Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032608 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docMINUTES BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 10:06 a.m. on Wednesday, March 26, 2008, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and asked the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Gary Vodehnal, Proxy for Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition, Gallatin County JP Pomnichowski, Planning Board, City of Bozeman George Durkin, Proxy for Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County David Smith, Citizen Member, City of Bozeman Jeff Krauss, City Commissioner Jeff Ebert, District Administrator Butte District MDT Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Superintendent, Butte District MDT Staff Present: Shoni Dykstra, Recording Secretary John Van Delinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning Rick Hixson, City Engineer, City of Bozeman Guests Present: Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Marcia Youngman Carol Strizich Chris Nixson Tamzin Brown Art & MaryAnn Nielsen ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker} Chairperson Epple called for public comment. Marcia Youngman resides at 1214 W Koch and noted she was on the TCC when the 2001 Transportation Plan was being developed. She also stated the proposed Highland/Oak bypass had been addressed at the Northeast Neighborhood Association meeting which had raised some questions. She noted the caption on figure 11-6 of the Current Plan, “The actual alignments may vary based on development patterns, geographic features, and other issues unknown at this time. The community planners will strive to design the roads to fit the character of the landscape and minimize impacts on natural features such as wetlands, mature trees, and riparian corridors.” She noted it would be better to utilize the idea and concept upfront rather than only in one location at a time. She stated one of the concerns brought up by the Neighborhood was the wetlands and the need to keep in mind the natural features. She referenced a study which had found 90 varieties of birds utilized the area. She noted the context of an area was an important factor in the consideration of the bypass. Chris Nixson, 719 N Wallace, reiterated Ms. Youngman’s statement. He is the current Northeast Neighborhood Association president and he stated the association would be getting together to provide input on the area. He noted the value of having density on Main Street needed to be balanced with the value of the wetlands to provide a win/win situation for the area. Tamzin Brown resides at 4496 Monforton School Road. She stated she was representing GallEP, Gallatin Equestrian Partnership, and voiced their desire to see equestrian trails and riding corridors provided for in the Transportation Plan Update. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2008 Since there were no corrections to the minutes of the special meeting of February 27, 2008, Chairperson Epple announced the minutes are approved as distributed. ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS Preliminary Traffic Model Volumes (Jeff Key) Preliminary Volume to Capacity Ratios (Jeff Key) Jeff Key from Robert Peccia and Associates presented a status report for the Transportation Plan Update. He noted the review of the 2030 Traffic Model Existing + Committed (E+C). He stated modifications based on the recommendations from the previous TCC meeting were being made. He did not present the typical sections to the architects and engineers over the last month because he decided to present the Committee’s recommendations to them. He noted ALTA is continuing to develop non-motorized recommendations. He stated his staff has been addressing the Transit components to be included in the Plan. He noted he would be presenting the recommendations to the Oversight Committee to go over every project item by item before presenting to the Committee. Mr. Key noted the E+C Model provided an idea of what future volumes would be if no other improvements were made. He noted the Model provides a comparison between what currently is and what might be. He shared some of the projected results for the different classifications of roadways. He stated the correct interpretation of the traffic model was to use the percentage of change from the model and apply that to an actual traffic count. He stated that not every roadway has a current traffic count, and he noted different options of distinguishing those from roads with current traffic counts. He noted the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio is a tool used to identify potential problem areas. He noted it often does not affect the Transportation Plan outside of problem identification, but it can be included in the Plan if it would be useful in other areas such as impact fee discussions and level of service for planning purposes. Mr. Key sought input from the Committee on what models of alternative scenarios they would be interested in seeing. He noted some scenarios which would be modeled, but did not meet the criteria for the E+C modeling such as Kagy Boulevard, a Highland Boulevard extension, an Oak Street extension, and the East Belgrade Interchange. Chairperson Epple sought clarification on what information Mr. Key needed from the Committee. Mr. Key said problem identification along with the technical memorandum was the next step. Al VanderWey noted that it was “gut level” reactions they was seeking input from. Mr. Key stated that not all of the project recommendations would be based on a modeling scenario, but it was important to incorporate recommendations from the Committee. Mr. Key sought the Committee’s wishes on the inclusion of the V/C ratios. Chairperson Epple noted that it would be important for impact fee discussions. Rob Bukvich noted the V/C ratios were confusing from a transportation standpoint as they did not address speed or number of intersections which impact capacity. Mr. Bukvich also stated he would like to continue using the grid system as a model for those projects that aren’t committed. Mr. Key noted the current Plan does not have the major network laid out with the modeling numbers, but the Update would include that network. Doug McSpadden sought clarification on the inclusion of a safety “interlay” within the models. Mr. Key noted most information on safety is included in the crash analysis. Mr. McSpadden noted that two minor arterials might be a safer alternative than one major arterial and wondered how that would be represented. Mr. VanderWey responded that it would be hard to include those within a predominantly planning oriented document as it is more related to GIS. Mr. Key noted he might be able to incorporate the idea within the chapter addressing crashes. He sought input from the Committee on the value of incorporating the idea. Mr. McSpadden stated he felt it would be beneficial. Mr. Bukvich stated he did not feel it was necessary for the Plan, as individual projects would go through an environmental survey. Mr. McSpadden noted he would like to see crash statistics provide a feedback loop. Mr. Key noted the crash analysis incorporated proposed mitigation for the intersections with high crash trends. JP Pomnichowski noted the figures provided represented what the future would hold if nothing happened beyond the projects included in the E+C. She sought clarification on the projects included on the CIP list. Mr. Bukvich noted most projects on the CIP list were not included as they did not add capacity. Mr. Key noted that only the projects having an impact on the traffic model are the projects reducing delay or adding capacity. Jeff Krauss noted the V/C ratios revealed how underutilized South Church is. He noted he was concerned about West Main between 5th and 19th and would like to see that section included in a modeling scenario. Mr. VanderWey noted that the traffic model is two dimensional and current time delays aren’t factors in the model. Mr. Key noted the intersection timing mitigation was included in another exercise, but modeling could be done. Kerry White echoed Mr. Krauss’s concern. Mr. White asked about the ability to model a south bypass on Huffine. Mr. Key noted the model is able to put in a link that would present a “what if scenario” but putting in bypasses is tricky. Mr. White sought clarification on Huffine Lane near its intersection with Gooch Hill and how intersection mitigation was modeled. Mr. Key noted the model does not include turning restrictions. Mr. White voiced his concern about using the Transportation Plan as a justification for required improvements when it did not include restrictions. Mr. VanderWey noted a project was a microscopic picture and analysis while the Plan is a macroscopic picture, and the exclusion of restrictions did not invalidate the usefulness of the Plan. Chairperson Epple noted there is a large difference between a driveway approach and an intersection and it would be impossible to model each approach to a highway. Mr. Key noted his obligation was to work with Cambridge Systematics on recommendations and on modeling solutions. Chairperson Epple noted the number of analyzed model runs was limited. David Smith asked if Amsterdam Road was included in the area. Mr. Key noted it was not. Mr. VanderWey noted it was an area that did need attention. Chris Scott noted the area around Triple Tree saw a decrease in the future ADT numbers and Pasha Lane seemed to have an over inflated count. Mr. Key stated he could address those areas. Mr. Scott sought clarification on the modeling for the paving of Baxter. He noted public perception of “over inflation” could invalidate the value of the Plan. Mr. Bukvich noted several links could be shown with ADT <500 rather than with projected numbers. Mr. Key asked for specific modeling suggestions. Jeff Ebert noted the improvements for College and Kagy should be modeled even though they did not meet the E+C criteria. He also noted the modeling of Gooch Hill Road or Cottonwood as a potential corridor to relieve the pressure on Huffine Lane. He would also like a modeled North/South link to Jackrabbit Lane around Love Lane or Alaska Way. George Durkin noted that Alaska Way is a focus of the proposed Belgrade interchange. Ms. Pomnichowski noted 11th Avenue from Kagy to Blackwood could be modeled, as well as Oak Street west of 19th. Chairperson Epple noted he would like to see the completion of Fowler modeled from Oak to Babcock. He would like to see a model of 15th connected between Main and Babcock, and an overpass for a Nelson and Fowler alignment, and another overpass for Baxter and Mandeville modeled. Mr. Hixson would like to see Cottonwood north of Huffine Lane modeled. Chairperson Epple noted that the current plan has the existing major street network and sought clarification on the modeling incorporated from the major arterials. Mr. Key noted the modeling exercises would reveal the merits of including particular projects in the recommendations within the Update. Mr. VanderWey stated the grid system graphic is difficult to incorporate in the Update as streets have become developer driven and no one is looking at building an entire section. Chairperson Epple noted the grid system was important from a planning perspective as it is providing the infrastructure which will be needed 100 years from now. Mr. VanderWey noted the modeling exercise was important to indicate areas which will need to be addressed within the next 20 years. Mr. Key thanked the Committee for their input. Chairperson Epple also sought clarification on equestrian trails as related to Ms. Brown’s public comment. Mr. White noted the County Planning Board had recently formed a trails committee. He noted the trails were not looked at as transportation but as a recreational activity. ITEM 5. 2008 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Epple noted the next meeting would be a regular meeting on April 23 at 9:30. There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time the meeting was adjourned at 11:41 a.m. _____________________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee