Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072308 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docMINUTES BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. on Wednesday, July 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 Jon Henderson, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Jeff Ebert, District Administrator Butte District MDT Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Superintendent, Butte District MDT Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT JP Pomnichowski, Planning Board, City of Bozeman Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Rick Hixson proxy for Debbie Arkell, City Engineer, City of Bozeman Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee Greg Sullivan, Planning Department, Gallatin County Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County 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 Guests Present: Jeff Key Joe Gilpin Scott Randle Lee Hazelbaker David Cobb Dan Huthausen Carol Strizich Lisa Ballard Chris Naumann ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker} Chairperson Epple called for public comment, seeing none he closed public comment. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2008. Since there were no corrections to the minutes of the special meeting of May 21, 2008, Chairperson Epple announced the minutes are approved as distributed. ITEM 4. TCC MEMBER REPORTS A. Transit Committee Report Lisa Ballard noted Streamline was celebrating its second birthday. She noted Streamline had seen a 72% increase in ridership over its first fiscal year and a 54% increase when services such as Galavan and Reach were factored in. She stated June ridership was up from the predictions due to the increase of gas prices. She noted the Belgrade and Bozeman City Commissions had been presented information regarding the urban transportation district and were moving forward with a mill levy to expand. She noted Streamline continues to receive requests for new services but to move forward would require more funding. B. I-90/East Belgrade Interchange Report Jeff Ebert noted the MDT agreement with Gallatin County had been signed. He noted the EAS for the project should be out in August for release in September. He stated the project is still roughly $14 million short of funding with federal funding being pursued. C. TSM’s Report Ms. Ballard sought clarification on how to best be informed of road construction projects. Mr. Ebert noted that MDT had a website for construction on state highways. Rob Bukvich noted private entities and developers were often involved in construction projects which impacted the information flow. Rick Hixson noted the City Engineering website had up-to-date information regarding City projects. John Van Delinder stated he encouraged developers to contact Ms. Ballard when they came forward with projects. D. Bike Advisory Board Jon Henderson thanked Mr. Bukvich and Mr. Hixson for the new bike lane on Kagy Boulevard. Chairperson Epple sought clarification on the recent increase in ridership. Mr. Henderson responded there were many new riders which had been spurring conversations regarding advocacy and education. Chairperson Epple noted he has witnessed unsafe riding behavior and stated his concern about the increased conflict between motorists and bicyclists. Mr. Henderson responded education was key to decreasing conflict between users. E. Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee Ralph Zimmer noted the Committee was interested in discussing the preliminary recommendations from ALTA. He stated they are expecting to play a larger advocacy role at the City Commission meetings. Greg Sullivan sought clarification if the Committee had received the Draft County Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Zimmer responded he may have the materials, but has not had the opportunity to review them. Chairperson Epple noted it was the first time the County Regulations included a requirement for pedestrian facilities. Mr. Sullivan stated the density of the development included thresholds for the pedestrian facilities. Other TCC Member Reports Seeing none Chairperson Epple closed, closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS Seeing no old business, Chairperson Epple closed this portion of the meeting. ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS Transportation Plan Update – First Discussion of Preliminary Recommendations (Jeff Key) Jeff Key stated the Committee had received the first preliminary recommendations, and his hope for the meeting was to receive a general consensus on the recommendations to provide to the public. He noted the packet did not include Chapter 9 as it related to Downtown which has had increased focus as the Update has progressed. He noted many studies have been conducted in Downtown related to Transportation and he did not feel it was important to have public comment on Chapter 9 at this time. Mr. Key noted the facility recommendations found in chapter 5 included 28 recommended and 16 committed major street network (MSN) projects; 41 recommended and 7 committed transportation system management (TSM) projects. He noted there was a better mix between the recommended projects between the City and the County. He noted a controversial project was the Highland extension. He stated a short term fix could be implementing traffic calming measures, but the modeled Highland extension project decreased traffic in the area. He stated the wetlands did add to the controversy to the extension. He stated the TSM projects were smaller projects in size than MSN projects, and explained that an overlap of TSM and MSN projects was due to the fact that improvements may be needed before the completion of an MSN project could be done. Joe Gilpin stated a good network of non motorized facilities required redundancy to provide for the different level of bicyclists and pedestrians. He stated the draft deemphasized shared use pathways as they have been developing very wide sidewalks. He noted a minimum of a four foot shoulder on a roadway provided for riders in rural areas without the added cost of maintaining a sidewalk. He noted the Update encouraged the implementation of bicycle boulevards and the recommendation was to utilize West Koch Street, Lamme Street, and South 6th Avenue as prototypes for implementation as they are already bike routes. Mr. Gilpin noted the scope of the study looked at collector streets and above when it inventoried sidewalk gaps or sidewalks in need of repair. He noted the section included the Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) assessment and the Update included the projects listed. He also noted the chapter identified crosswalks which could use improvements. Mr. Key noted the chapter included facilities, the complete street policy, level of service guidelines, context sensitive design, context sensitive solutions guidelines, and pedestrian and bicyclist guidelines. Mr. Gilpin added the programs would be aimed at increasing bicycle awareness and skills to improve rider safety and reduction in the number of accidents. Mr. Key stated the trip reduction strategies included transit system considerations and has become more transit oriented through the process of the Update. He noted alternative fuel vehicles, fuel considerations, land use planning, and in-fill development strategies were highlighted in the chapter. He stated transit has a level of service and the draft recommended the establishment of benchmarks for level of service. Mr. Key stated the Update addressed traffic calming which included different calming techniques and implementation strategies. He stated there is a vehicle threshold for traffic calming measures to be implemented on local streets and encouraged the adoption of standards to clearly delineate those thresholds. Mr. Key noted the number of typical roadway sections had been reduced. He stated since developers often implement the information presented and recommendations linked to the recommended model network the Committee should address this item during their discussion. He pointed out the map clearly depicts the latitude for moving proposed connections due to geographic constraints and the purpose was to portray the overall intent of the transportation system. He noted minor changes had been made to the grid system included in the current Transportation plan. He noted Monforton School Road had been redelineated as a collector based on the modeling and projected volumes. He also pointed out the Kagy/Stucky connection had been removed. Mr. Key noted the Update currently included a photo as well as a schematic for different types of roundabouts. He noted the typical section depicting rural sections was included for new construction projects and differentiated between the existing and what is moving forward. He also noted the future urban streetscape was a new schematic within the Update. He also stated chapter 11 presented miscellaneous transportation system considerations such as procedures to add or subtract a roadway from the urban aid system. He also noted Traffic Impact Study guidelines had also been presented and he encouraged the adoption of baseline information required for each TIS. Mr. Key sought input from Committee members regarding the draft chapters presented. Chairperson Epple began the discussion by addressing the recommendation of the Highland/Oak connector. He stated he would like the project included within the Plan, and noted the Story Mill Group had expressed interest in the connector with consideration given to the railroad spur. Mr. Key stated the modeling scenario had a revealed slight reductions on Rouse, Main and more substantial reductions on Wallace which was an intuitive result of the connector. Bob Lashaway sought clarification on the existing concerns. Mr. Key responded the environmental concern due to the existing wetlands were a major concern. Chairperson Epple noted the wetland had recently been drained and may not be the environmental concern it had been. Mr. Key noted traffic calming techniques could be implemented, but he did not feel it would be a long term solution for the traffic problem in the area. He noted the connector would not be an easy project, but it would add value to that area of the City. Mr. Lashaway stated he would like it presented to the public. There was no opposition to proposing the connector in the plan from TCC Members. Bob Murray noted however, the project should not be listed as committed. Mr. Key responded the change had been made. Mr. Bukvich stated the adoption of the connector would be made at the commission level, but felt the project should be listed in the Update. It was the general consensus of the TCC to move the project forward. JP Pomnichowski noted there has been concern about emergency access in the area and the connector would provide an alternative route. Mr. Gilpin mentioned the complete street workshop conducted at MSU. He noted ideally the complete street policy required the applicant to demonstrate why streets could not be built to a “complete” standard. Lee Provance noted due to funding he would like language excluding the County from the complete streets policy. Mr. Gilpin noted exceptions 3 and 4 in the policy were to allow for that stipulation within the County’s jurisdiction. Mr. Provance noted complete streets would not be feasible even in high volume areas, and there was not a provision to obtain additional right of way for existing roads. He stated he was concerned about the potential of the Update not being adopted due to the statement. Chairperson Epple stated the chapter was included to communicate to developers the standards behind complete streets. Mr. Murray stated adopting the Plan did not imply it was adopted as regulation. Mr. Provance responded developers could not be mandated to acquire additional right of way when working on improvements. Doug McSpadden sought clarification on the historical right of way provided. Mr. Provance responded paths had been turned into streets and that was the right of way provided. Mr. Provance noted complete streets could potentially make roads more hazardous due to the narrowness and proximity of the roads to existing ditches. Mr. Bukvich noted a governing body should not be exempt from regulations others had to comply with. Mr. Provance responded that cost implications of adopting the policy could set scheduled projects further behind as more funding would be needed for projects. Chairperson Epple noted the policy could differentiate between maintenance projects and new roads. Mr. Gilpin stated curb ramps and sidewalks did not need to be included in maintenance projects, but striping could be implemented. Chairperson Epple added areas identified in the Update’s list of bicyclist and pedestrian projects could be a threshold for maintenance projects being built out to complete street standards. Mr. Zimmer noted pedestrians are the least protected users on the roads and he would like language noting the jurisdictions commitment to protecting and accommodating all users. Kerry White noted addressing the transition between the rural road requirements and the City’s standards was important. Mr. Bukvich noted the transportation plan was different than individual design considerations. Mr. Key noted the transition between jurisdictions was done through right of way corridors. Mr. Henderson noted the complete street policy was what constituents want and everyone within City limits were still County residents as well. He noted exceptions could be made but the policy should be adopted by each entity. He stated a watered down version of a complete streets policy would do more harm than good. Mr. Sullivan noted the County could sit down with Mr. Gilpin and come up with language. Mr. Hixson noted the commissioners would have to take extra steps to adopt a complete streets policy even if it was included in the Transportation plan. Mr. Provance noted the County was hoping to adopt the Plan as part of its subdivision requirements. Mr. Bukvich stated the plan should include a recommendation that each entity adopt a complete street policy. Mr. Lashaway responded he would like to go forward with that idea. Mr. Sullivan stated implementation is different than policy. Mr. Henderson added complete street policies do not necessitate acquiring additional right of way, but the policy suggests a thought process which considers the variety of users. Mr. Lashaway noted he would like a complete streets policy recommendation within the Transportation Plan, but did not want a clause binding the City, County or MDT to adoption of a policy. Chairperson Epple stated the Plan should be the embodiment of the policy and the recommendation should be included. Mr. Gilpin responded the Update was an opportune time to adopt the complete streets policy. Mr. Bukvich sought clarification on the adoption of complete street policies. Mr. Gilpin responded they were adapted to meet the needs of those implementing the policy. Mr. Bukvich stated he would like a recommendation to adopt a complete street policy made within the Transportation Update as other areas could adopt a complete streets policy which would not be adapted to their regional needs. He stated a recommendation along with guidelines for what the policy should entail would not tie MDT to this specific policy. Mr. McSpadden sought clarification on the adoption of the policies if a recommendation was all that was included in the Transportation Update. Chairperson Epple stated he would like to see a description of a complete streets policy and the recommendation that each entity formally adopt a similar policy. Ms. Pomnichowski stated the principles of the complete street policy should be reflected throughout the Update. Mr. Lashaway stated he did not think the implementation section would need to be included in the Update. Mr. Bukvich responded each entity should develop language for the policy reflecting their respective needs. Mr. Sullivan noted the chapter could be restructured with 6.1.5 being a sample policy layout. He noted the chapter should include a step for each agency to commit to adopting a complete streets policy. Mr. Lashaway stated he would like to have a recommendation to consider adopting a policy with example elements that could be included. Chairperson Epple stated wording refinement could take place after public comment. Chairperson Epple sought clarification on the right of way requirements for local streets depicted on the typical sections. Mr. Murray noted the local street sidewalk should be depicted with a five foot standard and the right of way at 60’. Mr. Murray noted the 6’ sidewalk along arterials was to ease snow shoveling concerns. Chairperson Epple sought input of any other concerns the Committee had before releasing the draft documents to the public. No one commented. Other New Business - None ITEM 7. PROJECT UPDATES - Discussion only as needed MSU Projects Update Mr. Lashaway stated a chip sealing project on 11th Avenue, Grant Street, and 7th Avenue was scheduled for a weekend in late July. He noted 8th and Cleveland reconstruction had been bid and the expectation was for construction to start within the next couple of weeks. Belgrade Projects Update - None CTEP Projects Chairperson Epple noted the Library and Burke Park connection projects had been wrapped up. He stated construction on the shared use pedestrian path along College from 11th to Ferguson was scheduled to begin this week. Al VanderWey noted the solar panels for the RADAR units had to be reordered, and even though the project was funded through the Safe Routes to School program it was treated like a CTEP Project. South 19th Avenue – Main Street to Kagy Boulevard Mr. Bukvich stated the right of way had been acquired, and the bids were scheduled to be opened at the end of August. He noted construction on irrigation pipe could begin this fall, but it was not likely the roads would be impacted until next year. Bozeman Intermodal Facility Update Chairperson Epple noted the contractor has indicated fall completion of the Facility. Signal Projects Mr. Van Delinder noted the signal at Oak and 15th would move forward as soon as the poles arrived. Mr. Hixson noted both pre-design reports for a signal and for a roundabout for the intersection of College and 11th would be presented before the City Commission. Mr. Zimmer sought clarification on the status of the intersection of College and Willson. Mr. Bukvich responded MDT needed to go before the City Commission with the proposals for direction on the signal or the roundabout. Joe Olsen noted the proposal should be before the Commission within the next couple of months. North Rouse Avenue Mr. Olsen stated the EAS for the project could be ready within the next couple of months. Mr. Olsen noted the new structure would incorporate a larger opening over the railroad tracks. I-90 Improvements Mr. Bukvich noted bridge deck work was being done between Livingston and Bozeman. He stated the structure over the story mill spur line trail was scheduled to be replaced in the next couple of years. Other - None ITEM 8. 2008 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Epple noted the next meeting will be at 10:00 on August 27, 2008. Ms. Pomnichowski noted she would not be at the August meeting. Mr. Key stated if all goes well the Update should be wrapped up at the October meeting. There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time the meeting was adjourned at 12:06 p.m. _____________________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee