HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowntown Street Transformation.pdf
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Rick Hixson, City Engineer
Debbie Arkell, Director of Public Service
Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Downtown Street Transformation
MEETING DATE: July 19, 2010
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: This document provides background and suggests a possible Scope of
Services to be used in the solicitation of proposals from qualified firms to study potential
improvements to the downtown transportation network, specifically, Main Street, Babcock Street
and Mendenhall Street. We ask that the commission consider the suggestions and provide input
and direction.
BACKGROUND: In December of 2009 the Commission adopted the Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan prepared by LMN Architects. That study recommended that the City
“Analyze Traffic Calming Methods. Full Cost and Benefit study: social, economic, and
traffic considerations for one-way street conversion, shared lanes, streetscape
improvements and truck route modifications.”
The 2010/2011 City Commission Work Plan identified studying the potential conversion of
Babcock and Mendenhall back to two-way streets as a priority project. Since Babcock,
Mendenhall and Main Street are all urban routes administered by the Montana Department of
Transportation (MDT), we felt it was appropriate to discuss this potential project at a regular
meeting of the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC). The TCC membership includes
not only MDT but other stakeholders with an interest in transportation issues, and has served as
the guiding body for the preparation of all of the City’s recent Transportation Plans. At their
April 2010 meeting we recounted the history of the subject street network and the studies
performed on it to date, and solicited input from the TCC members on how best to proceed. The
committee indicated that it would be appropriate for TCC to oversee the project, with primary
policy direction coming from the Bozeman City Commission.
248
We then held a staff level meeting to further define what the objectives of such a study should be
and how we could best accomplish them. This meeting was attended by the Mayor, City staff
(both planning and engineering), MDT staff, and the Downtown Business Partnership. This was
a very productive meeting. What had become apparent to everyone was that what we have at
present are two competing stacks of studies. On the one hand we have a number of engineering
studies which all concluded the same thing: the one-ways greatly enhance downtown circulation
and level of service and should be left in place. On the other hand we have number of planning
studies which similarly drew the same conclusion: the one-ways are a barrier to the potential
expansion and enhancement of the downtown and should be converted back to two-way streets.
If it was simply a decision of do one or the other, there would be no need to study the issue any
further. Just pick the study which supports the decision you want to make and proceed. It was
suggested that we not simply look at whether to convert or not convert the one-way streets, but
instead look at what it is we want to accomplish, what we want our downtown to be, and study
how all aspects of those three streets(Main, Mendenhall and Babcock) affect that desired
outcome. How can those three streets be modified to create a more neighborhood-friendly
environment and even expand the downtown feeling north and south? Are there other
alternatives to explore in addition to or in place of converting the one-ways to two-ways?
Perhaps modifying the streetscapes so they are more pedestrian and bicycle friendly and safer
would be an option or interim step for example. We all agreed that if we want to move forward,
this next study would need to integrate the two disparate recommendations we already have, and
make recommendations about how to move forward.
It was agreed that we should proceed based on this understanding. The process should be as
follows:
1. Update the City Commission, discuss the proposed project and solicit input and
direction from the Commission on a proposed scope of work to be included in a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to perform the study.
2. Draft the Request for Proposals based on that direction and submit it to the TCC
for their discussion and approval.
3. Return to the Commission for final approval and then publish the RFP.
Why do we need the approval of TCC? There may be a potential to pay for any recommended
improvements with Urban Funds, if we get TCC, and hence MDT, approval for our work as we
go forward. The Downtown is an iconic, yet still functional, portion of the City which represents
Bozeman’s identity. There are many agencies and authorities which interact within the
Downtown area. A lack of coordination could stymie efforts to protect and enhance Downtown’s
success. Therefore, it is important to ensure coordination as the City considers possible changes
in the Downtown. TCC is a collaborative effort of many of those interested parties and agencies
and therefore provides not only an access to possible implementation funds but also an effective
means to move forward smoothly.
249
Previous Studies:
1973 Traffic Operations to Increase Capacity and Safety (TOPICS): Menasco-McGuinn, Helena
The TOPICS program paid for Menasco-McGuinn Consultants of Helena to study Bozeman’s
downtown traffic and suggest solutions. Congestion on Main Street had become so bad that left
turns were not allowed downtown and the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of 7th and
Main was F. In fact, at peak hours the traffic queue at Main and 7th extended beyond Safeway.
Menasco-McGuinn recommended the current one-way configuration. They predicted that once
the change was made, the traffic load would be split roughly 50-50 between Main Street and the
couplets, which is exactly what we see today. The reason Mendenhall was continued as a one-
way all the way to 11th was to reduce the amount of west bound traffic turning from Mendenhall
into the intersection of Main and 7th.
1998 Downtown Improvement Plan (MAKERS Plan)
The Makers Plan was prepared for the Improvement District Board (IDB) by MAKERS
Architecture and Urban Design. This plan recommended converting the one-ways back to two,
based primarily on pedestrian considerations. That recommendation was not implemented.
2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update, Robert Peccia and Associates, Helena
As part of this plan the effects of converting the one-ways back to two-ways was actually
modeled. The model showed that if converted, the levels of service at Main/Willson and
7th/Mendenhall would go to F and the LOS at 3 other intersections would go to D. The plan
recommended making no change to the network at that time. They suggested further study at a
future time as conditions warranted.
2003 Downtown Bozeman Traffic Improvement Study, Short, Elliott & Hendrickson, Boulder
This study was commissioned by the Downtown Bozeman Partnership (DBP) and the TCC. This
study modeled the network in more detail and also modeled several scenarios in addition to
converting the one-ways, including reversing the couplets and converting Main Street to a three
lane facility. Their recommendation was to make no change to the network. They concluded that
the advantages (easiest configuration for motorists to understand, maximized circulation and
access options, desirable for attracting tourists, lower traffic speeds on Mendenhall and Babcock
enhancing pedestrian safety) did not outweigh the disadvantages (increased congestion and
accidents at downtown intersections, decrease in overall corridor capacity, additional vehicular
movements conflicting with pedestrian safety and high cost to implement).
2007 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan, Robert Peccia 7 Associates, Helena
This most recently completed transportation plan update did not look at downtown circulation
given the conclusions of the previous two studies as well as budget considerations.
250
2009 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, LMN Architects
This plan was commissioned by the DBP and the City. The recommendation of this plan, as
stated above, was to “Analyze Traffic Calming Methods. Full Cost and Benefit study: social,
economic, and traffic considerations for one-way street conversion, shared lanes, streetscape
improvements and truck route modifications.”
I think this illustrates what was stated above, that is, there has been a conflict between the
engineering studies and planning studies commissioned to date. Repeating either one of these
efforts will no doubt lead us to the same conclusions. What is needed is an integrated approach
which is more in line with what the staff level discussions concluded - one team is needed which
will meld engineering and urban planning efforts. Following is a discussion of what might be
included in the scope of services for a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to do such a
study.
Proposed Scope of Services
In order to get the broadest perspective I think we should solicit proposals from all qualified,
interested design teams. I also think that for the RFP and consultant selection procedure, the
scope should be broadly defined to encourage creative thinking. The successful team should be
able to demonstrate both technical traffic engineering ability and urban neighborhood planning
expertise. They should have experience working on similar projects and demonstrate both
creative problem solving ability and success in coordinating projects that require a lot of public
participation. Following are some general headings and basic tasks I think should be included in
the RFP. The area of the study shall be as defined in the 2009 Downtown Improvement Plan. I
wish to note that much of the following was developed based on a very similar study done for
Fargo, North Dakota.
Primary Areas of Responsibility
1. Document Review and Understanding of Existing Conditions.
Consultant shall become familiar with previous planning efforts and relevant documents.
Consultant will also meet with designated staff and others to obtain available background
information.
Consultant will obtain and review the following documents at a minimum:
1) 1973 Traffic Operations to Increase Capacity and Safety (TOPICS)
2) 1998 Downtown Improvement Plan (MAKERS Plan)
3) 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update
4) 2003 Downtown Bozeman Traffic Improvement Study
5) 2007 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan
6) 2009 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan
7) Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Avenue Corridor
251
7) City Growth Policy
8) Historic guidelines
9) Other studies as recommended by staff
Consultant will also obtain baseline information and background data pertinent to the
study area, including but not limited to:
1) Parking Commission Study
2) Existing street typical sections for Main Street, Babcock and Mendenhall
3) Traffic and turning movement counts for Main Street, Babcock and Mendenhall, Olive
Street and Lamme Street
4) Speed data
5) Crash data
6) Traffic signal locations and timing
2. Corridor Needs/Issues
Consultant will develop a summary of corridor issues, opportunities and constraints that affect
traffic engineering, safety, urban design, and future roadway improvements for both motorized
and non-motorized forms of transportation.
Identifying the issues along the corridor will begin with an understanding of how traffic currently
operates and how it will operate in the future given the existing lane geometry. This will include
a review of current traffic control and roadway geometry. Through this review the team will
examine ways to improve operational and safety issues for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian
traffic as well as ways to improve aesthetics. Component tasks will include the following:
1. Develop future year (2030) ADT given current configuration and operations
2. Develop 2030 peak hour turning movement volumes and LOS for key study area
intersections.
3. Using existing and future year traffic peak hour traffic volumes, one-way
operations will be analyzed using appropriate methodology.
4. Perform a reconnaissance level safety analysis. This information will be used as
supplemental information in the selection of any alternative lane geometry. A
review of the following will be performed to determine if safety can be improved:
• Traffic control devices
• Roadway geometry
• Pedestrian Facilities
• Bicycle Facilities
• ADA facilities
252
3. Alternatives Development and Analysis
Develop and analyze different roadway cross section, intersection, access and traffic
control device alternatives to most effectively accommodate traffic and pedestrian needs
for the corridor as well as access requirements for adjacent land uses.
Access to property is a major consideration when developing different alternatives. In
general, the primary purpose of arterials such as Main Street, Babcock Street and
Mendenhall Street is the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Equally
important in this case is the effect the facility has on surrounding land uses.
Improvements resulting in a significant change in the character of the corridor or
intersecting streets must be carefully evaluated.
The team must be sensitive to the needs of both the property owner and the public.
Potential alternatives must provide a balance of both needs.
Up to six alternatives will be developed and analyzed as part of this study:
1. Do nothing
2. A design alternative which includes streetscape features, pedestrian and
bicycle enhancements and other design and safety features, but which
leaves the one-ways in place.
3. A full conversion of the one-ways to two-ways.
4. Conversion of only Mendenhall from a one-way to a two-way street.
5. Changing the end-points of the one-ways to different locations.
6. A mix of the above.
Once the alternatives have been developed, each will be evaluated according to its
potential effect on roadway geometrics, traffic operations, parking, safety, access and
cost. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle issues will be studied. Warrant analyses of
intersections not currently signalized will be performed for those alternatives which have
an impact on those intersections.
To better understand the benefit of each alternative, it is important to know the value
obtained from the money spent on a particular project. The team will perform a roadway
user benefit-cost analysis to determine which alternatives yield a greater benefit-to-cost
ratio. User benefits will be determined using vehicle-miles traveled and vehicle hours
traveled. Cost information used for this analysis will be obtained using an order of
magnitude cost estimate developed for the project.
4. Economic Impact Analysis
The following is a list of objectives for the economic impact analysis:
1. Assess the prevailing economic conditions of the corridor as a basis for
determining the economic impacts of altering the traffic patterns.
253
2. Project the economic impacts of altering the traffic patterns along the corridor.
3. Consult with corridor business owners, property owners and area developers
to ascertain their development plans and conduct a commercial market
analysis for the corridor to better determine and project future growth.
Objective 1: The economic conditions along the corridor and the economic
impacts of modifying traffic patterns in comparable corridors will be analyzed.
Subtasks will include the following:
a) In addition to the traffic, parking and transportation related
inventory, the consultant will assess the economic conditions of the
Main Street, Babcock, Mendenhall corridor including
collecting, analyzing and comparing rental rates, occupancy levels,
property values and retail sales activity. This data will serve as a
basis for projecting the economic impact of changing traffic
patterns on the corridor. These economic conditions will also be
evaluated in the context of historic commercial activity in the area
and in comparison to other Bozeman commercial corridors.
b) The consultant will conduct a benchmark survey of no less than six
other comparably sized commercial business districts/corridors in
other cities that ascertains the overall economic impacts before and
after removal of one-way pairs has occurred in the past decade.
This benchmarking survey will consider such measurable
economic indicators as commercial occupancy and vacancy rates,
changes to property values in comparison to other commercial
districts within each community, changes to rental rates and retail
activity, where data can be reasonably obtained and measured.
This survey will also incorporate the time frame associated with
these changes.
Objective 2: The results of the benchmark survey and corridor economic
assessment will provide the basis for estimating what the economic
impact the will be to Downtown Bozeman from the elimination and/or reduction
of the one-ways. The results will be presented in a concise written report
supplemented with tables and graphs illustrating all of the findings and
projections.
Objective 3: In addition to ascertaining the prevailing economic conditions
along the corridor, it is essential to incorporate the business plans
and project the market opportunities that will occur along the
corridor in downtown Bozeman. Therefore, the following subtasks
will include:
a) The consultant will conduct extensive, confidential dialogue with
downtown business interests and property stakeholders that include
a determination of their potential business development plans (up
to twelve individuals or businesses will be contacted). The results
of these interviews will enhance the ability to project employment
and business investment. This task will include ascertaining what
has been achieved and absorbed since completion of the most
254
recent commercial market studies for Downtown Bozeman.
b) A commercial and residential market supply/demand analysis will
be prepared that provides an understanding of the existing and
projected market conditions in the study area and the emerging
opportunities to attract new residential development along the
corridor. The market analysis will help guide land use and
transportation decision making and guide plans for new
infrastructure.
c) The analysis will determine the future land uses most likely to be
developed along the corridor in the context of the prevailing and
projected Bozeman market based on real world market conditions
and regional conditions and trends influencing the corridor.
6. Corridor Streetscape Impact Analysis
Assess the existing streetscape conditions of the corridor and project impacts
to the streetscape if the roadway section along the corridor is altered. Also,
identify opportunities to mitigate and/or improve the streetscape if traffic patterns
along the corridors are altered.
As roadway alternatives are developed, streetscape aspects along the corridor will
be examined. This will include the evaluation and identification of an alternative
that is cohesive with the established landscape palette in downtown Bozeman.
This may include improvements for the No Build alternative. The review,
evaluation and recommendation of streetscape improvements will be based on the
following:
· Streetscape Review and Alternatives
· Selection and location of street furniture and other streetscape
elements
· Bicycle and Pedestrian safety routes and alternatives
· Historic Character, especially in formal districts/individual listed
structures
7. Preferred Alternative Selection
Objective : To examine the results of analyses carried out for each alternative and to
select a preferred alternative which minimizes impacts and cost while increasing safety
and mobility for both motorized and non-motorized forms of transportation.
Using the results of the analyses, the study team will develop a recommendation
that is aimed at improving the overall results relative to traffic operations, transit
operations, development potential, property values, and streetscape improvements
along the corridor. The recommendation will also consider the short term and
long term needs of the study area. Lastly, roadway sections most appropriate to
255
the context of the study area will be recommended.
Developing a recommendation will be facilitated by an impact analysis matrix
along with input from the study review committee and the public.
Develop technical memorandum that identifies a preferred alternative and
summarizes the justification for the selection of the preferred alternative.
8. Preferred Alternative Impacts
Evaluate and document the various impacts that may result from the lane
geometry proposed for the preferred alternative.
The conversion of the existing one-ways would have impacts on things other than
traffic operations or roadway geometry. Other impacts to be studied for the
preferred alternative will include:
· Right-of-Way: The preferred corridor alternative project concept
plan along with available GIS parcel information. This information
will be used to estimate the amount of right-of-way (ROW). The
quantity of ROW will be used to develop order of magnitude cost
estimates.
· Utilities: Similar to ROW, utility conflicts will be identified and
quantified using preferred corridor alternative project concept plan
along with available GIS parcel information. This information will
be used to develop order of magnitude cost estimates.
· Roadway Network: A microscopic simulation analysis will be
performed using Sim Traffic Simulation software at key
intersections using proposed geometry. Year 2030 AM and PM
peak period traffic volumes will be used for the simulation analysis
along with the proposed lane configurations and optimized
timings. The effects of potential changes to Lamme Street and
Olive Street will also be modeled, including warrant analysis and
LOS analysis of intersections in the downtown area. This analysis
will also take into account the impacts of left turns and change in
capacity. Lastly, the simulation analysis will include the effects of
buses, and delivery vehicles.
Technical memorandum summarizing the impacts associated with proposed lane
geometry for the preferred alternative.
9. Public Participation Plan
Provide the public and various interest groups with an opportunity to
participate in the development and review of alternatives at project milestones.
The input received from these groups will also be used in the selection of a
preferred alternative.
256
The proposed improvements within the study area represent important events for
Bozeman businesses, residents and motorists. Each alternative is significant because it
may entail use of public funds and loss of parking. It could also affect growth and
development patterns well into the future. Therefore, anyone affected by these
improvements needs to be given ample opportunity to participate and be heard.
A public participation program will be established so that citizens can contribute
to the project and decision process. The program will be designed at the beginning
with the help of the City of Bozeman's staff.
The public participation program will accomplish these objectives:
· Maintain active involvement of downtown business owners in the
development and analysis of each alternative.
· Enable meaningful public involvement at key milestones.
· Address the needs and desires of the study participants and their
respective issues.
· Strive to identify important concerns.
· Develop roadway and adjacent infrastructure concepts that are
acceptable and supported by most (but not necessarily all) property
owners in the general area.
The public consists of individuals and interest groups, each with different
concerns and participation preferences. As a result, no single method of seeking
public input is sufficient. Therefore, a multi-method approach will be used that is
flexible to react to continuing changes in participants and situations.
Our recommended public participation program would consist of the following
elements:
· Study Review Committee
· Public Meetings
· Small Group Workshops
· Newsletters and Website
Suggested Study Review Committee -The study review committee will be
comprised of the following representatives:
· City Commissioner
· Senior City Planner
· City Engineer
· Representative from MDT
· Representative from the DBP
· Representative from Prospera and/or
· Representative from the Chamber of Commerce
Using this committee will provide continuity throughout the process and will
257
allow the detailed study and analysis phase to move forward efficiently.
In this role, the study review committee will:
· Be apprised of the project progress and react to interim
conclusions.
· Share insights into how the community residents, businesses and
other interest groups might respond to these interim conclusions.
· Assist in clarifying public feedback received from public meetings
or correspondence.
· Look for ways to solve problems and mitigate specific concerns.
· Provide advice about project enhancements.
· Offer suggestions to improve the overall public participation
efforts.
The study review committee is not expected to develop a consensus
recommendation regarding the project or present any type of formal
committee conclusions to governing or other decision
making bodies. The committee will meet over the course of the
study at intervals corresponding to key project milestones. These meetings
will be coordinated with public input meetings so as to make the most
efficient use of any travel expenditures.
Public Meetings Three public meetings will be held at key milestones and decision points.
Each meeting will provide an opportunity for the public to contribute to
methodologies, issues, alternatives and decision making. These meetings
will be informal in nature offering the public a chance to meet face-to-face
with the project team. We will use various public involvement techniques
to draw out genuine concerns.
To facilitate the communication process, color illustrations that can be
easily understood will be developed. These illustrations will display
project concepts, design options and impacts. This process enhances the
ability to identify physical challenges, potential solutions, evaluate
solutions from a visual perspective and communicate the unique features
of an alternative in an understandable manner for all audiences.
Small Group Meetings Throughout the Corridor Development Plan, many
individuals, organizations, and business associations may emerge that
have unique perspectives or interests in the study areas. A special effort
will be made to learn their concerns, determine how they would like to
participate, and help define problems and possible solutions. The
team will organize these workshops to be issue specific and will provide a
forum for in-depth dialogue and problem solving. These will be conducted
on an as-needed basis, but up to three (3) times for each group prior to
each public meeting. A maximum of 12 individual and/or groups will be
identified for these meetings.
258
Newsletters and Website - Up to three newsletters will be prepared at key project milestones.
The newsletter will be provided to the client to be posted on a client
hosted project website. A newsletter provides a mechanism for
periodically communicating with relatively large numbers of people. It
will be a useful educational tool especially for those who do not choose to
actively participate in the study activities. Up to three newsletters are
anticipated. Each phase of the study will have a Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) section to facilitate the public’s desire to learn about the
project.
Project content will be developed for a client hosted website to provide
constant accessibility to project information. This usually increases the
public's interest and participation in the project. The website should
include pages such as: project overview, contacts, vicinity maps, schedule
and meeting information. This information transfer between the public and
project team will help increase awareness of the issues and promote public
feedback.
The task deliverables are listed as follows according to public meeting:
1. Public Meeting 1: Prior to the first public meeting, a project
description and public meeting notice will be developed that
explains the project, outlines the study area, and gives
project contact information. The client will be responsible for
providing a meeting room in the general vicinity of the study area
and to publish a box ad in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle 10 to 15
days prior to the meeting. The content of the ad will be provided
by the consultant. The meeting will be conducted to collect input
from the public prior to the development of project alternatives.
Prior to the first public meeting, the study team will meet with the
study review committee to review preliminary issues, establish
goals and objectives, review preliminary evaluation criteria, and
discuss the first public meeting,
2. Public Meeting 2: Prior to the second public meeting, an update to
the project description and public meeting notice will be developed
that explains the current status of the project. The client will be
responsible for providing a meeting room in the general vicinity of
the study area and to publish a box ad in the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle 10 to 15 days prior to the meeting. The consultant will
be responsible for the content of the ad. The public meeting itself
will be conducted to present project alternatives and collect public
input prior to development of the Draft Corridor Study Report.
259
Prior to the second public meeting, the study team will meet with
the study review committee to review preliminary alternatives,
subsequent analysis and to discuss the second public meeting.
3. Public Meeting 3: Prior to the final public meeting, an update to
the project description and public meeting notice will be developed
that explains the current status of the project, and outlines the
alternatives being considered with a listing of associated
advantages and disadvantages. The city will be responsible for
providing a meeting room in the general vicinity of the study area
and to publish two box ads in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle 15 and
7 days prior to the meeting. The consultant will be responsible for
the content of the ads. The public meeting itself will be conducted
to present Corridor Study recommendations and to collect detailed
public comments.
Prior to the last public meeting, the study team will meet with the study
review committee to review final recommendations, findings and to
discuss the final public meeting.
Prior to each public meeting, alternative descriptions and updates along
with meeting invitations will be provided to the client to be posted on the
project website. All comments received at the meetings shall be logged
and recorded to be included in the appendix of the final report. All
necessary handouts, comment cards, presentation boards, etc, will be
provided by the consultant. At the conclusion of the final public meeting,
the consultant will prepare a summation of public participation and will
include all public input as an appendix to the final study.
In addition to the study review committee meetings described previously,
two other study review committee meetings will be conducted during the
course of the project to review progress and to further refine alternatives.
I suggest a consultant selection committee comprised of a City Commissioner, Senior City
Planner, City Engineer or Director of public Service, MDT representative, President of the DBP
and a representative from Prospera or similar business group.
FISCAL EFFECTS: A funding source for this study has not been identified. It is anticipated
that the DBP through the TIF District, City of Bozeman and MDT will ultimately be the parties
who will fund the study. No firm estimate of the cost of the study has been made, although
informal discussions with professionals in the field lead me to believe the cost will be in the
range of $100,000.00 to $200,000.00.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Report compiled on: July 14, 2010
260