Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082708 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.docMINUTES BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2008 ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Chairperson Andy Epple called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. on Wednesday, August 27, 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 Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Debbie Arkell, City Engineer, City of Bozeman Al VanderWey, Urban Planning, MDT Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee and proxy for Bob Lashaway Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Jeff Ebert, District Administrator Butte District MDT Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Superintendent, Butte District MDT Jeff Krauss, City Commissioner Carol Strizich proxy for Lynne Zanto Christopher Scott, Planning Department, Gallatin County Jon Henderson, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board David Smith, Citizen Member, City of Bozeman 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, City of Bozeman Guests Present: Jeff Key Scott Randall Marianne Amsden Gary Vodehnal Lee Hazelbaker 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. Marianne Amsden, GallEP, informed the Committee of the entities GallEP represented. She noted there are 20 equestrian groups active within the County. She noted her attendance at the third public meeting held with regard to the Transportation Plan Update and the positive response from consultant Joe Gilpin. She clarified GallEP is not requesting Equestrian trails, but an acknowledgement of the population and its current utilization of trails especially when those trails are going to come under review. She requested a time to formally present before the TCC or a private meeting with Jeff Key and Mr. Gilpin to discuss equestrian interaction and accommodations. She also suggested the addition of an equestrian representative on the TCC. She also noted as a representative of the County Planning Board she could not support a “complete streets policy” that does not include all users which includes equestrian users. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2008 Since there were no corrections to the minutes of the regular meeting of July 23, 2008 Chairperson Epple announced the minutes are approved as distributed. ITEM 4. NEW BUSINESS Summary of Public Meeting #3 Jeff Key noted this meeting was the 16th of the 18 monthly meetings for the Transportation Plan Update, and an administrative draft should be available for the next TCC meeting. He stated the public meeting had roughly 55 people in attendance. He noted he would have a discussion with the northeast neighborhood regarding the Oak street connection. He noted the adoption process would offer additional opportunities for public comment on projects. Mr. Key shared public comment generated at the meeting as it related to the motorized and non motorized aspects of the Update. He noted public comment included high speed roads intersected neighborhoods on Love Lane and Monforton School Road, access to Huffine, equestrian vehicle interactions, the extension of Fowler, and the intersection of Huffine Lane and Gooch Hill Road. He stated the Northeast neighborhoods concerns and suggested different options including an aggressive traffic calming strategy and an aggressive public information campaign. The neighborhood also sought clarification on the extension coinciding with the wetlands, Bohart/Frontage Road, and Wallace/Church/Broadway. He stated the initial recommendation is based solely on the traffic impact. He also noted the discussion had included roundabout interactions with cyclists and the right of way requirements in relation to a signalized intersection which could be presented in an overlay on the roundabout graphics. Mr. Key noted the non-motorized comments pertained to street sweeping, flashing light intersections between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., the speed concerns at the intersection of Kagy and Church/Sourdough, and equestrian accommodations. He also noted specific comments were made pertaining to the completion of the Gooch Hill path to Huffine, curb bulb-outs on N. 27th and Annie Street, Garfield and 19th Avenue crossing, shared use markings on Peach instead of eliminating parking, crossing Main and West Babcock and the possibilities of having a dedicated left turn signal, and N 7th interchange is dangerous for cyclists. Chairperson Epple sought clarification on the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. flashing lights. Mr. Key responded it had not been considered. Rick Hixson noted a pedestrian had been killed when the lights were flashing and reinstating the flashing lights was not an option. Debbie Arkell noted a City Commission directive would be necessary to reinstate flashing lights for consideration. Rob Bukvich added the intersections in question are now pedestrian actuated so arterials had green lights the majority of the time. Chairperson Epple noted the northeast neighborhood concerns need to be weighed in light of the greater good of the community and the benefits of the connector to those outside of the Northeast neighborhood. Mr. Key responded the modeled link projected the benefit to the community and would indeed be weighed. He also noted the Fowler extension would be reviewed in light of the community. Jeff Krauss noted Fowler has not been reclassified and due to the schools in the area we should expect the extension to go through. He noted the City is purchasing a street sweeper, but they would not be sweeping lanes in the County. He noted the signals are actuated at night when they are triggered by a pedestrian or a vehicle. Mr. Key stated he would like to have alternatives to discuss with the Northeast neighborhood along with a depiction of the interaction between the extension and the wetlands. Bob Murray stated wetlands could be mitigated and would not hold up a project deemed necessary. Mr. Bukvich noted particular areas of the existing wetland were results of a previous project. Mr. Krauss stated transportation and access to the hospital is a critical public safety concern. Mr. Bukvich stated communicating the process of how a project like the extension would move forward should be clearly communicated to those in the Northeast neighborhood. He stated from a traffic engineering perspective there is not a reason to not move the project forward. Ms. Arkell noted street sweeping would be conducted by a wet sweeper do to the amount of dust generated by spinning brushes. Review of Traffic Modeling Scenarios Mr. Key presented the results of the 13 modeling scenarios. He noted results are presented in percent differences rather than in actual ADT numbers because of the predictive nature of the forecasting. Mr. Key noted the East Belgrade Interchange Scenario reflected the predictions with a decrease on Frontage and Jackrabbit, but an increase on Love Lane. Mr. Bukvich noted travel times should not be included in the Update. Mr. Key noted that he was not intending to show travel times in the final draft, and the percent change would be applied to the projected numbers to present ADT numbers for the final draft. Mr. Key stated the Northeast arterial link was a good example of how a new link can serve the community. Mr. Key noted the model of the access management plan revealed the benefits of a management plan. Chris Scott sought clarification on the future land use impact on the modeling scenarios. Mr. Key noted development of Jackrabbit was taken into consideration on the percent difference between the modeled access management plan and the projected numbers. He noted the cross regional grid system elevated the arterial connections which resulted in a dispersion of traffic with an increase in some areas and decreases in others. Mr. Key noted the Davis/Nelson Alignment Overpass and Baxter/Mandeville Alignment modeling scenarios did not generate any recommended projects. He noted the Southwest Grid modifications scenario generated some recommended projects. He noted the model of an expansion of Kagy Boulevard did not result in desired outcomes while the Fowler Lane extension resulted in favorable results along Fowler and Davis. He noted the Northwest Grid modifications resulted in a better dispersion of traffic in the quadrant. Mr. Scott sought clarification on why Monforton School Road was not represented in the Table. Mr. Key responded the reclassification was justifiable based on the numbers and did not merit inclusion within the table. The Amsterdam on-ramp modeling scenario revealed a 25% decrease of traffic turning onto Jackrabbit from Amsterdam Road. He stated the Harper Puckett Road interchange model did not reveal a substantial difference. He noted the preliminary results were still being reviewed with regard to project recommendations. Mr. Key stated the transit component was not included in the scope of work, but has been incorporated due to the public interest. He noted he had reviewed the 2001 Plan and how transit has developed over time. He noted discussions with Streamline regarding design guidelines for bus stops as well as level of service standards. He noted availability of service as well as comfort and convenience factor into level of service criteria. He stated determining an acceptable level of service for the area is important as it will give direction on what facilities are priorities. Mr. Krauss noted service areas around bus stops need to be accessible to pedestrians. Mr. Key responded the language in the Update would be broad, and Streamline would include the minimum requirements. He also noted Streamline is utilizing the Land Use forecasting model to plan for future stops for the service. Conclusions and Next Steps Mr. Key shared the projected schedule with the administrative draft ready for review by the TCC by the September email. He noted the public draft would be ready by mid to late October with November being the final draft. He noted any disconnects or problems should be identified by members as soon as possible to help in the final adoption process. Al VanderWey noted comments or observations regarding the benefits/drawbacks of the modeling process would be appreciated. Jon Henderson sought clarification on the merits of modeling “road diet” scenarios. Mr. VanderWey responded the modeling process looked at a transportation system on a broader look than a “road diet’s” benefits would be reflected in. Mr. Henderson noted his concern of the presumptions based off of the modeling scenarios and results. Mr. Key responded language is incorporated to alleviate some of the presumptions that could be made. Chairperson Epple sought clarification on the adoption process. Mr. Murray suggested presenting the public draft to both commissions and the TCC and making changes advised by the respective Commissions so only one draft was presented before the governing bodies. Mr. Bukvich stated it was important for the TCC to adopt the plan before going before the Commissions. ITEM 5. 2008 MEETING DATES AND ADJOURNMENT It was decided the next special meeting of the TCC would meet on October 1, 2008 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with a break for lunch at a location to be determined. The following regular meeting of the TCC will meet on October 29th at 9:30 a.m. There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time the meeting was adjourned at 11:26 a.m. _____________________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee