and job sites to the north and northeast of the neighborhood. The Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan Draft proposes five transportation plans for the NENA neighborhood. The first plan proposed is the Alternate Scenerio 2 (AS-2) called the Northeast Arterial Link. This proposal would connect Highland Blvd to Cedar Street, making this a minor arterial link. Cedar Street would then be linked to Oak Street, presumably via extending East Birch Street, although this is not specified. Criticism of this alternate scenario includes the build-up and potential for damage to the wetland northeast of the neighborhood, concern about the two railway crossings that this scenario proposes, and concern that this arterial would serve no purpose beyond that already served by I-90. Support for this arterial includes neighbors who are concerned about increases in traffic within the neighborhood. Suggestions have been made by neighbors that another alternative scenerio should be considered in which Highland Blvd would be connected to Front Street, with Front Street then completed through to Oak Street. While this would avoid the railway crossings, it could also change the character of the neighborhood along the current east end of Front Street and would likely not avoid disruption of the wetland. Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. Land use forecasting is not an exact science. Forecasts are made based on Census Bureau population projections out to the planning horizon, in this case the year 2030. There is considerable known, likely development that will occur in this area of the community over the next twenty-five years, and an attempt was made to account for this development. They are not to viewed as “absolute” numbers. The “alternative scenarios” are not actual recommendations. They are traffic model runs created to test the sensitivity of certain alternatives. The run mentioned here (AS-2) was in fact carried forward as a recommended project later in the document as described in Chapter 5 (i.e. connection of Highland Boulevard with oak Street, via Cedar Street). Railroad crossings would have to be grade-separated. Wetland impacts could be minimized with proper design and wetland replacement elsewhere. This link could serve a very useful role in cross City traffic in the future, while at the same time reducing traffic in the neighborhood. This type of project would take 10 to 15 years to be developed. At this time it is recommended such that right-of-way can be set aside before land develops and the corridor potential is lost. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 50 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) The second plan proposed is a major street network project (MSN). This is the Rouse Avenue Main Street to Story Mill Road Project (MSN-4). This project would widen Rouse Avenue to a three-lane urban arterial and provide bike lanes, curb, gutter, boulevard, sidewalks and a raised median. This project is in keeping with the projected growth to the north and northeast of the neighborhood. Significant concern about this project has been expressed by the neighbors who live along this route. Although effort has clearly been made to reduce the level of impact this project will have on the neighborhood, there are valid concerns by these neighbors regarding their property values and quality of living. Their concerns should not be taken lightly and must be factored into any discussion of this project. It is clear from the projections presented in the draft that if growth continues north and northeast of the neighborhood that there will be a need for an urban route with the capacity to handle the resultant increase in traffic. Rouse Ave has been the logical route to handle this projected increase, but there have been other suggestions. For example, it has been suggested that Highway 86 could be re-routed from Bridger Canyon Road to Griffin Drive to North 7th Street. This would direct the flow of traffic away from the NENA neighborhood and towards the less residential area through which 7th Street passes. Additionally, this would direct traffic towards a more convenient I-90 onramp, encouraging the use of I-90 as an arterial route and eliminating the need to build an additional arterial route around the neighborhood. For a discussion of this proposed alternative please see Marjorie Smith’s comments in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle column from September 5, 2008. The third plan proposes a railroad underpass for Griffin Drive (MSN-23). Comments from the NENA neighborhood have been in support of this proposal. When considered in context of the above proposal, some see this project as further justification for the re-routing of Highway 86 to Griffin Drive. The fourth plan is in conjunction with the AS-2 proposal. This project (MSN-24) proposes that Cedar Street be upgraded to a three lane urban arterial. This project would connect Oak Street to Cedar Street, again presumably via Birch Street. Cedar Street would then be extended to Highland Blvd as a three lane urban arterial including bike lanes, curb, gutter, boulevard, sidewalks, and median. This project would serve to access the proposed development on the eastern side of town and direct traffic away from downtown and the NENA neighborhood. As this proposal is basically a re-iteration of the AS-2 plan, the concerns remain the same. In addition to the concerns stated above, it has been questioned whether it is actually desirable to direct traffic around and away from downtown. Part of the character and vibrancy of Bozeman is its lively downtown. It could be argued that part of this vibrancy is the result of a downtown economy fed by the traffic that passes through the downtown. Finally, the fifth major plan proposed for the NENA neighborhood is a transportation system management proposal (TSM) for the intersection of Rouse Ave and Peach Street (TSM-4). Whether or not the Rouse Ave build-out project moves forward, there is general agreement in the neighborhood that there needs to be improvements to this intersection. There are those in favor of a traffic light and those in favor of a roundabout. Regardless of the means of traffic control, this project is generally supported. The Rouse Avenue project is currently in the Environmental Assessment (EA) phase, which is the environmental documentation phase leading up to project design and construction. This project has been in the works for many, many years, and is sufficiently advanced in project development activities that we are essentially treating it as a “given” in the Transportation Plan update. We are relying on the EA for the specifics being put forth through that project for inclusion into the Transportation Plan document. Thank you for your comment. See earlier response. Thank you for your comment. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 51 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Minor project proposals include a shared path for Rouse Avenue north of Oak Street, a shared path east from Mendenhall to Story Mill Road, and bike lanes for Peach, Tamarack, Mendenhall, 7th, and Rouse. These minor projects address the concern that the NENA neighborhood currently lacks sufficient facilities for bike and pedestrian traffic; therefore, these minor projects have been supported. Many thanks to the NENA neighbors who have taken the time to really put thought into the future of our neighborhood and who have participated in this process. I hope that I can be a conduit of their concerns to those involved in the planning, design, and execution of the transportation plan. I also would like to thank all the participants behind the Greater Bozeman Transportation Plan. I am satisfied that this is a well thought-out document in which the concerns of the residents have been well considered. I do, however, encourage the serious consideration of the issues raised here and encourage the continued engagement of the neighborhoods as the planning and design of this great city move forward. Thank you for your comment. No changes are recommended. 51 Christopher Nixon (December 5, 2008) As the comment period comes to a close concerning the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update, I wanted to make certain the following comments were included on behalf of the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA). On June 24th, 2008 NENA held a special meeting requested by the members. Results of the meeting included a vote by those members in attendance. (55 total). Two of the motions voted upon relate to the proposed future connection between the intersection of Oak Street/Rouse Avenue, and Highland Avenue. Motion 1. Motion and vote for NENA to endorse protection of the wetland on the eastern edge of our neighborhood as the Bozeman Wetland Preserve including trails and bird viewing platforms intended for public enjoyment. - Received a unanimous vote by the 55 members in attendance. Motion 2. Motion and vote for NENA to support city transportation planning that will protect the neighborhood streets from arterial pass-through traffic, including alternative proposals that avoid routing an arterial bypass through or over the wetland. Approved by 53 of the 55 attendees. I passed the former information along to the City Commission during one of the "Open Public Comment" periods following the June 24, 2008 "Special Call" NENA meeting and vote. However, I am uncertain if the information has been included in the comments for the Transportation Plan Update. In addition, Jeff Key provided a presentation to NENA at our annual Fall Meeting on October 7th, 2008, concerning the Bozeman Transportation Plan Update and received feedback from the group. Again the overall consensus of the group was of concern for traffic patterns that could negatively affect the large wetland east of town. I believe Jeff was left with the clear impression of how passionate the neighborhood feels that this unique wetland is an asset for all of Bozeman citizens and not simply those that live at its Thank you for your comments I did attend the aforementioned meeting. There was considerable discussion about the wetland area and previous efforts to protect the area. I also heard a very specific discussion about how the “wet’ areas have been drained by the local landowner and are no longer functioning as they once were? It appeared to me that the No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 52 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) edge. It is indeed a rare asset for the entire city and could be quite spectacular if future enhancements could be made with trail extensions and preservation/restoration work that would further expand the "hub" of the trail system found in Lindley Park and the Bozeman Public Library. In addition other concerns were raised during the fall meeting about the costly expenditure of very limited funds being utilized for a road that would simply parallel the existing I-90 corridor. Many in the group expressed the feeling that I-90 is there, already built and paid for, and simply needs to be promoted as an existing transportation path that easily connects 'hospital area traffic' to the North 19th shopping area. A much less costly expenditure to consider is a simple but major educational campaign to make citizens conscious that the path is available. I have also been contacted by others with concerns that a by-pass path that directs traffic away from our downtown Main Street could have a deleterious, unexpected reduction in activity downtown. Bozeman's downtown has remained vibrant as many other cities have seen their down towns decline when potential customers are redirected from the heart of the town by similar by-pass corridors as that proposed. Hopefully you have received comments from many individual NENA members as it is impossible for me to convey the details of all those concerned. NENA members express our collective gratitude for all your devotion and commitment to ensure our City and neighborhoods remain vibrant places to live. previous discussions of protecting the wetland area were in fact compromised by the recent activities, however I may have misinterpreted the discussion? An extension of Highland Boulevard connecting to Oak Street, via Cedar Street, is a recommendation contained in the document as described in Chapter 5. Although I-90 may be an alternative that could be promoted by the City, the purpose of the interstate system traditionally is not to provide direct access to local neighborhoods. The recommended project is intended to serve long-range planning interests serve a very useful role in cross city traffic in the future. This will have a secondary benefit of reducing traffic in the NE neighborhood. This type of project would take 10 to 15 years to be developed. At this time it is recommended such that right-of-way can be set aside before land develops and the corridor potential is lost. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. 52 Randi Bresciani (December 5, 2008) I would like to comment on the travel plan. I live in town and frequently walk or use my bike to get around. I greatly appreciate how user friendly our sidewalks in the city already are. However, I am perplexed with the amount of time and money the city spends on building "trails" in certain parts of the city where sidewalks exist. Since we do have an existing network of sidewalks in most of the city, I would like to see us, as a community, start to preserve our trees and bits of nature and stop building "trails that lead to other trails", especially when the main trail arteries are accessible by an existing sidewalk. We, as a community, have a number of very expensive required infrastructure projects coming up that we are all going to need to spend our money on. Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. 53 Marilyn Guggenheim (December 5, 2008) First and foremost, I am really happy with plans to install bike lanes and sidewalks at new streets as well as existing ones that are a safety hazard without them. I'd like to emphasize to the Committee and the City that regular sweeping of bike lanes is also critical to cyclist safety. Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 53 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) I also enthusiastically support more and better bike parking, esp. the suggestions at MSU library for covered parking at the FRONT of Renne Library, and more bike parking at Bozeman Public Library! I'd like to push for a quick response to MSN-24: Cedar Street / Oak Street item: I live on Wallace Ave., which experiences the cut-through traffic the Cedar Street extension is designed to relieve. I believe that pedestrian and cyclist safety on east Main Street will also improve with the Cedar Street serving westbound traffic. I strongly support: • 5.3.1 Safe Routes to School Plan • 5.4.4 May I suggest that a cheaper alternative to shared-use paths might be bike lanes, esp. on streets that are not as heavily used by motorists. • Complete Streets Guidelines • 9.7.1 Curb Extensions and Refuge Islands • 5.4.4 Bozeman-Belgrade Trail RE: Sidewalks, in Section 5.3.2 and 5.3.3: North 7th Ave. is particularly dangerous for pedestrians, yet the proximity of residential areas and local businesses make its pedestrian improvement critical. North Rouse esp. between Peach and Oak is probably the most critical are in need of sidewalks. How I would love to feel safe walking or cycling with my preschooler to Lone Mountain at Oak and Rouse! But I don't, so I drive, even though it's such a short distance from my house. East Main and N. Broadway: I'm torn about the solution to this intersection, but I think I lean more toward a grade separated crossing than a signal. When Village Downtown was up for approval by the city, the neighborhood pushed for a signal at this intersection, but MDOT would not approve one because, they said, it was too dangerous a stop for westbound traffic on the downward slope Main Street takes while approaching this intersection. A signal would be convenient for motorists trying to turn left / eastbound from Broadway onto Main. However, a separate, underground or overpass crossing might be better. I find myself wanting to jaywalk when going from the library to a business in the 777 building on the north side of Main. The I-90 Railroad Bike-Ped Overpass is a great idea. It is included on the "Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network Improvements, but also needs to be listed in Table 5-4 "Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements" in 5.3.3. 9.7.1 Mid-Block Crossings: I strongly support the Gallatin Valley Land Trust's request that that the mid-block crossings on collectors and arterials that were removed in subsequent drafts of the Plan be restored to the current draft of the Transportation Plan Update.These include the Oak Street/ Regional Park Mid-block Crossing, and the Durston Mid-block Crossing on the West Side Trail. Thank you for your hard work in creating safety on the roads and sidewalks for us! The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 54 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 54 Leslie McCleary (December 5, 2008) I am the owner of a business at 777 East Main Street. I have personally observed and heard from customers about close calls that have occurred at the intersection of East Main and N. Broadway. My hope is that some type of traffic signal will be installed that allows pedestrians to safely cross Main Street. • There were two occasions when pedestrians started to cross using the crosswalk at the corner of East Main and N. Broadway. The traffic in the outer lane had stopped and as the pedestrians walked by them and started to cross the inner lane a car drove through the intersection. In the one instance the one pedestrian saw the oncoming car. In the second situation the pedestrian did not. She was pulled out of harms way by another pedestrian who was crossing at the same time. I know about these two situations because they are customers and were on their way to the store. • Many times I have observed pedestrians in the crosswalk on Main Street and vehicles continue to drive through the intersection. • Vehicles making left turns out of N. Broadway onto East Main Street don't always see the pedestrians step into the crosswalk on Main Street because they are watching for the vehicles and bicycles. Thank you for your comments. There is a recommendation that calls for a pedestrian signal head or grade separated crossing at the intersection of E. Main Street and Broadway Avenue provided in Table 5-4. No changes are recommended. 55 Neil G. Westesen (December 5, 2008) Please consider these comments on the Bozeman Trails Plan to be submitted on behalf of the Bridger Ski Foundation Nordic Subcommittee. I am the chair of this committee. BSF Nordic provides Nordic ski education and winter ski opportunities and facilities for hundreds of people in this community. BSF strongly supports the proposed Bozeman Trails Plan and joins in the comments submitted by the Gallatin Valley Land Trust. Of particular importance to BSF, is the need for bicycle improvements and shared use paths. A big part of our training program involves roller skiing on paved roads. There are currently no suitable paved trails in Bozeman. The number of paved, uncrowded, safe roads is quickly diminishing. Having some type of continuous, paved trail would be a huge benefit to our training program. BSF also supports the "Complete Streets" concept as we have to share streets with cars, bikers, pedestrians, etc. Much of our training is based out of the Lindley Center area and the Hospital. A Main Street underpass and some connections out to the trails toward the M, Story Hills, and Drinking Horse Mountain would provide a great alternative to always heading South on the Galligator trail or Pete's Hill. Finally, the concept of "12 month trails" as implemented in the Knolls East project is important so that community trails are available for both summer and winter recreation and transportation. Thank you for considering these comments, Neil Westesen for BSF Nordic. Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. 56 Sam Newbury (December 5, 2008) Comments regarding the transportation plan....and thanks for including bikes and pedestrians so thoroughly. I am in support of Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 55 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) 1. A bike route to Belgrade 2. A Main Street underpass at Broadway 3. The Complete Streets initiative I am concerned about the lack of mid block crossing on mid size streets. In the very busy areas it is easy to go to the nearest intersection but on the medium sized roads, it seems more appropriate to create safe mid block crossings. People will cross anyway so let’s make it safe with a tunnel, island, or bridge. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. No changes are recommended. 57 Susan Kozub (December 5, 2008) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. This is one of the most critical documents for planning in both Bozeman and Gallatin County. Please consider the following comments and questions as the public process continues to move forward: • The inclusion of Complete Streets Guidelines and Context-Sensitive Design is critical to successful transportation planning and is great to see these concepts incorporated into the plan. • Page 2-2: The Unified Development Ordinance, the Design Objectives Plan and the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan all promote having primary building entrances oriented toward streets to enhance street-level interest. Both residential and commercial developments will be more inclined to have meaningful fronting characteristics where on-street parking is available. While high-speed arterials with larger setbacks are certainly not appropriate or safe for on-street parking, collectors and some arterials (North 7th Avenue and Main Street for example) should allow for and even promote properly designed and engineered on-street parking. Consider including a section for arterials with on-street parking as a guide for roads such as North 7th Avenue and Main Street. • Pages 2-39 and 9-30 discuss shared use paths; however, the document does not recommend any surfacing for such paths or include the pros and cons of each. What is your experience and recommendations for the surfacing of shared use paths? From a recreational standpoint, especially for running, asphalt is better; however, from maintenance standpoint, concrete seems to have the advantage. • Table 5-8 outlines the incredible opportunities to create a Bozeman to Belgrade Trail System. Although it is not within the study area, please also consider at least noting somewhere in the text of the document the longer-term goal of connecting this trail system beyond Belgrade to the trail system that is currently underway between Three Forks and Manhattan. Thank you for your comments. The roadway typical sections in the draft plan do allow for on-street parking for the collector street standards. Earlier versions of the draft also had a section for on-street parking on minor arterial roadways. Recent direction thru this project’s development has been to discourage this on arterials and as such the typical sections reflect “emergency parking” only on arterials. Discussion of and definition of surfacing sections is more appropriate for a set of “design standards” than in the regional transportation plan. There has been no attempt to offer this breadth of design guidance in this particular document. This is a good comment and will be addressed as suggested. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Add text in the text associated with 5.4.4 that long-term connectivity to trails outside the study area boundary, specifically towards Three Forks and Manhattan, should be factored into future planning efforts and design concepts as the Bozeman to Belgrade trail is realized. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 56 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) • Figure 9- 13 should note that sidewalks adjacent to parks on local streets are required to be 6-feet in width. • As supporters of GVLT, we agree for the need to plan for limited mid-block crossings even on collector streets, or in very limited circumstances, arterial streets. We also support the need to include the 1-90 Railroad and Bike Pedestrian Overpass within the plan. It would be helpful to include a figure illustrating what is generally needed for overpasses so that the City can acquire any additional right-of-way with development now even though construction of pedestrian overpasses may be in the future. • As supporters of the redevelopment of North 7th Avenue, we also support the NSURB memo dated December 3, 2008 especially the need to better coordinate the Transportation Plan Update with the adopted Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue. This is a good comment and will be addressed as suggested. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. This recommendation was left out of Table 5-4 because it is part of a “rails to trails” recommendations and does not really apply to the road network other than they are going over the railroad mainline and I-90. The recommended project is part of the “Story Hill Rail Trail” contained in Table 5-8. We are not familiar with the NSURB memo dated December 3, 2008, however we cannot incorporate the street typical sections found in the “Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue” into this document. The typical sections are not in compliance with FHWA and MDT design standards for this principal arterial. An “urban streetscape” typical section was initially put into the transportation plan that closely mimicked the street sections in the North 7th Avenue Plan, however it was decided to remove this section after several reviews with TCC and staff. Add a note to Figure 9-13 that sidewalks adjacent to parks on local streets are required to be 6-feet in width, and that the extra foot comes out of the boulevard section. No changes are recommended. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. No changes are recommended. 58 Susan Kozub (December 5, 2008) On behalf of the North 7th Avenue Urban Renewal Board, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Transportation Plan Update. Please consider the following comments during your review: • Overall, we support the plan's emphasis on and consideration for pedestrian and bicycle circulation as part of the Complete Streets Guidelines. • Page 1-7: we were pleased to note that the Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue was reviewed and is specifically referenced in the list of previous transportation planning efforts; however, certain sections of the draft Transportation Plan may conflict with the adopted plan for North 7th Avenue. Some of these issues are outlined in the bullets below. Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 57 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) • Page 2-2 states that "It is desirable to restrict on-street parking along principal arterial corridors." Note that this is in conflict with the Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue which calls for on-street parallel parking in Area B. Although this is an example of Context-Sensitive Design, we feel it is important to note. Similarly, the street sections should include a footnote reinforcing the concept of Context-Sensitive Design. • Page 2-35: we would like to see the Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue included as a summary item under Section 2.3.4. • Figure 2-18 does not appear to include all the missing sidewalk links along North 7th Avenue based on our preliminary research. • Page 5-30 references 7-foot sidewalks on North 7th Avenue. The Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue specifies 5-foot sidewalks. • Page 5-31: we support a dedicated pedestrian signal at 7th and Villard to increase pedestrian safety near Whittier School. • Page 5-33: we support bike lanes on North 7th Avenue in coordination with the sections shown in the Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue. We also support narrowing of driving lanes to accommodate non-motorized transportation facility improvements. • Page 5-35: We support "shoulder bikeways" along Frontage Road (from North 7th Avenue to Belgrade) to connect to the planned shoulders and shared use path shown in Area C and bike lanes shown in Areas A" and B. • Page 5-37, Table 5-8 & Figure 5-6: we request that this table and figure include the planned shared use path shown in Area C of the Connectivity Plan (Page 13). • Chapter 7: we support a formal bus stop on North 7th Avenue. • Page 9-20 specifies 5-6-foot bike lane widths while Page 9-32 specifies 4-6-foot bike lane widths. We want to ensure that the 4-foot bike lanes shown in the Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue are adequate. The roadway typical sections in the draft plan do allow for on-street parking for the collector street standards. Earlier versions of the draft also had a section for on-street parking on minor arterial roadways. Recent direction thru this project’s development has been to discourage this on arterials and as such the typical sections reflect “emergency parking” only on arterials. This is a good comment and will be addressed as suggested. Specifics? We can verify our findings. The scale of this graphic may not lend itself to extremely short sections. The “Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue” appears to promote 5-foot sidewalks to fit within the existing roadway section limits based on sub-standards lane widths. The 7-foot section contained in Table 5-3 would be a long-term section assuming a compete reconstruct of the facility with FHWA approved lane use widths and right-of-way acquisition. Thank you for your comment. The typical sections are not in compliance with FHWA and MDT design standards for this principal arterial. Thank you for your comment. We can include this, as directed by TCC, however this path does not connect to a continuous path and would terminate to a proposed “widened shoulder” on the north end and the I-90 Interchange on the south end. Thank you for your comment. We do not feel that 4-foot bicycle lanes are adequate. No changes are recommended. Will add a write-up summarizing the “Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue” to section 2.3.4. If large gaps are identified but not on graphic, graphic will be updated. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. Discuss at TCC level. No changes are recommended. Page 9-32 will be modified to reflect our guidance on acceptable bicycle lane widths, which for this community is 5-6 feet wide. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 58 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) • Chapter 11 related to Financial Analysis and funding of transportation enhancement is very helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to staying involved in the public process. 59 Ted Lange (December 5, 2008) Transportation Planners, Thank you for all your work on the update to the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. This plan will profoundly shape the future livability of our community, and we strongly commend you for taking a balanced and holistic approach to livability and safety by including detailed bicycle-pedestrian planning in this update. We believe the high quality bicycle-pedestrian planning in this update will make the new plan a significant improvement over past transportation plans, and represents an invaluable investment in the future of our community. Following are comments on specific elements of the plan: • Shared Use Paths – GVLT believes that strategically located shared use paths are a critical piece of our community’s transportation network, and we support all the shared use paths proposed in the public draft. Because of the substantial costs involved in creating shared use paths, it is essential to include these projects in this plan to help secure funding. Because available funding is always likely to be limited and time-consuming to secure, prioritization of these projects will be important. We believe shared use paths are critically important because they provide bicycle routes for people of all experience levels and, if properly designed, can provide safe routes on roads that would otherwise be very dangerous due to high traffic speeds and volumes. GVLT supports road design that encourages non-cyclists and inexperienced cyclists to begin cycling and/or to cycle more frequently as a means of transportation, exercise and recreation. We believe that on high-volume roads like Rouse/Bridger and 19th, beginner and inexperienced cyclists and families bicycling with children will not feel safe using bicycle lanes. In contrast, shared use paths properly designed to ASHTO standards provide safe and enjoyable cycling routes for these populations. Several of the proposed shared use paths provide important links to high priority bicycle-pedestrian destinations such as parks and schools. We believe the highest priorities include: o Bridger Canyon Road from Story Mill to the “M” Trailhead and the Fish Technology Center – There are now two very popular, very heavily used trailheads on both sides of Bridger Canyon Road at the south end of the Bridger Ridge, 2.5 miles east of the Bridger/Story Mill intersection. However, there is no safe bicycle-pedestrian route to the “M” Trailhead on the north side or, the Drinking Horse Mountain trailhead on the south side of Bridger Canyon Road. Existing trails already reach the Bridger/Story Mill intersection and the north side of Bridger at the Creekwood Subdivision, and substantial Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 59 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) new residential development is planned and underway in this area. We believe there is a clear need to construct a trail on one or both sides of Bridger from Story Mill Road to these two trailheads. o Bozeman to Belgrade Trail Routes – GVLT strongly supports the proposed Bozeman to Belgrade Trail route options included in section 5.4.4 table 5-8 and map at the end of Chapter 5. Not only will a Bozeman to Belgrade trail provide an important link between the two communities, the trail routes proposed in the public draft would provide links to the Regional Park and the new Chief Joseph Middle School for both Belgrade residents as well as for residents of the cluster of subdivisions north and south of Valley Center who currently have no safe bicycle-pedestrian connections to either community. o Oak Street – There are four major parks along Oak – the Regional Park, the West Winds Subdivision greenway & park, Rose Park and the Fairgrounds. Linking these parks with shared use paths is a logical priority. The Fairgrounds in particular currently has very limited safe bicycle-pedestrian access. o South 19th – Shared use paths on South 19th would provide important connections between large new residential developments south of Kagy, Montana State University and commercial areas on College and at the intersection of College and Huffine (via the shared use path planned for the south side of College). o Huffine – There is currently no safe bicycle-pedestrian connection between Four Corners and Bozeman, or from either community to the commercial development on both sides of Huffine. Moreover, there is currently no foreseeable alternative for providing such a connection other than shared use paths on Huffine. o North 7th Plan Shared Use Path Missing – The bicycle and pedestrian maps at the end of Chapter 5 do not reflect the street section recommended on page 13 of the 2006 Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue Corridor for the section of North 7th designated “Area C” in the 2006 plan – the section north of the I-90 Overpass. GVLT supports the shared use path proposed in the 2006 plan. In addition to providing safe bicycle-pedestrian access to this commercial area, GVLT believes it is particularly important to provide safe, family-friendly bicycle-pedestrian access to Griffin to facilitate access to the East Gallatin Recreation Area (see additional comments below). • Mid-Block Crossings – GVLT strongly supports the proposed mid-block crossing standards for local streets in Section 9.7.1. However, we believe the collector and arterial street mid-block crossing standards included in early drafts of this plan should not have been removed. Many of the trails in and around Bozeman run through greenway corridors following streams, and in many places both the streams and trails intersect streets mid-block. It is very important to establish design standards for creating safe mid-block crossings for the pedestrians and bicyclists who use these trails. The mid- The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 60 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) block trail crossing on Highland, 300 feet north of the Highland/Holly intersection (not along a stream) is a good example of a well-designed mid-block crossing, using a refuge island on a two-lane road. GVLT believes it is particularly critical for this plan to provide guidance for mid-block crossings on collector and arterial streets and to encourage the design of safe mid-block crossings on these streets where appropriate. We support the language included in earlier drafts of the plan, however we believe it is very important for each mid-block crossing to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. There may be cases where crossings less than 200 feet from an intersection can still be safely designed. We believe that failure to plan for mid-block crossings on collector and arterial streets is a failure to acknowledge basic human nature, a failure to address existing unsafe situations (see below), and a failure to plan for preventing unsafe situations in the future. We believe that when confronted with a mid-block trail crossing on a collector or arterial, a significant percentage of trail users will attempt to cross mid-block rather than travel to an intersection. It is important to note that a well-designed mid-block crossing with a refuge island and good sight-lines can be safer than crossing at an intersection because cars are not turning, and only one direction of traffic has to be crossed at a time. Following are two mid-block crossings that GVLT strongly believes should be included as specific planned projects on the maps at the end of Chapter 5, and in the Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements Table 5-4 in Section 5.3.3: o Durston Mid-Block Crossing on West Side Trail – North of the Mall, the West Side Trail crosses Durston (a three-lane minor arterial) mid-block. This crossing is 230 feet west of the Durston/Greenway intersection and 210 feet east of the Durston/Hunters intersection. A refuge island could be installed in the center lane to create a safe crossing. o Oak Street/Regional Park Mid-Block Crossing – Immediately south of the Regional Park, in the new Oak Springs subdivision, there is a major greenway trail that hits Oak 550 feet east of the Oak/Yellowstone intersection and 580 feet west of the Oak/Ferguson intersection. At this location, Oak will eventually be constructed to a four-lane arterial with a median island (it is currently two lanes and ends at Ferguson). Hundreds of new residences are being constructed south of the Regional Park and in the future, many children and other people of all ages will use this greenway trail to access the park and the new Chief Joseph Middle School north of the park. We believe it is profoundly unrealistic to imagine that all (or even a majority) of trail users will travel over 500 feet east or west to cross Oak. This mid-block intersection will become extremely dangerous unless it is designed to provide a safe crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians. It is important to note that mid-block crossings on four-lane roads create a dangerous false sense of security for bicyclists and pedestrians unless the crossing is signalized. GVLT believes it is critically important for the Transportation Plan Update to include plans for eventual installation of a signalized mid-block crossing at this location. • Curb Extensions & Refuge Islands – GVLT strongly supports the recommended curb extension and refuge island standards in section 9.7.1. We believe these are The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 61 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) important design tools for crossings at both intersections and mid-block. A good example is the recently installed refuge island at the Durston/North 25th intersection that has greatly increased the safety of this crossing for Emily Dickenson Elementary School students. • Main Street Underpass – Last year the Main Street to the Mountains Trail System reached Main Street at the new library. A safe crossing on Main Street is now needed – either a signal at the Main Street/Broadway intersection or ideally, an underpass east of this intersection. GVLT supports the recommendation included in the “Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network Improvements” map (figure 5-7) at the end of Chapter 5, and in Table 5-4 “Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements” (section 5.3.3). • I-90 & Railroad Bike-Ped Overpass – Communities across our nation are creating safe bicycle-pedestrian overpasses across major barriers such as interstate highways and railroads. In our community, our best opportunity for such a facility is to construct an overpass across the railroad and I-90, connecting the abandoned railroad berms immediately northeast of the Village Downtown. GVLT believes that as more subdivisions are developed north of I-90 there will be an increasingly significant need for this overpass. This overpass would also provide a key link in the Main Street to the Mountain trail system. It is essential to include this big vision project in the Transportation Plan Update if it is going to have any chance of eventually being realized. Securing funding will be extremely difficult if this major project is not included in the Transportation Plan Update. While this overpass is included on the “Recommended Bozeman Pedestrian Network Improvements” map (figure 5-7) at the end of Chapter 5, it needs to be included in the Proposed Pedestrian Intersection Improvements Table 5-4 in Section 5.3.3. • Sidewalks & Intersections – GVLT believes that sidewalks are the foundation of a pedestrian-friendly community and we strongly support the extensive proposals for sidewalk and pedestrian intersection improvements in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. We believe these improvements should be strategically prioritized to focus first on the most dangerous missing links and deteriorated sidewalks, and the most dangerous intersections. Unnecessary controversy should be avoided. Constructing sidewalks on local streets within existing neighborhoods where many homeowners don’t want them (like the New Hyalite View subdivision) should not be a priority. GVLT supports the six-foot-wide sidewalk standard illustrated in Figure 9-14 and we believe six-foot-wide sidewalks should be the standard for all areas with significant pedestrian traffic, including sidewalks adjacent to parkland and sidewalks that provide important routes to schools or other destinations. Six-foot sidewalks are preferable for two way traffic such as baby strollers and wheelchairs as well as for snow plowing because plow blades are typically six feet. • Safe Routes to School – GVLT supports the Bozeman Safe Routes to School Plan and the references to that plan included in Section 5.3.1. • Safe Access to Parks – Two of Bozeman’s most popular parks have very limited safe bicycle-pedestrian access. The I-90 and Railroad bike/ped overpass is part of the recommendations being made as part of this transportation plan update. It is recommended that the “Story Hill Rail Trail” project contained in Table 5-8 be revised to more clearly discuss the I-90 and Railroad overpass. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 62 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) o East Gallatin Recreation Area - The only safe bicycle-pedestrian access to the East Gallatin Recreation Area (which includes some of the community’s best recreational trails) is a somewhat obscure and circuitous trail route from the east. GVLT strongly supports the bicycle-pedestrian improvements proposed for North 7th, Rouse, Griffin and Manley. o Bozeman Pond – There is essentially no safe bicycle-pedestrian access to Bozeman Pond – northwest Bozeman’s only large, fully developed park. GVLT strongly supports the bicycle-pedestrian improvements proposed for Fowler and Huffine. • Way Finding and Bicycle Signage – The Main Street to the Mountain Trail System includes several on-street connections that would benefit from way-finding and bicycle-route signage. GVLT recommends listing these connections in one or more of the tables in this plan: o Bozeman Public Library north to the Story Mill Trail Spur trailhead off L Street. o Langohr Park to the Sourdough Trail trailhead off Fairway o Gallagator Trail crossing on Willson to the Gallagator continuation south of the Museum of the Rockies o West Side Trail missing link north of West Babcock (Meghan’s Way) • Complete Streets – GVLT strongly supports the “Complete Streets Guidelines” (Chapter 6 – section 6.1) for ensuring that streets are safe for all users including motorists, transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. We urge the City and County Commissions to adopt strong policies based on these guidelines. • Boulevards and Boulevard Trees – GVLT supports creating boulevards and planting boulevard trees wherever possible. We believe boulevard trees provide very important aesthetic, environmental and traffic calming benefits. Boulevards are essential for creating quality sidewalks and shared use paths. In wintertime, sidewalks immediately adjacent to streets can become impassable when plows push snow onto them. In conclusion, GVLT believes the changes and additions we have suggested are important for bicycle-pedestrian safety and our community’s quality of life. Overall, we commend the planning team for doing an excellent job of incorporating quality bicycle-pedestrian planning into this update. 60 Jason Delmue (December 5, 2008) I have the following comments on the Transportation Plan update. First, bravo to all involved who helped ensure that cycling and walking receive the attention that they deserve. These modes of transportation reduce traffic, promote health, and really contribute to the quality of life in Bozeman. It is so nice to be able to get around safely and effectively on a bike or on foot. Thank you for your comments. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 63 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) I would rather see "complete streets" be a policy as opposed to a guideline. Please also convey my comment to the City Commission and the County Commission. I urge them to adopt the plan. I also urge them to revise the UDO and the subdivision regulations with specific provisions to effectuate the transportation plan. Thank you!! Thank you for your comment. The Plan does not set forth policies, and previous discussions about Complete Streets have resulted in basic comfort level with the term “Guidelines” instead. It will be up to the local agencies to put forth a formal “Complete Streets Policy” for consideration by your elected officials. No changes are recommended. 61 Gonnie Siebel (December 5, 2008) Thank you for your extensive consideration of bicycle-pedestrian needs in our new Bozeman transportation plan and for balancing the plan for all transportation system users – not just motorists. I support your recommendations for “Bicycle Improvements & Shared Use Paths.” I also applaud your important vision of a bicycle route between Belgrade and Bozeman, although I have not studied the different options. I noticed that recommendations for creating safe mid-block crossings on collectors and arterials were dropped in the most recent version of the plan. Especially trail crossings on busy streets could create some unsafe areas, since people may not wish to go the extra distance to the next crossing. I am glad to see the plan proposes lots of important intersection improvements for increased pedestrian safety. I would like to direct focus on crossings infrequently used by pedestrians and/or bicyclists (e.g. North 19^th Ave./Deadman's Gulch), where motorists can turn at the same time the crossing light is white and do not expect (nor see) these users. Some real creativity will be needed to make motorists alert to such users. Actually, even in town it is often risky to be on a white light pedestrian crossing while motorists are turning left or right. As for the all these situations, maybe some front page articles in the Chronicle would help to educate people to the more intensive traffic situations we have nowadays. As I have mentioned in meetings over the past few years, motorists and non-motorists are not a good mix and a stripe is not always going to keep bicyclists safe. In Europe and Australia, I have used non-motorist lanes shared by pedestrians and bicyclists separated with a stripe and buffered from motorized traffic by a boulevard. This is a very “user-inviting” and safe solution and I would love to see this idea tested in our valley. Thank you for all your efforts in this important process. The discussion about mid-block crossings has been limited to local streets due to concern about encouraging pedestrians to cross at mid-block locations along high volume roadways. There are a number of shared-use paths recommended as part of this plan. However, they do require additional right-of-way and pavement which may not always be available. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. 62 Catherine E. Costakis (December 5, 2008) I am writing to you to make public comment on the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update). First, I would like to thank all the members of the Transportation Coordinating Committee as well as the consultants on the project for a job well done. I know it has been a long process and I appreciate the time commitment and dedication it has taken to reach this point. In general I am very pleased with the plan. I think the emphasis on having a well functioning multi-modal transportation system is very important in an age of ever increasing fuel costs, global climate change, and public health issues due to obesity and chronic disease. Having a system that allows people full access to safe, convenient, and Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 64 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) healthy multi-modal transportation options will be critical to the viability of our transportation system and the livability of our community for years to come. My comments come from several perspectives: my experience on the Bozeman Planning Board, my work as a public health practitioner, and as a citizen with property both in the city and the county. • I strongly suggest the city and the county adopt a complete streets policy in order to make our transportation system seamlessly function for all our citizens whether they live in the city or the county. I hope that we will no longer build streets with 35-70 mph speed limits with absolutely no shoulder to accommodate walkers, bicyclists and even motorist in the event of any car trouble (examples are Springhill Road or Manley Road). • I strongly suggest that a multi-faceted education and awareness campaign be launched to educate pedestrians, bicyclists and motorist to safely share the road. If we are going to work hard to accommodate all modes via infrastructure changes then we should do a better job of doing outreach to the community to educate all modes on how to be safe on our roads and sidewalks. • I also hope we can work with local law enforcement to increase enforcement efforts to make sure the rules are followed and there are consequences for unsafe behavior (i.e., riding a bike at night without proper lights, motorists harassing bicyclists or passing too close for safety, riding bikes on the wrong side of the street, etc.). • Lastly, I would like to make sure we have a comprehensive and functioning maintenance schedule for roads, sidewalks, and bike facilities. If our roads are built well but are not maintained (i.e., cracks, holes, poor snow and debris removal) then they are not actually safe for citizens to use. Given our cold climate conditions I think we need to think about how to make our transportation system function effectively throughout the year. For instance, many of our senior citizens feel it is unsafe to get out and walk on our sidewalks (if they are available) during the winter due to poorly maintained facilities. Perhaps we could have some priority sidewalk and bike routes just like we have priority snow removal streets so that people can count on certain routes that will be safe for them to walk and bike during the winter months. Thank you for considering my comments. Congratulations on the work so far. I urge the city commission and county commission to adopt this plan as soon as possible. I look forward to living in a community with a well functioning, pleasant, safe and convenient transportation system for years to come. The Plan does not set forth policies, and previous discussions about Complete Streets have resulted in basic comfort level with the term “Guidelines” instead. It will be up to the local agencies to put forth a formal “Complete Streets Policy” for consideration by your elected officials. A number of recommended programs, policies, and procedures including education programs can be found in Chapter 6. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. 63 Kevin Bernard (December 5, 2008) Albeit the 11th hour, I would like to make my basic comments on the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. I believe our community needs more Bike Lanes and less trails. I believe our community needs more Sidewalks and less trails. I am not against trails, however I believe that we Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 65 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) have gone overboard with trails while neglecting these other important biker/pedestrian needs. I know two people who have been killed by automobiles because of lack of Bike lanes; Jim Siron and Joe Frost. I am also aware of a woman who is now a paraplegic. I bike myself and am astounded by the shear absence of bike lanes. There is a severe need for bike lanes. Sidewalks are also deficient in more places than would be expected. It is shameful that we as a community have not filled in important sidewalks and attended to the needs of the bike traffic. Especially when fatal statistics give evidence to the need. There are many dead bicyclists. How many have died because there is a lack of trails? I have identified trails because of the exaggerated focus in regard to where money, time and energy is being funneled in this direction. Granted, GVLT creates these trails in large part from private donation and fund raising. However, they require expenditures by that city to accommodate these trailheads with curb extensions, refuge islands, mid-block crossings, cross walks, and other necessary improvements that are needed due to the introduction of a trail. In addition, the City must then maintain these miles of trails. Which is more money sucked away from Sidewalks and Bike Lanes. These extra expenses add up and siphon much needed money away from bike lanes and sidewalks. GVLT has great money and great power and seems to dictate the development in this regard. It appears as though the one who has the most money gets what they want. Please put a moratorium on trails and allocate money and design for Bike Lanes and Sidewalks. 64 Zehra Osman (December 5, 2008) It is with great enthusiasm and support that I reviewed your Transportation Plan. It is an amazing amount of work! Please accept my encouragement and gratitude for this effort. When we all have good pedestrian and bicycle systems that are supported by regular, reliable mass transportation systems, we will: • reduce our carbon footprint • reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (foreign oil) • get out and exercise • meet/see our neighbors while outside of our cars - which promotes a more lively and interactive community • let our kids be independent of their personal "mommy chauffeurs" and ride/walk to their after-school activities • make Bozeman a more livable community With that, I have to say that it was very difficult to get through your plan. Everything was written in narrative form over many pages. I could not find maps, graphics, and photos that portrayed your plan in a graphically comprehensive way. Thank you for your comments. This plan attempts to take a multi-modal look at transportation in the greater Bozeman area and balance the needs of all users of the transportation system. No changes are recommended. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Public Draft Comments (October 29, 2008 – December 5, 2008) Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. / ALTA Planning + Design / Cambridge Systematics Page 66 of 66 # Public Comment Received Consultants Response Consultants Suggested Action Direction from TCC (12/17/08) Here is what I consider (some) elements of a good transportation plan (much of it taken from Dan Burden's Walkable Cities website). You may have all this in your plan, but I couldn't find it. 1. Reduce the width of car lanes and roads to slow down traffic. Dan Burden suggested this for Durston, and it applies to other streets as well. The lanes are so wide, people tend to speed. The bike lanes can be wider :) and the car lanes can be more narrow. We don't need a turn lane for the full length of road. A planted boulevard in place of the median - with intermittent left-turn lanes -- is much softer, safer, and easier to calm traffic. 2. Trees! There are many barren areas in Bozeman that offer no shade. Pedestrians are more comfortable under the shade of trees. It is so pleasant to walk on the south side of town as opposed to the west side and north side. Much of this is due to trees. In the heat of summer, shade will promote walking. In the winter, it can be a wind-break. Perhaps Bozemanites can donate or adopt a tree along a pedestrian connector. 3. Encourage small neighborhood stores and restaurants that are easy to walk to. Yes, this is an important part of a comprehensive transportation plan! For example, on the west side of town where I live, there are very few restaurants, coffee shops, grocery stores, etc. to walk to. We all drive to other parts of town. 4. More greenways and parks. Galligator-type trails could exist in other parts of Bozeman. 5. Keep Streamline going! In fact we need more buses more often! 6. Check out Dan Burden’s Walkable Communities Website http://www.walkable.org It is full of information! Thank you for all the effort you've put into your plan. I look forward to the positive results of your work. Current FHWA and MDT design standards do not allow for much narrower lane widths than shown for the minor arterial and principal arterial typical sections contained in the draft plan. An “urban streetscape” typical section was initially put into the transportation plan that portrayed what a narrow “streetscaped” section could look like, but it just confused the issue and has subsequently been removed. Thank you for your comment. Defining and specifying tree placement and proper locations is outside the scope of this Transportation Plan. Thank you for your comment. It is intuitive that land use and transportation are interconnected, however we are careful in this regard because this transportation Plan is not a land use plan. We rely on your current land use plans and policies for growth forecasting. That being stated, we so have some guidelines on clustering land use as contained in section 7.9 of the transportation Plan. Thank you for your comment. Defining and specifying greenways and parks is outside the scope of this Transportation Plan. Typically explored through a Comprehensive Parks Master Plan. Public transit is an integral component to a true multi-modal transportations system. Streamline completes their own planning for their system - the draft Transportation Plan recognizes their importance to the transportation system and supports their future growth. Noted No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. No changes are recommended. 65 Marianne Amsden (December 5, 2008) A petition was received on December 5, 2008 at 11:53 AM via email from Marianne Jackson Amsden (GallEP). The materials submitted are attached at the end of the public comment matrix. The Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan acknowledges that equestrians are users of the transportation system and does not make any recommendations to restrict equestrian access on trails, paths, or roadways. At this time it is expected that equestrian user interests will be incorporated in the PROST plan. Discuss at TCC level. !É !É !É !É !É !É !É !É !É HARPER PUCKETT GALLATIN19TH PATTERSON GOOCH HILL COTTONWOOD INTERSTATE 90 19TH3RDBAXTERLOVEJACKRABBIT FRONTAGE COTTONWOODGOOCH HILLHUFFINE FOWLERSPRINGHILLNASHNELSONBLACKWOOD STUCKY CAMERON BRIDGE LVALLEY CENTER BRIDGER CANYON JOHNSON HULBERT SOURDOUGHDAVISBOZEMAN TRAIL MCILH ATTAN TOOHEY MANLEYFS 712PORTNELLENDERSZOOTFORT ELLISBEATTYBASELINE HAMMSPAIN BRIDGELYNXMOUNT ELLISPASHAMONFORTON SCHOOLKENT SPUR ELK RIDGE DEER HAWK HILL JAGAR LUDWIG GOLDENSTEIN BASELINE RIV E R JEEP TRAILFS 979R e c o m m e n d S t u d y A r e a E q u e s t r i a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o r r i d o r s §¨¦90 £¤191 Park Park Madison GallatinJefferson Beaverhead Teton Meagher Sweet Grass MONTANA IDAHO WYOMINGDRAFTGreater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan FIGURE 5-8Recommend Study Area Equestrian Transportation CorridorsOctober 2008Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design April, 2008 SchoolsUrban Boundary I 0 3Mile ExistingShared-Use Path n Proposed Shared-Use Path Equestrian!É Horse Barn In an effort to demonstrate to the TCC (Transportation Coordinating Committee) that access to a few select trails they have planned for the Bozeman area is important to equestrians, we will be submitting the following petition to them, with as many signatures as we can get. We’d like to add your name, but we need your permission. If you are willing to let us use your name, e‐mail it along with your address to gallepmt@yahoo.com This petition will also be available at area vets and retailers, so please only sign once—and please pass this information on to others! The public comment period ends December 5, 2008. Gallatin Equestrian Partnership www.gallepmt.org The TCC (Transportation Coordinating Committee) is about to finalize the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update without any equestrian access to the separate “shared‐ use” paths they have planned through rural areas. Sign below if you support equestrian access to the trails shown on the map, along with route signage for horse‐drawn vehicles and the text proposals shown next to the map. NAME ADDRESS PHONE/EMAIL Harlan Olson 6350 Heavenly Lane Bozeman, Montana 586‐3209 horsedrawn@imt.net Joal Olson 6350 Heavenly Lane Bozeman, Montana 586‐3209 horsedrawn@imt.net Colleen Tretter 403 North Tracy Bozeman 59715 600‐2659 Holly Eiden 580‐2284 holszoo@bridgeband.com Jan Elpel 8215 Fowler Lane, Bozeman, 59718 jelpel@montanadsl.net Scott Morgan 275 Quinn Creek Rd. Bozeman, MT 59715 539‐5623 Amy Morgan Linda Svendsen 14543 Kelly Canyon Road Bozeman, MT 59715 linda@boojum.com NANCY PALMER CENTURY 21 SUMMIT REALTY 406 586 2111 1941 WEST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MT 59718 Kim Larson 2603 Annie Street, Bozeman, MT kim.larson@hotmail.com Robert P. Coffin 45 Peaks View Drive Bozeman, MT 59718 Sherry A. Coffin Morgan R. Coffin Spencer Q. Coffin Anna Duderstadt 215 N. Weaver St. Belgrade, MT 59714 Jamey Catchings 215 N. Weaver St. Belgrade, MT 59714 Nancy Creel 1420 Cherry Drive, Bozeman nmcreel@bresnan.net Julia Urbanski PO BOX 11286 Bozeman, MT 59719 Don Seifert 581‐1096 Linda Roberts PO Box 10418 Bozeman, Mt. 59719 SueMeadows PO Box 10418 Bozeman 59719 Pat Fritche twosockspat@netzero.net Virginia Phillips 6390 Johnson Rd Bozeman MT 59718 209‐2582 Amy Waring 1000 Bates Rd Manhattan, MT 59741 282‐6057 Sandy Kypfer 1951 Star Ridge Road Bozeman, Montana 59715 David Morrell 1854 High Flat Road Bozeman, MT 59718 570‐3390 david.morrell@ridgelinemechanicalsales.com Cathy Haggerty 5100 Patterson Rd. Bozeman, 59718 Pegasus Therapeutics LLC pegasus@imt.net Graham and Diana Neale 13160 Portnell Rd. Bozeman, 59718 gneale@garciaandassociates.com Suzanna Peters 5530 Stucky Rd., Bozeman MT 59715 chica_caliente@earthlink.net Linda Henne 2550 Deer Creek Drive Bozeman, Mt. 59715 lhenne@imt.net Pamela Hainsworth Riverhouse Production 406‐282‐7803 pamela@littleappletech.com 2605 Stagecoach Trail Road 406‐580‐8656 Manhattan, Montana 59741 Linda Keene 1623 Logan‐Trident Road, Three Forks, MT 59752 285‐6667 infohydro@aol.com Dan Porter dan@bozemanbrokers.com Alan Jackson 2015 Knaab Drive Bozeman, MT 59715 585‐3792 Nan Pizitz 2015 Knaab Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715 585‐3792 Jaque Richey 26 Hofer Lane, Bozeman, MT 59718 582‐1856 December 11, 2008 PROST committee of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Re: Equestrian Trails in Gallatin County To Whom It May Concern: In creating the Parks Recreation Open Space and Trails plan for the City of Bozeman, the principal purpose addressed was development within the city limits. There are currently no designated equestrian trails in the city. In the past the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board has reviewed subdivision plans that included equestrian trails but none of these came to fruition. We would gladly assist any future development in designing trails for equestrian use if the developer wished to do so and the location is deemed appropriate. As for the existing trails in Bozeman, RPAB and the Bozeman Parks Department have determined that existing city trail locations are not appropriate for equestrian use due to safety and user conflict issues. This being said, we recognize that horse travel provides great value for both recreation and transportation. Horse travel also provides a connection with our history that would be our loss if we allowed it to disappear. We would like to clearly state that the absence of equestrian content in the PROST Plan does not indicate a desire on our part to thwart the future development of horse trails as long as the issues waste disposal/enforcement, user conflicts, safety, impact, maintenance, and the necessary modification of existing ordinances are addressed. We urge those involved in trail planning for Gallatin County to look for ways to preserve existing horse routes and ways to create new equestrian pathways for the future. Sandy Dodge Chair, PROST Plan Committee Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board From: Turner, Crystal [mailto:Crystal.Turner@gallatin.mt.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:50 PM To: Jeff Krauss; pomnicho@montanadsl.net; ehenyon@owlsadventures.org; autodoc@in-tch.com; jebert@mt.gov; Provance, Lee; Durkin, George; Debbie Arkell; Richard Hixson; Chris Kukulski; Andy Epple; Scott, Chris; RalphZimmer@mcn.net; avanderwey@mt.gov; joolsen@mt.gov; dsmith@bozemanchamber.com; rvl@facilities.montana.edu; wbanziger@facilities.montana.edu; Jon Henderson; baumbauer@imt.net; belgrademgr@qwest.net; Lloyd.rue@dot.gov; rgammon@mt.gov; rbukvich@mt.gov; mcspadden@mcn.net Cc: Murdock, Bill Subject: GallEP & TCC Dear Fellow TCC Members: Last month we all heard testimony regarding GallEP’s (the horse folks) concerns about our draft update plan. Like many of you, I initially dismissed their concerns as coming from a small interest group that might not reflect more mainstream, vehicle-oriented planning. GallEP has now persuaded me otherwise. I have read their proposed text changes and looked at their proposed map (see attached). I believe their proposed changes are well thought out and not at all inconsistent with the “Complete Streets” philosophy. Indeed, our development patterns may still need to focus on fossil fueled cars, but we would be remiss to not plan our rights of way for all sorts of non-motorized modes. The car may be here to stay, but horses, buggies and bikes will make a comeback. GallEP’s language only asks that their hat be tossed into the ring. I agree. Sincerely, Bill Murdock, Member TCC Gallatin County Commission GallEP’s Proposed Additions to the Greater Bozeman Area Plan Update Let us first explain why we think these changes are justified, using the goals stated in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update. On page 1-4, the goals listed are (we’re paraphrasing) “functionality; variety of travel options allowing safe, logical and balanced travel”; and that the plan “support safe neighborhoods.” Furthermore, goal #3, bullet #2, listed on page 1-6 states that the plan “respect and ensure the area’s natural and historic context and minimize adverse impacts the environment and existing neighborhoods.” As we’ve testified before, the planning boundary for the Update includes areas currently and historically used by equestrian riders and drivers. They and other non-motorized residents have used the unpaved roads as a trail system. As these roads are paved with no shoulder and no trail, and traffic volumes and speeds increase, these roads become dangerous to both motorized and non-motorized users. Planning a trail that could accommodate equestrians would keep them off the road and “minimize adverse impacts” of road “improvements.” Not planning for equestrian access to trails in equestrian neighborhoods is in direct contradiction to all the goals of the plan: “functionality, safety, variety, respect of historic context and existing neighborhoods.” With this in mind, we are proposing the following additions: 1. Page 1-6, #2 (Objectives): “consider equestrian needs, where appropriate, when planning and designing new roads” 2. Page 1-6, #2 (Objectives): add to bullet on widened shoulders “/equestrian” 3. Page 2-76: Add Section 2.3.22 (Existing Conditions/System Deficiencies): We have supplied photos of equestrians on narrow and dangerous in-area roads. We would also like text something like the following: “There are no public trail systems in the City of Bozeman or anywhere in the planning boundary that allow for equine rider/driver travel. Historically, equestrians have used the rural road network of unpaved roads to travel between equestrian facilities, to MSU and to the Fairgrounds. As Bozeman grows, it is becoming increasingly dangerous for them to access these sites.” 4. Chapter 4: Problem Identification: Make equestrian 4.8, move transit to 4.9: add something like: “The planning boundary for the Update includes areas currently and historically used by equestrian riders and drivers. They and other non-motorized residents have used the unpaved roads as a trail system. As these roads are paved with no shoulder and no trail, and traffic volumes and speeds increase, these roads become dangerous to both motorized and non-motorized users. Future improvements need to take into consideration all of these users.” 5. Chapter 6: 6.1: Complete Streets: We noticed that the “policy” is now a “guideline,” and that our chances are slim of getting mentioned here. However, by listing users and not including equestrians, we are by definition not users, which is inaccurate, and could have negative repercussions for us. Our first choice would be to add into the second sentence of the guideline …”…equestrians, where appropriate,…” . Using “where appropriate” should alleviate the fear that we want, or should have access to, every trail planned. We believe in the complete streets policy idea, if it can accomplish its goal of “accommodating all users..” but as it is written, it does not do this. In an effort to be supportive of the guideline as it would benefit the whole community greatly, we’ve included a second choice: would you consider adding into the second sentence after “including:” …”but not limited to:..” before you list the users? Obviously, this would have to be worked into the 6.1.2 Recommendation as well. 6. A Map! The cycling and pedestrian facilities have a map, the equestrian community needs one too, even if it is identified as “trails possibly allowing equestrian access” . A map is being prepared showing the routes we’d like access to. If the Plan doesn’t include a map, then by default, equestrians won’t be allowed access. We could be landlocked in our own neighborhoods. Well, that covers it. Thank you so much for your consideration. We appreciate all the hard work and careful consideration that has gone into this document, which I believe will ultimately enhance the character of the community we all love so much. !É !É !É !É !É !É !É !É !É HARPER PUCKETT GALLATIN19TH PATTERSON GOOCH HILL COTTONWOOD Montana State University Gallatin County Fairgrounds INTERSTATE 90 19TH3RDBAXTERLOVEJACKRABBIT FRONTAGE COTTONWOODGOOCH HILLHUFFINE FOWLERSPRINGHILLNASHNELSONBLACKWOOD STUCKY CAMERON BRIDGE LVALLEY CENTER BRIDGER CANYON JOHNSON HULBERT SOURDOUGHDAVISBOZEMAN TRAIL M CILHATTAN TOOHEY MANLEYFS 712PORTNELLENDERSZOOTFORT ELLISBEATTYBASELINE HAMMSPAIN BRIDGELYNXMOUNT ELLISPASHAMONFORTON SCHOOLKENT SPUR ELK RIDGE DEER HAWK HILL JAGAR LUDWIG GOLDENSTEIN BASELINE R I V E R JEEP TRAILFS 979R e c o m m e n d S t u d y A r e a E q u e s t r i a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o r r i d o r s §¨¦90 £¤191 Park Park Madison GallatinJefferson Beaverhead Teton Meagher Sweet Grass MONTANA IDAHO WYOMINGDRAFTGreater Bozeman AreaTransportation Plan FIGURE 5-8Recommend Study Area Equestrian Transportation CorridorsOctober 2008Data Provided by: City of Bozeman, Alta Planning & DesignMap Prepared by: Alta Planning+Design April, 2008 SchoolsUrban Boundary I 0 3Mile ExistingShared-Use Path n Proposed Shared-Use Path !É Horse Barn Existing and Proposed Equestrian FacilitiesCurrent equine driving routes Proposed recreational trails allowing equestrian access (PROST Plan Addendum) Shared use paths with possible future equestrian access Proposed shared use paths with desired equestrian access