Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042308 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docMINUTES BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23rd, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 9:39 a.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Debbie Arkell, City Engineer, City of Bozeman Jon Henderson, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board JP Pomnichowski, Planning Board, City of Bozeman Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County Jeff Kraus, City Commissioner Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Jeff Ebert, District Administrator Butte District MDT Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Gary Vodenhal, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition, Gallatin County Staff Present: Shoni Dykstra, Recording Secretary John Van Delinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman Bob Murray, Engineer, City of Bozeman George Durkin, Gallatin County Road Office Rick Hixson, City Engineer Guests Present: Jeff Key, Project Engineer Tamzin Brown Marianne Amsden Mary VantHull Lisa Balard Steve Albert Suzanne Lassacher David Venezinno Lisa Ballard 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. Mary Vant Hull thanked TCC members for their foresight in planning in the past, present and future. She noted more and more people are interested in the trail systems in the County. She noted cyclists were beginning to feel imprisoned within the City limits of Bozeman and Belgrade. She noted bicycle trails were especially important in respect to the proposed Belgrade Interchange and safe trails between Belgrade and Bozeman. Marianne Amsden noted she was representing GallEP. She noted an activity with ALTA had developed a PROST map with an equestrian trail overlay. She urged the TCC members to preserve corridors for equestrian and agricultural use. She noted they had the ability to preserve the character and heritage of the Bozeman area. She noted Iowa had developed trail specifications for interaction between other non-motorized forms of transportation and equestrian trails. She also addressed the proposed modeling scenario number seven. She noted the completion of Fowler would end the freedom of equestrian use in the area as traffic volumes and speeds increased. She would like the TCC to recognize the adverse impacts and plan mitigation with a mixed use equestrian trail along the area. She noted that equestrian transportation on a national level was not relegated to recreation, but was also addressed as a viable mode of transportation. She noted equestrian trails could also be funded through CTEP. She noted the benefits of providing trails as having to transport horses to trail heads added traffic and adverse impact on the transportation system. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2008 Mr. Ebert noted the correct spelling of Carol Strizich’s name. Seeing no other corrections, additions, or changes to the minutes of the special meeting of March 26, 2008, Chairperson Epple announced the minutes are approved as amended. ITEM 4. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Special Events Traffic Management for MSU Home Football Games – Steve Albert, Western Transportation Institute Steve Albert of the Western Transportation Institute (WTI) introduced a project his agency had undertaken with MSU to manage special events traffic. He noted the WTI was focusing on traffic management as mitigating traffic would soon move beyond building up streets to management. He turned the presentation over to David Venezinno and Suzanne Lassacher. Mr. Venezinno noted the challenge with special events traffic is congestion. He noted WTI was working on proactive solutions. He went over the process WTI had utilized to collect data related to special events traffic. He stated the implementation process was a cooperative effort between WTI, MSU Police, MSU Athletics, MDT, Bozeman Police Department, City of Bozeman, and Gallatin County. He noted implementation included routing traffic and education of motorists. Ms. Lassacher explained additional traffic control included road closures, manual signal control, the utilization of real time cameras to effectively interface with police officers controlling intersections, and using dynamic message signs along to advise motorists on routes to utilize. Mr. Venezinno stated the implementation of traffic management had resulted in better traffic flow after the special event. He noted interagency cooperation had greatly improved, but transportation was still an afterthought with special events planning. Ms. Lassacher sought clarification on how traffic management fit in with the TCC and what funding partnerships might be available for WTI. Bob Lashaway noted even though there are only six home football games a year, the traffic problem would only escalate if the problem was not addressed. Kerry White mentioned MSU graduation as another special event at MSU. Mr. Lashaway noted most of the other events were off cycle with community traffic, did not include the length of stay, number of vehicles, and the amount of alcohol consumption. Mr. Albert noted special events traffic offered a perspective on traffic management which could be applied to the entire valley. He noted building more roads was not always the feasible answer, and stated the project was designed to show how interagency cooperation could have the same positive impact on reducing congestion. Lee Provance noted the County was not in a position to help financially. Jeff Krauss noted schools at all levels impacted traffic. He noted the high schools impact on Main Street, and possible funding could come from the City and State, Transportation Levies, and MSU. Ross Gammon noted what had been presented by WTI was an overview of the entire process; he restated that traffic management needed to be addressed in a proactive manner. He stated the traffic management affected the entire community, and it is somewhat of a systems impact issue. He noted MSU could possibly add a dollar per ticket sold for special events to help pay for traffic management. Mr. Provance noted WTI had done a great job, and wondered what possibilities of mass transit would be available to mitigate the problem. Mr. Albert noted conversations WTI had in respect to utilizing mass transit systems. Mr. Krauss noted possible revenue could be generated by adding to the cost of the parking passes to encourage students to utilize the public school bus service. Mr. Albert noted people utilize transit when they can save time or have a better quality trip or experience. Lisa Ballard noted Streamline had to take into consideration charter regulations. Mr. Bukvich noted MDT was committed to working with the respective agencies to adjust the timing at signalized intersections, he further stated a temporary signal at 11th and College would free up officers. He also noted college graduation should also be taken into consideration. Debbie Arkell noted Graf improvements from 19th to 3rd would be pursued this year which would allow for some traffic to be directed to the south. Chairperson Epple noted the conversation had inspired a lot of interest. He noted WTI had offered to host an upcoming TCC meeting at their facility. Mr. Gammon thanked Mr. Albert, Mr. Venezinno, and Ms. Lassacher along with the rest of his staff for their work to date. Chairperson Epple stated it had provided information TCC members could utilize in system management throughout the jurisdiction. ITEM 4. TCC MEMBER REPORTS A. Transit Committee Report Lisa Ballard, coordinator of Streamline, presented a PowerPoint highlighting the history of public transit in Bozeman. She noted Streamline is also Galavan, Headstart, Reach, and Streamline. There are currently four Streamline routes. She noted Streamline is operating on the same amount of federal monies as Galavan was operating on. She noted Streamline was a fare free service as it would cost more money to collect fares. She noted they are currently working on bus stops and shelters and space in the Intermodal facility. She noted ¾ of the way through FY08 Streamline had provided 165,000 rides. Streamline is focusing on how to keep up with growth, and they are looking at a mill levy to fund expansions as well as a looking to create an urban transit district. I-90/East Belgrade Interchange Report Pat Abelin noted a meeting in Helena with MDT regarding the East Belgrade Interchange had resulted in the project being placed on the tentative construction plan list. Mr. Ebert noted the tentative construction plan was a request for federal funding, and it would not become a committed project until the request for federal funding had been granted. Al VanderWey sought clarification on the modeling for alternatives in regard to the inclusion of the Interchange. Mr. Bukvich noted the Interchange was not likely to be completed in the next five years and the funding was not guaranteed at this point. He suggested inclusion in some of the modeling scenarios, but not in all of them. Jeff Key noted the interchange was included in the background of some of the modeling scenarios currently, but not included in all of them. TSM’s Report Ms. Arkell noted that the Oak/Rouse signal was supposed to be turned on April 24. She also mentioned Morrison and Maierle had been hired to survey the intersection of College and 11th. Rick Hixson noted the report should be complete in roughly 45 days. D. Bike Advisory Board Jon Henderson noted the Gallatin Valley Bike Club had a successful bike swap. He also reminded TCC members Bike Week is May 12 -16. He noted free breakfast was being sponsored for bike commuters during the week which also included a safety fair and bike show. E. Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Gary Vodenhal stated the Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee had created a priority list of missing sidewalks. He has researched funding sources other communities have utilized in similar situations to use in a recommendation to the City Commission and City Planning and Engineering Departments. Mr. Hixson noted a list was already in existence, but the program fell into disfavor with elected officials. Mr. Vodenhal noted the new list was prioritized and had been based on the previous list. Mr. Lashaway noted funding was not available for the current list. Ms. Arkell stated the areas lacking sidewalks were going to be the more difficult sections to get built. She noted the re-evaluated list would be a good place to start in getting the issue back in front of the Commission. Mr. Lashaway restated the problem of funding still exists. Ms. Arkell noted the presentation would at least get the issue back on the table. Mr. Bukvich noted CTEP funding might be available. Other TCC Member Reports Mr. McSpadden noted he is no longer the Chair of the Safe Trails Coalition. He noted he will continue to serve on the TCC until the Transportation Plan Update was completed. ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Mr. White sought clarification on the signal timing on Huffine. Mr. Bukvich noted the signals are too far apart to be interconnected so the timing is based on cross street traffic at this time. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Alternative Modeling Scenarios - Transportation Plan Update – Jeff Key Mr. Key stated the summary of the Alternative Modeling Scenarios sent out was based on the previous TCC meeting. He stressed the scenarios were strictly modeling exercises to demonstrate “what if” scenarios. He presented a brief overview of each modeling scenario. He noted Cambridge Systematics (CS) was researching to see the feasibility of modeling scenarios 3 and 4. He sought further clarification from TCC members on modeling scenarios they would like to see, as well as the current summation of the modeling scenarios presented. Jeff Ebert noted Gallatin County had requested a feasibility study for an entire interchange on Amsterdam Road. He noted the TransCad model presented a larger picture than the modeling scenario proposed and the two models should be included in the analysis. Mr. Key noted the write up could be included on the microanalysis as well as within the regional analysis. Mr. McSpadden noted MDT had modeled College Street for three lanes and a South 19th Upgrade with various intersection treatments. He also sought clarification on the arterial grid and the number of lanes proposed for those arterials. Mr. Key noted the projected volumes would indicate how many lanes would be modeled, he also noted the MDT models were not modeled with the current projections and would most likely not be utilized in the Update. It was moved be Mr. Lashaway, seconded by Mr. Provance, to approve the proposed alternative modeling scenarios. Mr. White noted a possible addition to the modeling scenarios could be an additional interstate interchange between Bozeman and Belgrade in the Cottonwood/Nelson area. Chairperson Epple noted that scope of project would probably be a focus of the next update. Mr. White noted an interchange would be modeled differently than the proposed overpass alternative for Davis and Nelson. Mr. Key noted an interchange report needed to meet 8 criteria, but with the volumes on I-90 it might become a regional need. Mr. Henderson sought clarification on the impact the scenarios had on design. Mr. Ebert noted the scenarios placed an emphasis on the feasibility of a project rather than on design. Mr. Henderson noted a disclaimer could be added to mention the intent of the alternative modeling scenarios. Mr. Key noted the disclaimer was included in the write up. JP Pomnichowski noted too strong of a disclaimer could put a project off. Mr. Key noted the merit of a project was revealed in the recommendation rather than the text of the modeling scenarios. Mr. VanderWey noted he had two additional scenarios to be considered. He noted Secondary 205 and Valley Center. George Durkin noted another possible model could be Stucky extended to Cobb. Mr. Key noted that Stucky had not been suggested as a model, but it would be a recommendation. Mr. Provance noted he did not think Stucky needed to be modeled. Mr. Gammon agreed with Mr. VanderWey about including Secondary 205 in the alternative model scenarios. Chairperson Epple sought clarification on the possibility of including an interchange of Harper Pucket and Secondary 205 within the scenario. Mr. Key responded the interchange could be modeled. It was moved by Mr. Ebert, seconded by Mr. White, to modify the motion to include the twelve modeling scenarios and an interchange at Harper Pucket and Secondary 205. The amendment passed 16-0. Mr. Ebert noted the modeling revealed a connection between Valley Center and Love Lane with an S type curve to Cameron Bridge Road and Alaska Way. He noted that design could come to pass, and the modeling should be included. Mr. Provance noted a preliminary plat for the area had been approved and the model of Valley Center should reflect that. Mr. Key noted the modeling could more accurately reflect that section of road. Mr. Bukvich noted his concern about modeling Valley Center with a pending project on the Road which may be in direct conflict to the number of lanes the update could project. Chairperson Epple noted that as stated the motion did not include any further modeling of Valley Center. The members of the TCC voted on the modified motion. The motion passed 16-0. Mr. Key presented a quick status report. He noted a stack of raw project recommendations had been given to CS to review. He noted the May TCC meeting should be addressing the problem identification data, and by the June meeting the preliminary recommendations should be ready to present. Alternative dates for the May and June TCC Special Meetings as per Jeff Key’s request. May 21, 2008 June 18, 2008 It was moved by Mr. Ebert, seconded by Mr. White, to change the special meeting dates to May 21, 2008 and June 18, 2008. The motion carried 16 - 0. Other New Business - None ITEM 7. PROJECT UPDATES - Discussion only as needed MSU Projects Update Mr. Lashaway noted the bidding on 8th and Cleveland goes out in the next week. He also noted chip sealing projects on 11th Avenue, Grand, and 7th Avenue would be taking place over the summer. Ms. Ballard, of Streamline, noted she would like notification of road closures a week in advance if possible. Belgrade Projects Update Mr. Ebert noted a chip sealing project on Jackrabbit Lane and a sealing project between Manhattan and Belgrade may involve work on the Belgrade Interchange. He stated discussions with the County Commission had not taken place to date. CTEP Projects Mr. VanderWey noted that the City has four active projects the Historic Willson School Rehab, the Milwaukee Rail-to-Trail Project, the College and Huffine Shared Use Pathway, and Radar units. Gallatin County has two candidate CTEP projects, one being northeast of Three Forks, and the other being the streetscape on West Yellowstone. South 19th Avenue – Main Street to Kagy Boulevard Mr. Ebert stated that the right of way negotiations were proceeding and conversations were being held to go over issues at MSU. He also noted the secured right of way from Dr. Rogers. He was optimistic about meeting the July bid letting. Bozeman Intermodal Facility Update Chairperson Epple noted construction continued to proceed. Ms. Ballard noted the facility was the downtown hub for the Streamline along with an indoor space for a waiting area and public restroom. Mr. Lashaway noted the space had been funded through TIF funds. He noted Hawthorne was also in the TIF district and Safe Routes to Schools should also be able to utilize TIF Funds as well. Signal Projects Mr. Ebert sought clarification on if the proposed cameras for traffic enforcement would be on MDT routes. Ms. Arkell noted they were probably exclusively on those routes. Mr. Ebert noted he would like to have a conversation about them, and Ms. Arkell responded the conversation should happen soon as an RFP has been drafted. North Rouse Avenue Mr. Ebert noted the Environmental Assessment Surveys were moving forward as were conversations with SHPO and the Historic Administration. He stated a draft should be available in late spring or summer. I-90 Improvements Mr. Gammon noted a section of I-90 would be closed to two lanes and a speed limit of 55 mph would be in place with no more than a four minute expected delay. He noted the closure would be in place for most of the summer. Huffine Lane Access Management – None Other Mr. VanderWey noted a local match of funding had been committed if the FTA delegated funds to Streamline. Ms. Ballard noted the extra funds would allow for an additional route or a weekend route. ITEM 8. 2008 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Epple noted the TCC would meet for a special meeting at 10:00 a.m. on May 21, 2008. There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. _____________________________________________ Andrew C. Chairperson Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee